[Infowarrior] - RIAA Shifts Lawsuit Strategy

[Richard Forno]

RIAA Shifts Lawsuit Strategy
June 28, 2006
Thomas Mennecke
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1237

June 26, 2003, marked the day the Recording Industry Association of America
began collecting evidence and preparing lawsuits against individual
file-sharers. At the time, the effort was the main spearhead in a
multifaceted campaign to stem the unchecked growth of file-sharing.

Anticipation of the lawsuits had been growing for over a year, as early
attempts to hold P2P developers responsible for copyright infringement
proved difficult. In 2003, Presiding Justice Steven Wilson disagreed with
the entertainment industry¹s assertion that StreamCast Networks and Grokster
were responsible for the unlawful activities of their users.

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do
choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson wrote in his
opinion. "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from
companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can
be and are used to infringe copyrights."

The entertainment industry¹s appeal in 2004 faired little better. The panel
of three judges confirmed the lower court¹s ruling, and maintained neither
party qualified for secondary copyright infringement.

"This appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer
file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributory or
vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users. Under the
circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are
not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm
the district court¹s partial grant of summary judgment."

The entertainment industry, represented by the RIAA and MPAA, immediately
appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. Unlike the two
previous rulings, the entertainment industry finally received the decision
they so desperately sought. In a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court
remanded the case to the lower courts, stating StreamCast Networks and
Grokster could be sued for violating federal copyright laws.

³We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its
use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative
steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of
infringement by third parties,² Justice David H. Souter wrote in court¹s
decision.

While all three rulings varied in their success for the entertainment
industry, the common denominator maintained that users are responsible for
their own actions. This gave the RIAA and MPAA the ammunition they needed to
continue pursuing individuals who distribute copious amounts of files
online. Yet three years and over 18,000 lawsuits later, the strategy of
launching a continuous barrage of monthly lawsuits aimed at approximately
750 individuals is being retooled.

The problem with the current barrage of lawsuits is equivalent to being hit
with a fire hose of information. With so many individuals being hit at once,
it becomes counterproductive to the entertainment industry¹s effort to
educate the file-sharing populace. The growing perception over the years has
developed into complacency. Who are these people? Do they live near me? Why
should I care if some nameless, faceless individual on the other side of the
continent was sued for sharing 5,000 songs on the FastTrack network?

This lack of focus is apparent when alleged file-sharing pirates come
forward to the media and plead ignorance in the face of a $3,000.00
settlement. Often times such individuals are completely befuddled, unaware
their actions were unlawful.

Realizing this, the RIAA has shifted their strategy away from once a month,
en masse lawsuits. Replacing the old strategy is one that still focuses on
individuals; however the number is spread out over the course of a month
rather than an immediate date. In addition, the weekly lawsuits focus on
specific geographic locations, working with local media outlets to catch the
attention of the surrounding populace.

³We are currently filing lawsuits throughout the month in batches, in order
to maximize efficiencies and expand the geographic reach,² an RIAA
spokesperson told Slyck.com. ³We are always looking for ways to make the
program as effective, smart and targeted as possible. We need to be flexible
in how we manage these litigations in order to handle them efficiently. The
lawsuits are and will continue to be an essential part of a larger effort to
encourage fans to enjoy music legally.²

This new strategy is already taking shape. Quite noticeably, there has been
a lack of RIAA press releases articulating the usual monthly, en masse round
of lawsuits. Conversely, there¹s been an increase of local and specific news
articles describing potential lawsuits against alleged P2P pirates. For
example, the Palm Beach Post recently reported that local Boynton Beach
resident Dorothy O'Connell (and several others) was sued for sharing files
online. It¹s a similar story in Evansville, Indiana, where the Evansville
Courier Gazette published an article this week describing two local
residents currently facing potential RIAA lawsuits.

The aim of the new RIAA strategy is to give a name and face to a previously
ho-hum lawsuit campaign. It¹s designed to summon a reaction that invokes a
sense of relevance and vulnerability, not one that¹s perceived as something
happening in a far off land. There¹s little question the previous RIAA
strategy is far from the worldly success hoped for. Three years and 18,000
lawsuits later, more people are populating P2P and file-sharing networks
than ever before. This new campaign will certainly bring more localized
attention to the issues surrounding the great file-sharing debate, however
which direction the local populace focuses this attention will only be
realized with time.