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."

Comments

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued?

[nlvp]

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.

Re:Suggestion for action...

[timmyd]

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)

Re:Of course

[DarthWiggle]

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.

Re:Of course

[DJ Rubbie]

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.

How You Can Change the Law

[MichaelCrawford]

Sixty million Americans share files via peer to peer networks. That's more Americans than voted for George Bush. Why don't you just change the law?

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 Copyright could be ended tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill that repealed it.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.

So I was reading the paper...

[desikage]

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.

Re:Of course

[lord_dragonsfyre]

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.