Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings
An anonymous reader writes "ABCNews is reporting on a 19-year-old college student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. He created a site named ChewPlastic.com where students could search for files on the university network. Mind you, this is not a music file sharing software, this is just a search engine. Presumably, the search engine was being used to search for music files as well. The folks over at the RIAA did not take too kindly to the idea, and sued the student. He settled but denies any wrongdoing. What was settlement, you ask? His life's savings."
Google cache of chewplastic.com.
The original domain is down, and he's got a Paypal link on his page to help him recover his 12 grand.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
The ABC article states: "ChewPlastic.com is asking for donations to help recover the $12,000 settlement. As of June 6, the site has collected more than $1,700."
-- Kircle
Case in point: my roommate was sued by a major staffing company because of "alleged" violations of his noncompete agreement. He talked to literally dozens of attorneys before he found one who was willing to take the case. On the first court date the attorney he hired filed a motion to dismiss and won.
It can be difficult to fight "the man" but patience and determinism will pay off in the long run.
You won't hurt the artists that much. Most of the money 99.9% of them make from the record compainies was paid up front. Just go to a few concerts instead if you want to support the artists.
ABC's 20/20 features a weekly segment by John Stossel (a very good journalist, IMO) called "Give me a break"
s tossel_gmabfilesharing030509.html
A few weeks ago this case of the four students and the RIAA was covered:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
It's these articles on Slashdot and on other sites in the media.
/.)
(Please hold off your flames till you read the rest of the article...I'm *not* blaming
The reason I say that these articles are killing the music industry is that they show us the truth about the RIAA. People read articles like this and they think to themselves "There is no way in hell I'm going to give them any of my hard earned money if they're going to treat me like a criminal."
They stop recording good artists and replace them with bands that appeal to the 13-15 year old schoolgirls who will buy the CD because it's the latest fad.
They attack anyone who designs some means of sharing (or hell even *finding* files) even if MP3 isn't the frimary function of the file sharing. Honestly I'm amazed they haven't gone after the people who invented networking protocals in the first damn place.
They are more concerned about making money than they are about the art form itself, not paying attention to the fact that if they put out quality product then they *will* make money because we want to buy it.
We know what the articles read, we see them each and every day that goes by about how draconian the RIAA has become. It's these articles that are killing the RIAA's profits for they are pissing off the American Music Listener. If the RIAA wants to start making money again they need to simply do one thing...Stop pissing off your customer base and we will come back.
Otherwise I'm just going to stand there and watch the RIAA slowly die and I'm not going to give them a single penny to save them...even if that means that I never get a copy of "Weird Al" Yankovic's latest album
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
I think that the law in the USA is going to hand over the financial control over every US citizen's wallets to the RIAA
Okay, time to learn the basics of the legal system.
The law had nothing to do with this case. First, it was a civil suit, so don't even bother thinking about cops and FBI agents and whatnot coming to beat your door down.
Second, it didn't go to court. There was no judge involved, there was no suit, there was no precedent. They settled out of court - which may or may not have been wise of the kid. The RIAA can't use this case in a future case as proof of why someone is breaking the law and should pay them $12,000. They can use it like a bully, with unclear language saying "in a previous incident such and such paid us a large sum of money for his actions" but they can't even claim that what he did was illegal -- the settlement explicitly excluded confession of guilt.
I'm not saying (in the slightest) that the RIAA or MPAA are nice guys, or that what they're doing isn't reprehensible, but if you don't understand the way the legal system works then you will be steamrolled by lawyers if you're accused of anything similar. You can still stand up and fight the good fight if you want. Better pray you have a clued in judge though.
Why didn't university help him?
Because it's RPI. Their actions sometimes seem like they actually hate their students, and usually seem like they only tolerate them at best.
____ _______
Duty now for the future!
Pearl Jam walked away from Epic records (see here). I submitted it here, but it was rejected. And here I was thinking that /. would appreciate that a major act was walking away from its label to distribute its music directly to their fans.
I guess since it didn't contain an anti-MS, pro-Linux slant, its not newsworthy.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Not in a civil case. That only happens in criminal cases.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
what, like this?
short answer is that there was no internet privacy act signed by anyone in 1995, and the whole warez kid disclaimer thing isn't worth the bits it's stored in.
No you don't. You get a free five dollar credit IF you sign up and IF you put $100 in your account and IF you authorize PayPal to drop that $100 in a money market account that may lose value. And PayPal only tells you about the next step in the process after you complete the previous step--so each time you think "I'll finally get my five bucks!"
No thank you.
First: IANAL.
...
Me either, but I am married to a former PD, current ADA.
Downside: PDs are very often overworked
So are the ADAs. I know that my ADA has assembled a case in less than 24 hours becasue everything else pleads out.
BTW - If what you saw was an attorney going to trial with 7 minutes notice, that was an ethical breach by the judge and the defense attorney and the defendant should be able to have the conviction thrown out. Any ADA worth their salt would have objected if they knew about it.
a private sector lawyer would handle a single case
This isn't true. Private attorneys carry a large caseload as well. At no time is a money-making private attorney working on just one case.
Further, a PD will know the ADA and the judge. In our town the PD and the ADA are assigned to a courtroom for an entire year. They know who to trust and who not to. They know what will piss the judge off and how to keep them happy.
I was just refuting the "public defenders invariably suck" comment. I don't deny that the system is loaded towards those wealthy enough to pay for their own attorney. I deny that the PDs suck without exception, or even that sucky PDs are in the majority.
modding this "Off-topic" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Nothing to see here. Move along.
...because I know in Norway, you can get a lawyer appointed to you if you are being *sued* and fall under certain income and assets limits, both under criminal and civil law. How do you think DVD-Jon can afford to (still) be fighting?
Is that "if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you" only valid in criminal cases? Can any 800lb gorilla pummel you freely in civil court? Sounds like a poor system to me, no offense intended.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The combined companies that make up the RIAA have released fewer new tiles. See the BusinessWeek article and this article by George Ziemann of MacWizards Music
If I understand basic accounting correctly, then releasing 20% fewer new titles should reduce expenses somwhat (admittedly not by quite 20%), so suffering only a 7% drop in sales should look like an increase in profits, unless you are expiriencing losses other than in sales.
I have learned of much of the new music I listen to through CDBaby.com and I'm sure that the RIAA companies are not very happy about losing customers to artists that don't care much for the typical record company contract.
It seems the companies are once again not being quite honest about thier losses, the causes, and, it seems, thier motives.
Read, L
Clearly too many posters don't get to the heart of the matter, which I thought was transparent. Evidently not.
The goal of the RIAA is to scare people with examples to prevent the activity. It would hardly be an example if their target was a struggle, wouldn't it? They've already tried to scare the downloaders of songs. Now they are moving up the chain to those that setup the tools in their environment. If this doesn't work, they may consider a move up the chain again and sue school administration. The theory would be that school administration would put pressure on the students (various ways academic institutes can apply) to stop their activities. Perhaps deploy a strategy/policy for computer network usage to restrict it (ie IT department of the school). But this is probably an option that they wouldn't want to take since conflicts between schools and students usually end up ugly. But it would allow the RIAA to push their agenda without getting their hands too dirty, letting the schools do the dirty work for them.
"To fight the bugs, one must first understand the bugs." - StarShip Troopers
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp