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."
I am assuming the name for this site is derived from the only remaining use for CDs?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Lets see, when I was a college student my Life savings was always near zero, what with the high cost of tuition and beer.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
People suing Google because their 10 year old found porno?
Suing Yahoo because someone found copyright material on an unauthorized page? GASP!
--------
Free your mind.
I guess the "and your firstborn" clause of the settlement wasn't made public.
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.
what is it with government and big business.. they crap on us and we allow it. They lie to us and we allow it. We elect them.. we need to change things. If you don't vote don't bitch! ROCK THE VOTE.
doesn't the RIAA have something better to do than sue some college kid for making a search engine. hell, you can use Google and find some MP3s, I guess they are next.
When the RIAA does stuff like this, it just makes people more likely to steal from them.
Now we know where all the ex-KGB agents went. They now work for the RIAA. It's a sad time when your afraid to develop something because it 'MIGHT' be used for illegal things. Bastards!
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
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
Anybody else find something wrong with that quote? His father is quite right -- by allowing him to deny all charges, they're basically saying he didn't do anything wrong...yet they take his $12,000.
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
The news report goes on to state that the RIAA is now prowd owners of an old bike, a Pentium II numerous games, a pair of worn-out jeans and a large untidy pile of magazines.
Holy crap, I'm really glad I graduated from RPI in 2002 before the RIAA decided to sue the entire student body.
Seriously though, I'm gonna have to start donating money to support student lawsuits rather than to build new dorms if this keeps up.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Which gives me a genius idea... the only people able to operate P2P sites in the future will be minors. Great move RIAA, push teenagers into crime.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Very few articles make me angry. This one did.
RIAA _is_ a bully. Someone needs to stop them.
The only thing I can do is stop buying music - which will hurt the artists I like - and listen to it on the radio. Neither truly feeding the flames, nor the coffers of the RIAA.
BlackNova Traders
If you could please send the proper paper work we can get started ASAP. The bully only stays a bully so long, then someone comes along and beats the ever living shit out of that bully and makes them realize that they aren't allowed to be a bully any longer.
Bring it, I'm tired of you picking on all my peers and I'm ready to kick your ass. Remember when you take me to court, IT ALL COMES ON THE TABLE, and I'll subpoena everything!!!
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Corporations own the politicians. A perfect example of marketing in action. People vote for the person they see in commercials, not the candidate that best matches their beliefs. Most people couldn't tell you where the people they vote for stand on any issues at all with confidence. It takes money to buy commercials and as a consequence to win you have to kiss ass to corporate America.
So this kid gets sued by the RIAA for writing a generic search engine, is forced to settle for $12,000 (his entire life savings), and his only real shot at recouping all his settlement money is flushed down the toilet by a massive denial of service attack "unwittingly" perpetrated by Slashdot?
:(
This world is a cruel, cruel place.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The RIAA keeps getting more bold (and ridiculous) in its strong-arm techniques.
Someone very wise once said "Follow the money". The major labels are the RIAA's clientelle, and I think I can reasonably assume they give their ascent to the RIAA's "business practices" (read: extortion), otherwise they'd be very upset about public relations backlash against them and their products. This backlash may happen eventually.
Now assuming that this ascent to these techniques is present, perhaps contractually, what happens when the wrong student is sued, and a very wealthy, but up to now quiet and non-pressworthy relative (such as a rich uncle that the RIAA didn't count on), steps forward and says to his nephew, "No, you are not caving, and I've secured the services of an excellent law firm that specializes in the RICO act."
As I said, follow the money. I look forward to the day when some unassuming student, that was doing nothing wrong, takes the major labels for a few billion. Yes, with a B.
"They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
Andy is the kid's father, and he fully stands behind him, which is encouraging to read.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Apart from wondering how things have changed since I was a student that any university student can have $12,000 in savings, this just plain sucks. How the #$%^ do they get away with this? Read that again...the kid gets to pay $12,000 for the privilege of being graciously permitted to continue denying he did anything wrong!
So the RIAA knows they haven't a leg to stand on (unless you can believe they were being altruistic in not forcing a black mark on the student's permanent record -- yeah, right), and still somehow forces him to pay them all his money.
Blackmail, 'blak-"mAl
a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b : the payment that is extorted
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.
With organizations like the RIAA, people are going to fear innovating. This kid, obviously fairly smart or innovative, gets slammed for coming up with a nifty way to searc for files on his school's network. Granted, he probably should have checked with the school, the President, God, Homer, and a few others to make sure it was ok to do, but he got nailed for solving a problem. In our lawsuit-happy society, people will fear getting sued and thus will stop trying to come up with solutions to problems.
It's just very scary how as a society we are unable to solve simple things now. I'd be afraid to open a lemonade stand because of the IRS coming down on me or someone suing me for getting sick, maybe I didn't meet some health code. And yet I probably could have made 50 people in my neighborhood happy. You're probably thinking "what does lemonade have to do with this?" A bit. Read the my first paragraph. Read the second. What kind of idea have you or a friend come up with? If not fearing the lawsuit itself, the costs associated with hiring a lawyer to make sure it's legal is certainly cost-prohibitive enough.
*sigh* I fear our great nation of innovators will be too scared to use their brains...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
He settled
This seems a predictable outcome in a contest between Godzilla and Bambi.
Clearly, the student didn't have much money to defend himself in court, otherwise this obviously weak case would have been lost by the RIAA. If misuse of a local search engine was a crime, then may we expect RIAA to sue google for its role as people search for online music using that search engine? I don't think so.
The RIAA is reinforcing their reputation as greedy bullies, which will serve to exacerbate the problem they're trying to combat.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Here's a paypal link
(And before anyone asks, that link does actually send the money to him.)
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
For a 19 year old college student, that is an amazing amount of money. It can mean the difference in a good graduate school and no graduate school. It might even mean the difference between continuing school. It will mean that he will probably come out of college in debt from student loans, not ready to buy a house and start a future. It means he won't have the liberty of waiting to take a job he will enjoy but will have to take the first good paying job available after he graduates. only $12000 That's worse than bank robbery, thats robbing a kid of a future. Yes he might be able to get another one, but perhaps not.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
My first reaction to the story was to wish someone had referred Jesse and his father to the EFF instead of letting the RIAA bully them into a settlement.
/.'ers X $1 each)
Upon futher reflection though, perhaps the Jordans have made a huge personal sacrifice as part of a very strategic move against the RIAA. IF, and it's a big if, the facts of the case do make it out to the public (i.e. that he was just making a search engine for the campus network, which has plenty of legitimate uses) this may be the match lighting the fuse of a popular boycott of the RIAA.
Maybe not, but whether the plan works or not, we should all donate a bit and help Jesse get his life savings back. (12000
~Kirk
how much did you pay for the deer suit and the bullseye?
As have been pointed out elsewhere, Microsoft's OSes have built in software to allow searching across networks, which could easily be used to search for MP3s. Does the RIAA intend to go after Microsoft? That wouldn't make much sense, as Microsoft would bury it.
Here's a question. Let's say that a student sets up a web-page explaining how students could use Windows' built-in Search app to find files, including MP3s, across the university's network. Would the RIAA sue the student for merely explaining how to use it?! It think they would.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Just to remind everyone: when this was a new story (weeks ago, in the first weeks of may) it was calculated that his tuition for the semester was something on the order of $20,000. This is pretty standard for a decent school. Now, consider this: in order for him to go through the court proceedings, he would have missed his finals, thus losing him all the money he spent on that semester.
That would necessitate counter-suing, then, to recoup that $20,000, plus legal fees.
So in the end, if he wanted to fight this, he would have needed to not only argue for his innocence, but also that the RIAA was sufficiently innapropriate in suing him that they were responsible for both his legal fees (which could exceed several thousand dollars, most likely) and also his lost $20,000 from school. Conferring with a few friends who are lawyers in this field, the consensus is that to get the legal fees at least, he'd have to demonstrate far more than his innocence, but also the RIAA's foreknowledge of his innocence most likely. As for the lost $20,000, he'd have to demonstrate both the foreknowledge of his innocence, as well as an intentional effort to time their lawsuit to cause him those damages. Thats not locked in stone - different judges can apply the rules differently.
Basically, my point is that this kid lost $12,000 this way. If he had fought it, he'd have lost $20,000 at least, plus legal fees, plus potentially losing tens of thousands of dollars if he lost the court case. Worse, he could face academic punishments for failing a full courseload (that would depend on his school).
Now, I'm not saying this is fair, since I dont necessarily agree with the RIAA intentionally targetting individuals who cannot afford to fight back, but I'm just trying to make it clear to everyone here why this kid did what he did.
"Stumble before you crawl"
My favorite quote from the article: "They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
Think about that next time you buy a CD and give these greedy pigs another $18.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Probably would have cost more than $12,000 in legal fees if it went to trial. The RIAA is threatening lawsuits and bullying people into accepting settlements, because they KNOW that the people they're going after can't afford the legal fees to take a case to trial.
Do you really thinkg a college student with a life savings of $12,000 could take on the RIAA and it's team of lawyers in a US court?
Seriously...
Hmm, lets see, life savings....
I'm graduating in a few weeks, here in the good old United Kingdom. My life savings....
-£12,000 student loan
-£2,500 credit card and bank overdraft
-£6,000 borrowed from parents.
£32.56 - investment account from about 20 years ago
£1.52 - current account from about 8 years ago
PIII-600, cant liquidate it cause its a tool of a trade.
come on RIAA, I've got 8,000 mp3's and a copy of "find", sue my ass so I can become bankrupt, lose all my debts, and be free with a degree!
- Do a couple of something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=LOTR.Two.Towers.Complete.dvdrip.divx.avi
- Make a webpage with links to your fake warez and post it to search engines.
- Repeat the previous with different variations
- Wait for your ISP or the RIAA to contact you.
- Reply with a polite and legally correct letter asking for proof that you have infringed on someones copyright... This letter could be prepared by someone from the filesharing community who has studied law. Please someone fill in the details here
- Goto 1.
IANAL, would this work? A couple hundred thousand of these fake cases could perhaps force the RIAA to go after the real bad guys -- the ones that make pirating a business.5,000 music CDs printed at a cost of 5 bucks each, and sold for 15 dollars is 50,000 dollars profit. In record contracts, usually you have to sell millions before you see an equivalent amount of money. People pay as much for a band t-shirt.
The best act of revenge against the RIAA would be to encouraged this with every local band you know. This would choke them off. Best of all, a good band could grow the business to be really huge, they would just cut out the middle men every step of the way.
If most bands did this, the big record companies would to cut back to their own traditional staples, such as classical music. And even then...
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
If we really want to get serious and cripple the MPAA and the RIAA there is only one way to stop them: take away their money. Stop patronizing member companies. Don't buy their movies, don't buy their music. Don't watch their shows, and don't do anything that gives them monitary benefit. I claim our very freedoms are at stake. Aren't they worth giving up a little entertainment?
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.
"The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win but to harass" - L. Ron Hubbard - Cult Founder
Yeah, and we know what that cult's been up to.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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"
Hint: a lawyer who advises you to settle when you have done nothing wrong is not a good lawyer.
What planet do you live on? Litigation is a fact of life - sometimes, people get sued. Your mission as a defendant is to make it go away. If you have a really strong case, you can make it go away by fighting and winning. If you don't, or you don't have any money, or your time is worth enough that it's too much trouble to fight it, you settle.
It works this way even in criminal cases. It's a cost-benefit analysis: do I plea-bargain to just pay a fine and get a slap on the wrist, or do I defend it and risk a higher penalty? Whether or not you did anything has little to do with it.
A good lawyer is one who advises you to settle when it would be in your best interest. Foolish pride has nothing to do with it.
ASA
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The biggest problem I've had is that no candidate supports my position. If I disagree with everyone, who the FSCK should I vote for? The lesser of several evils?
I'd run myself, but even disregarding the money issues I'd have, there are minimum ages for members of Congress...
Show me a candidate who represents me, and I'll vote for him.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
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.
Also, you might want to tone down the "challenge" language if you really want them to take the bait. Of course, you can probably also recruit some fellow defendants from the small group of people already in the RIAA's crosshairs and make your legal defense group a bit broader. It does have the advantage of getting into the legal battles and getting some battlefield experience before becoming a target personally.
Good luck.
> The only thing I can do is stop buying music
Wrong. You can donate to the EFF. You can purchase music or otherwise support artists on CD Baby, an "online record store that sells CDs by independent musicians" (not distributors). There's pleny of things you can do to thwart the efforts of the RIAA mafia.
There out of control.
There wolf.
There castle.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to talk this way.
Ironic that one who derides another for lack of "cojones" will post anonymously.
First off, this mortifies me. I don't think I'll ever purchase another bit/byte of comercial music media... OK, on to the question:
So this kid setteled and the RIAA agreed to obsolve him of any wrong doing. I'm assuming this means he can continue to operate his site as is without modification, since he got to pay them 12k to agree that he didn't do anything (ridiculous!!!). So, assuming he doesn't have to stop what he was doing, does the fact that they agreed that he did no wrong keep them from being able to sue him for the same thing again?
If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
My suggestion is to download the music, and then contribute directly to the artists, doing and end-run around the 'AAs.
Sure, technically, it's still stealing, there's no denying that, but all you'd really be doing is getting the money to the people who actually deserve it, and not the crooks who are stealing from them in the first place.
If I were an artist on one of these major labels (God forbid), I'd much rather have a fan tell me that he/she downloaded my music illegally and then give me a couple of bucks out of appreciation rather than buy a CD off the rack for $17.99, and I get the nickel or dime or whatever for creating the music, while the record company makes the lion's share.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
First, I would say that helping the kid is a better "good thing" than paying the RIAA is a "bad thing." To them, $12,000 (or whatever the lifesavings of an undergrad) is nothing save symbolic - to him, it's a ton. If we help him out, any symbolic victory of theirs is lost, he has no financial damage, so effectively all that's happened is that 120 people are out $100 and the RIAA is up 12 large.
The problem of course is that 1) this will encourage people in the future to settle if they think they'll get paid off, and 2) the RIAA will lose whatever shred of remorse they MIGHT have had about nuking some poor kid (laughable, I know), as they'll see it as a rightful, distributed tax.
So I think you're right - I think we need to get the EFF on board, help collect a war chest, and defend the next poor bastard they try this with. That way, there will be a clear, established precedent for the next time they try this crap after that.
The sad thing in this case is they have no leg to stand on. He never collected info about what was traded, and never got the opportunity to be helpful to the RIAA by blocking mp3's (which was one of the counts against Napster). So I have little doubt the RIAA would have lost given appropriate representation.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Talk about blatant intimidation...
T echTV/tech tv_RIAAvsteen030609.html
"You go to the site, you type in a search term, and it finds files on the network," Jordan said. Jordan compares his site to Google, the popular Internet search engine.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
But the RIAA likens Jordan's site to Napster, the now defunct song-swap service that revolutionized the distribution of music.
"The people who run these Napster networks know full well what they are doing: Operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery," Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, said in a statement issued April 3.
"The lawsuits we've filed represent an appropriate step given the seriousness of the offense," Sherman added.
[Ed: "I don't care what it is, it's ruining my business damnit!"]
"I didn't tell people what to share. I never promoted piracy," Jordan said.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
"Basically, Napster set out to create its own network specifically for music. What I did was ran a search engine on a campus network [where] the network already existed," Jordan said.
But Jordan did agree to pony up $12,000, his entire savings account, to the RIAA. Jordan and his father, Andy Jordan, felt the settlement was their best option.
[Ed: "They said they would leave me alone if I gave them everything I had."]
"They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
[Ed: "Give us everything you have and we'll forget all about it." Taking cues from Tony Saprano?]
Jesse knew students were sharing files on his network: pictures, PowerPoint presentations, physics notes, anime, and music. But he refutes the RIAA's claim he "hijacked an academic network" and "installed an emporium for music trading."
[Ed: "He's a terrorist to boot!"]
Ruining the Music Business?
Andy believes that the RIAA's intimidating tactics will undoubtedly hurt the music industry by alienating music buyers. An avid music fan for more than 40 years, he shudders at the impact this will have on the industry's most fervent fans.
"I don't know how strongly the music companies â" the people who really run the music companies â" I don't know if they realize what the impact of this misguided attempt at intimidation is going to be," Andy said.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
[Ed: Exactly what motives do you need to question? Duh.]
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
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.
Original article:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I wonder if he contacted the ACLU.
His particular product is effectively an information tool. It was designed to catalog information and present it to potential users.
RIAA's legal action is effectively a gag order. It says, "You can't say anything because it may be against OUR interest". Thats DEFINITELY a FREE SPEECH issue.
I'm wondering where his university stood on this issue. Did CS professors come out and defend his right to to this?? If not it's a bunch of BS. Any good professor would congratulate his student for creating free (and useful) software.
The only mildly beneficial aspect of this case is that this isn't a ruling. It cannot be used as legal precedent in court. The issue over search engines and whether they're covered under DMCA is still open.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Unfortunately, going to concerts often involves supporting TicketBastard and ClearChannel, both of whom are close in evilness to the RIAA.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I dunno... $7 for a CD single with 1-3 songs (one of which might be a remix) vs. $15+ for the full album. Doesn't take Alan Greenspan to determine which is the better value there.
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.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Sorry, dad, he didn't stand up to the schoolyard bully. Instead, he said "I'll give you all my money if you don't hit me", and it worked. This is the wrong approach. I know it's intimidating for a 19-year-old college student to be threatened by a powerful industry, but he gave in and gave them all his money. That will simply encourage the bully further, it will not help the problem.
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.
Yeah, great. Why don't I just make that check out to the RIAA? Seriously. Tell us ahead of time next if this happens again and we'll get together a legal defense fund for him. That way the money goes to an attorney, not the RIAA.
I'm sorry to be such a jerk, but IMNSHO a settlement of this type is usually seen as a de facto confession of guilt. I understand why someone would want to back down when threatened by the RIAA, but please don't call him "brave" for doing it.
Karma to burn, damn the torpedos...
Michael
Do you have ESP?
I just couldn't. I think I'd completely flip out, barricade myself in my dorm/apartment before I settled, and call/email every news outlet in the world. Let people see the cops called in to go after a student whose only crime was to write a search engine.
--- Ban humanity.
You can look up my voting record (whether I voted or not, not the candidate) at the Cleveland County Voter Registration Board. I'm a registered Democrat in a state of Republicans. I just laugh when these stupid ass people of oklahoma bitch about having to lay off half our teachers, cut back on social programs, and raise local taxes to pay for basic services. I just tell them "you get what you vote for, did you think the republican party gives a shit about poor ass oklahoma?". I wish everyone was required to do 3 things in life, 1. Wait tables, 2. Get a degree in economics before being able to vote, and 3. work for organizations that do social programs for free.
When the federal government takes in less money, Oklahoma suffers more. Most people don't realize we are a subsidized state (as are most of the small populated mid-western/western states).
True, but with their tactics sales have been declining, when were the music sales the highest? Napster days wasn't it.
Which was also when I bought the most CDs, I downloaded alot, I had a CD burner, but I still bought alot of music.
Now with the true face of the RIAA revealed, I don't want to suppor them. The good artists will always be around, for the love of the music, if the recording companies fizzle out, something will fill the vacuum that's left.
Eventually the RIAA has to realize a change in their industry is inevitable, they can't fight it, they have to learn to roll with the punches. You look at the most successful companies in the world and they aren't stagnant, they change and become their own toughest competitors, google is constantly pushing the search engine envelope because if they don't the alltheweb/altavista team could leap frog them and become the number one SE. Intel is still running with Moores law and upgrading their technology, because if they don't AMD will and they will fall behind in the race. These companies don't wait for their competitors to make the next move because they know it will happen, they try and make the next move first. That's business the right way.
The RIAA isn't paying attention. Personally I would pay a monthly fee or a per song fee to download music legally. As long as they don't continue trying to extort us, or jack the prices up. But once I download the music, it's mine, I should be able to store it in any format and play it on any device I want. Be it CD, Cassette, MP3, or broadcast it through my house like a mini radio station. Don't try and lock it into a proprietary format so I can only run it on a M$ computer with windows media with copy protection that prevents me from listening to music, I paid for, in my car.
The problem they have now adopting this business model is that they have pissed off so many music listeners with their mafia like extortion tactics that while they may be able to create a viable model for all parties involved, there is nobody left wanting to support them.
They are becoming King Nothings, they will sue people till they are king...but they will be the kings of nobody.
Eventually someone will adopt the pay per song format and undercut the RIAA, and steal some talent, if someone with enough power can convince a few major bands to leave their current contracts and sell their next CD online with a download format that gives people what they want, the RIAA will be done for, they will have lost their opportunity because a viable alternative will exist.
It's only a matter of time.
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
You are also pointing out a reason why CD sales are going down. The cost of CDs is ridiculous. When CDs came out they were about $10, and the should have gone down. They haven't gone down instead the cost went up and the quality has gone down. I think they just need to keep paying the billionare CEOs that sit on top of the Record Companies.
Apperently RIAA has determined the best new revenue stream is racketering because that's what it is they are currently doing. We put mobster in jail for doing this, but it's perfectly legal for companies to do it. Go figure.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
couldn't the student have claimed that he was protected under section 512 of the dmca? seems to me (admitidely after only a very quick glance) that he qualifies for the safe harbour provision.
... how embarressing! :o)
ooh, this is my first ever post. been reading for ages and just never said anything
Isn't that the way civil law works in the USA? The RIAA hasn't only sued this guy, they've sued numerous others as well... and won.
It only works that way if the case actually goes to court and has a ruling handed down by a judge. Out of court settlements have absolutely zero influence on the law. I don't believe any suits have actually been brought to full term - instead the RIAA has settled every single one out of court, and all (I think) without admissions of guilt. Just money. And don't bring up the last one against 3 different students -- they all settled without a judge's ruling, and none admitted guilt (yes, I checked).
Suing people doesn't make a lick of difference until a judge actually rules on a case. To date, that hasn't happened. And I think the RIAA is afraid of that honestly -- they're simply using their much larger pockets to bully the little guys into line. And, frankly, defending yourself is inadvisable. You'll wind up paying far more in legal fees than you'd have to pay them -- and your lawyer will tell you this, straight up. The RIAA can easily drag the civil suit out over a number of years - they have the lawyers on retainer and it's a minor expense to them. Having a lawyer in court 4-8 hours/month for 2-3 years could cost you nearly $60,000 for court time alone (at $200/hr, which is low). And that doesn't count time spent doing research on the case - so double or treble it.
Is it surprising people are settling? Not a bit. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb -- and you're kidding yourself if you think you do. Oh, and anyone with the resources to actually defend against this kind of thing won't be sued. They may be bullies, but they're not going to try and beat up the kid with bodyguards. Let him keep his lunch money -- there are far more undefended targets available.
he would have lost in a second and probably would have ended up owing the RIAA millions. Yet this way he still gets to dny any wrongdoing and may actually manage to have some money
I'm not saying that the settlement amount is right. I'm saying that that's the only way for him to not have his life ruined utterly by the RIAA
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
No it isn't. It is a contract issue. Why doesn't anyone understand that "free speech" only applies to the government not being able to censor speech. If you write an article critical of the government and the newspaper decides to publish it, the government can not come in and tell the paper to remove it. That is free speech. If you write an artle critical of the govennment, newspaper, your dog... whatever and the newspaper refuses to publish it--thats business--you can always try to buy ad space but it is not a "free speech" issue.
If you sign a contract (legal settlement) and agree to do or not do something then it is something that you agreed to in a contract in exchange for some consideration and has nothing to do with free speech.
if he gets his money back then he is no worse off financially, and now he knows that they suck big fat major ass. Now he has a purpose in life, to screw them in the a-hole. You can't put a price on that. Plus, you can bet that the RIAA didn't come out ahead financially. They were probably spending $12,000/hour on all the lawyers to take down this one kid. But at least they got lots of positive press out of it. Nothing says "I love the community" more than stomping on the financial future of our nation's youth. I propose a national "hug the RIAA day" to show our appreciation to these fine people.
I see this as a 2-fold effect:
(1) You deny them money to lobby and litigate, and...
(2) You destroy the hope of artists who want to make tons and tons of cash (maybe) off being signed to a music company who is aligned with the RIAA.
I think the artists are just as complicit in this as the RIAA - they create the demand for a corp. like the RIAA to exist, and they're on the front lines helping us sign our innocence away to corps. that treat us as guilty first. Yes, I feel sorry that some bands will be hurt by this action, but making a transition to a new model of music distribution and moneymaking is gonna hurt somewhere, and I believe it's going to have to hurt the artists first since any other solution seems to be a pipe-dream and blocked by greed and lobbying/litigation.
Yes, lots of people keep buying CDs. Everyone here who hates the RIAA and wants to see its end will have to do their best to steal CDs and music for all their friends and family. Be the first one to say "Hey, never mind buying the CD, I'll download you a copy and make you the CD for free."
Hell, we're being treated like criminals already. Might as well start acting like it and REALLY show them who we are.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
If we can't write bug-free code, I certainly don't imagine legislators can produce bug-free legislation.
The primary purpose of common law is to allow for errors and omissions in legislation to be corrected by recourse to common sense and long-accepted principles in interpretation of that legislation. Lose the common law, and you lose the last vestiges of freedom.
For example: in the UK all public highways are property of the Crown ("the Queen's Highway"). The right of ordinary citizens to use public highways ("right of way") is primarily enshrined in common law. Thus any law which could be interpreted by the police as permitting them to deny right of way to certain people on grounds of societal prejudice could be overturned on the grounds that such interpretation (and possibly the legislation itself) was contrary to common law.
Of course, in practice a case may be dragged all the way to the House of Lords ( == highest court) over a period of years before such a ruling is made, but it's nice to know that a magistrates' court ( == lowest court) can't just say "That's what it says in the book, so you can't appeal".
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
I disagree. The answer isn't one or the other -- the answer is NEITHER. Don't support the 'AAs, OR the artists. They're in this together; Pimps and whores. Drug makers and drug dealers. You're the addicted customer they can count on to come back time and time again to lay down your money for a temporary distraction.
Don't you see? By supporting one, you support both. The only way to fix this situation is to support artists who completely refuse to associate with the major labels or just attempt to live without all the stupid noise. Before recording technology existed, people lived their lives just fine without being subjected to never-ending soundtracks.
Or are you afraid to admit that you're addicted to their silly noise?
One last parting thought. As recently as 30 years ago, music was created by adults for adults; the "bandstand" programs were popular, middle-age adults routinely listened to music in social settings (danced to it, even!). But these consumers are a picky bunch -- they demand high quality which is difficult and expensive to produce, so the music industry has given up on adults as a lost-cause and today they're selling music by kids, for kids because children are easier to control, tempt, and addict. Think about it.
With a bigass note that says (drum roll please)
CHANGE YOUR WAYS!!!
And just who <COUGH!>CBDTPA</COUGH!> will oversee <COUGH!>DMCA</COUGH!> the legislature? <COUGH!>SBCTEA</COUGH!>
Eliminating the common law system would allow Congress and the Executive Branch free rein to trample our rights because doing so would eliminate the only one of the "checks & balances" with the power to declare a statute, executive order or other official act unconstitutional. Just how much do you trust your elected representatives to represent your interests over those of the large corporations who have the money to pay LARGE bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H"campaign contributions" into the "reelection" kitty.
utter rubbish
This is a clear cut case of EXTORTION!
âoeGive us $12K or we'll sue!â
Jesse admitted no wrong-doing and they still took his money in exchange for not suing. That is extortion, exactly like having the Mafia knock on your door and offer you âoeprotectionâ for a sum of money in exchange for not taking over your business/killing you. He (or someone involved) needs to bring this to the attention of the FBI â" assuming that they are less corrupt than the RIAA.
(Note: FBI guys, could you please inform me if you are or are not corrupt, and whether you will take this case or not? Thanks)
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.
A BuyNoCDs day would be perfect. We should use a relevant date, either the date that CDs became available, or the date that Napster officially stopped functioning. But to do it we should look into making a lot of publicity, otherwise it won't work at all. (i.e. somebody's got to stand in front of the building with flyers) Ideas anyone? I think showing the industry just how 'up' sales have been is a good idea. Boycotts do get attention, if properly done...
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used Google to search for St. Anger (Metallica's newest release) and found it in about 10 seconds. RIAA should go after Yahoo, Google, Lycos, et. al and leave this kid alone. What a bunch of felch-monkeys....
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.
People are pointing out that RIAA is only going after an easy meal in this case. And, that they won't go after Yahoo or Google (or MSN or AOL) because those beasts have teeth and claws of their own.
But...think who the RIAA are really after. They are not after file sharing geeks regardless of the network. They are after geeks that build file sharing networks in the first place. They want to kill off the *next* napster before it is even born, by getting the message out to would-be developers that the RIAA actually *prefer* to track down and eat little people like them, and clearly have developed the staff and techniques (and moles?) to do so.
It really is horrendous and a blatant play to quash innovation in a field that is not only the next phase of the growth of the Internet, but also one that will erode the distribution Mafias of several big industrys besides the RIAA. What may be at stake here is the very concept of market control through scarcity.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
...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
How do you figure? The kid settled for $12,000. That's what's being reported by the national media. Period. If you manage to help him recover the money, that might get reported on a few nerd websites; but I don't see it damaging the RIAA's "symbolic victory" one iota.
I doubt we're getting the whole story -- here, or with the other four students who settled last month. I'd like to see someone ask them one question: "Did you have any pirated music?" I've never used Napster/KaZaA/etc. in my life. (I'm a Mac user.) If the RIAA came after me for writing one of these programs, you can bet that would be the first thing out of my mouth to any reporter who'd listen: "I have never traded music."
The software may not be as devious as the RIAA is painting it; but if these kids did in fact have pirated MP3s, then it's going to be pretty tough to convince a jury that their hands were squeaky-clean.
And BTW, did anyone else notice the kid's father beaming with pride? "He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this," he says of his son. The kid forked over his life's savings, without a hint of protest. It's pretty hard to keep a straight face listening to the nerd tell you how he beat up the bully, while his nose is still bleeding and his lunch money's gone.
One final note: This kid was a college student at a polytech school, with $12,000 in his bank account. You know a lot of college students who are sitting on $12,000? If you want to donate your money to charitable use, that's commendable; but there are better fronts to fight in this battle, and I suspect there are more needy victims than little Jesse Jordan.
My two cents.
crib
Please don't read my journal
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
This just goes to show that the RIAA is in it just for the money -- it doesn't care whether people do "the right thing" or not.
I just wish something would take the initiative and hit them with a barratry suit.
.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'