Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents
cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
You forgot:
(e) Copyright is meaningless to me at this point.
Nothing created during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That public domain is MINE and YOURS! The media companies have stolen it from us with their hired guns (congress) and society as a whole is lessened because of it.
Due to that, I have no respect for copyright law anymore.
(e) Because a consumer should have the right to do whatever they want with their property, including sharing it with others.
Joe
http://www.joegrossberg.com
To be fair to the Bushes, when she got caught drinking underage, the secret service didn't get in the way of the police, and her dad let her take her punishment (community service as I recall) without intervening.
Salocin.com
"Wouldn't it just be easier to not buy any CDs in the first place? Or am i missing something?"
When people don't buy CDs, then the RIAA chalks it up to piracy. They won't even consider the idea that the people who give them money are angry at them. I think NG has a point, if they get $100,000 in revenue one day and then -$100,000 the next day, then they'll notice.
ducman said: how do I make sure the CD I want to buy is from someone not represented by the RIAA?
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp
You could always buy korean music on yesasia.com! (I'm guessing most of it isn't covered by the RIAA)
First - I do agree with the concept that there should be a lesser sanction imposed upon the owner (I'm paraphrasing here) as you discuss.
From a legal standpoint, however, there are not (at least that I'm aware of - please feel free to correct me on this, I'd actually like to know if I'm missing something) any laws that specifically cover such issues in electronic communications. Thus the determination falls back to remaining generally applicable laws, in this case, contractual law.
With just about every ISP, a part of a user's "Acceptible Use Policy" (or whatever the contract is called) requires that the user assume full legal responsibility for all traffic/transactions occurring through that connection. Remember, the RIAA is using IP addresses to track users (not MAC addresses, at least as far as I've read). (For those unfamiliar with network topology) an IP address is nothing more than a single internet connection - a single machine may have multiple IP addresses, and a single IP address - via NAT - may have multiple machines that "use" it).
The bottom line of all this is that it's not the owner of the machine per se that is being "tracked", but rather, the owner of the internet connection.
This is, unfortunately, a problem that I do not believe will be resolved in the near future (as least through legislation). It may have to be tackled by the courts and some degree of case law may result, but I suspect that at least for the next year or so this issue will remain uncharted legal territory.
And in a civil case, you just have to show liability ("guilt") by a preponderance of the evidence, which means, roughly, a better than 50/50 chance that your side is right.
Of course, the evidence. This is what happens when someone innocent is framed for violating IP rights if DRM and government big brother monitoring becomes successful. Although it is old (2001), it is a good read and strangely fits into this event.
I actually attached this link to the parent article, but I think it fits here better.
Please direct all bug reports to
Copyright is not a Constitutional right - the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright but does not require it to do so. Copyright could be ended tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill that repealed it.
The following are links to sections of my new article that explains the steps you can take to make file sharing legal:
- Change the Law
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
If you agree with what I have to say and feel as I do that it's important for others to hear it, please consider linking my article from your weblog or emailing the link to other people who might benefit from it.Request your free CD of my piano music.
Nice job on replying to yourself "Mr. Wagner". Too bad you're a troll. WagnerConsulting.com doesn't exist nor does the "special plutionium[sic] core" that you "recommended" to Kiro5hin.
What do you trolls get out of this stuff, anyway?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Of course let sput the pople who give an allowance to teenagers to buy our music..from the RIAA is stupdi dept
So what happens when all the music buyers are in jail to RIAA profits?
give u a hint..your in the jungle baby and you're goin' to dieeee....
Don't Tread on OpenSource
As a matter of interest, do any of your customers tell you to mind your own business and just fix the damn computer?
This isn't flamebait at all but it's none of your business what a person does in their own time on their personal computer. Absolutely none of your business. If you have a problem with people using P2p then don't service their pc's.
I can't believe you confront them on the legality of it all. If you tried that with me I'd tell you to stfu and mind your own business but I fix my own boxes so I won't be seeing you anytime soon.
I am not ashamed nor do I feel guilty. Most of all I won't repent so save your b.s. for someone who has no backbone or self respect. I can't believe no one has bitch slapped u yet.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
I read somewhere that the RIAA has a toll free number set up to report piracy and/or get info on the whole subpoena/suit thing. As well as info on the RIAA's stand on related issues or to voice your thoughts and opions.
I agree with the thread that the burden of proof should be on them to prove wrong doing, but knowing that people are not going to do it (en mass) they will just settle out of court rather than forcing the issue to court
here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat
Who the fuck do you think you are to stop people doing what they want with their own PCs, illegal or not? You don't accept that for yourself, so what makes you think this is acceptable for others?
The word for this is hypocracy.
Yeah, I know, arson is a poor comparison to music piracy.
The point is that the child is the responsibility of the parents, and it is as such completely up to the parents to take that responsibility. As such, I hate to say it, but RIAA is within rights to do this to the parents of kids.
This sig no verb.
Pongo,
Since the RIAA doesn't make a dime off of used CD sales, it's OK to buy used RIAA members music. Go to a local store or secondspin.com. However, we really recomend you check out things like cdbaby.com or dmusic.com and discover INDE music. There really is some good stuff out there.
And I saw that 2 kids (both 17), who walked into a store, and stole $600 worth of merchandise. They were caught, and the paper was reporting their outcome in court. The fine? $600. But if I "steal" a song off Kazaa, I'm going to jail for 5 years (possibly) and paying millions to the RIAA. Tell me that's fair.
Not all dogs drink Coke.
In order to do that, every jurist is required to vote guilty only when they have absolutely no doubts that you did it. If they have any doubt at all, they are required to vote innocent.
Not actually true. IANAL, but as I recall it, the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt". Cases have been won or lost on the strength of circumstantial evidence, although direct evidence is, of course, considered good.
Incidentally, I seem to recall civil cases (like copyright infringement) having a lower burden of proof referred to as "preponderance of the evidence".
James.
"I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams." - W. B. Yeats.
Isn't the RIAA suing people for sharing and uploading, and not for downloading?
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
.. etc etc etc, then even though you gave your gun to someone else, you still could found guilty if they don't belive that you gave it away.
This is really a red herring, if the person who was killed was in some way related to you, if you were seen threatening the person
But,moving closer to the RIAA situation, the closest analogy would be the murder victim's family sueing you for wrongful death, because they're going to try and prove that you should have known that the person you gave a gun to was going to go out and kill someone. OR a procescutor may try to get you for conspiracy to commit murder or acomplice to the fact, if they can prove that you knowningly supplied the weapon.
That's not correct. My co-worker's pistol was stolen from his household by his child's friend. The friend was involved in drugs and used it in multiple hold-ups.
My co-worker reported it stolen. The police took the report and did not give him any problems.
They eventually found the kid with the pistol and arrested him. He had held up 3 different places with the weapon and was suspected of murder on an individual with the weapon. He went to Jail.
BUT
In the time they took to find the kid, my co-worker was issued a big insurance check for the pistol (the pistol was a rather rare pistol). So, he was able to get another pistol. The police kept the rare pistol.
My co-worker never was a suspect nor was he held in the crime.
Don't let people think that just because you are a gun owner, you are a suspect. If you are honest and a gun owner, you have nothing to fear.
e. Faust