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)
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
IN JAIL.
What an excellent way for a rotten, rebellious brat to get his parents in trouble for spanking him!
We can throw our CDs into the habor!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money. Of course they can't go after kids, so they're going to go after their parents, who, in most cases, have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet.
I'll offer up my family as an example. My parents are fairly clueless when it comes to anything remotely technological. My youngest sister, on the other hand, can find damned near any song she wants online. (Note: I'm not implying that this equals any level of computer competency, but not bad for a nine-year-old).
Last time I went home, my lil' sis had about 500 songs shared on Kazaa til I un-sharified them. I can guaran-damn-tee you that my parents have absolutely no idea about this, and now the R*AA is going to be suing folks like my parents?
Let the backlash begin. We'll be the whip.
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.
RIAA: You're my father's Brother's Uncle's Sister's Roommate's Cousin.
Dude: What's that make me?
RIAA: Nothing, but we're suing you anyway.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!
The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.
Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.
Nevermind Laura Bush.
What happens when the RIAA tries to sue a relative of some crime family? Someone wake up next to a decapitated horses head.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
"Derp de derp."
Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
Does this mean there will be heavy civilian casualties, lots of property damage an eventually guerilla warfare with nothing much gained?
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
why does sound so much like the infamous (not for positive reasons) "war on drugs".
i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.
what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"
R.I.P.
The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists
She shouldn't be fined for pirating music. She should be fined for her taste in music.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I would suggest listening to other music. Indie lables and the like.
I'll be honest, it's gotten to the point where the alternative labels are putting out better music anyway.
I remember when music was fun. When music was an entertainment "entity". We made cassette tapes for each other profusely, and we loved it. We went to concerts, bought tapes by the trunk load, watched MTV, etc... it was pure entertainment... fun. It was as if the record companies knew that this was just "how it is". I bought more music during my Napster days that I had in the previous 7 years. It was like a re-introduction to the music "thang", the music "culture" if you will that seemed to become far less fun over the years
And then... *sigh*. The DMCA, the RIAA, attacking customers, bringing them to court, etc... I don't know about you, but to think this helps business you would have to be one of two things:
1. Completely disconnected with your customer base and what makes your business flourish, and will never entertain that the problems are due to their own shortcomings (bad music, horrible radio payoffs for even worse music, realizing that attacking your own customers is bad (sheesh, do I even have to say that?) etc...) or
2. A minion that is just giving us another example of greed run amok, plain to see by it's customers.
In either case, I think they are literally only going to make it worse for themselves.
Insensitive clods.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
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
... nothing is more powerful than "I'm gonna tell your dad!" - Chris Rock
Wow, the effects have been brutal ... I snapped a pic of one of those affected at lunch today:
Click Here
(Score:-1, Wrong)
I have been following this story with some interest, and I am still wondering how much of this story is real, and how much is so much legal FUD.
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
then you have the right to subpoena any of the artists that you are accused of sharing. Put them on the stand and ask them if they support the RIAA's suing of their customers. Ask them how much money they have lost because of file sharing. Ask them every question under the sun. Take up as much time as possible for each artist. If each Metallica member has to spend 2 days in court for every person they sue, then maybe they'll just shut their pie holes and be grateful for what their fans have given them.
17-year-old-son: Some movies of barely legal teens doing everything with barnyard animals that I downloaded off the Internet.
Father: Thank God it's not MP3s. For a moment I'd thought you'd really gotten us in trouble there.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Alot of people have idea's that they should 'boycott' the RIAA buy not buying CD's or buying them and returning them, or even buying from indie artists, but they all ask the same question: Who are RIAA members? Well I'd like to point you you this page which gives you a nice list of all the labels.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First of all the RIAA did not target people's parents. The RIAA is targetting the ISP's account holders, which is perfectly logical.
Second of all, the parent who was notified that their child was subpoened was NOT notified by the RIAA. They were notified by the Associated Press.
It says right there in the article that the RIAA didn't even know that people like the AP could get hold of that type of information.
So yeah, the RIAA is bad and evil, and so is Microsoft, and SCO and the other flavors of the month, but at least read the article before you comment, so you can get your facts right.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
If I was holding shares in one or more RIAA companies, I'd be livid right now!
How does it make business sense to sue music downloaders (let alone their parents or roomates). One would assume that they are downloading music because they would like to hear the songs. Do you suppose they still would be so eager to hear the music once it has cost them $15,000 in fines?
The internet is a possible gold mine for the RIAA and the MPAA. iTunes has proven that, unlike the lies currently spread by RIAA, there are thousands of people eagerly awaiting a chance to legally download digital songs over the internet, and to pay for them to boot! Of course these people are going to turn to illegal methods to get what they want if there's no other way TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Here's a little business tip for the RIAA member companies:
-- millions of people are downloading songs you hold the copyright to
-- most of them realize this is illegal
-- they want these songs bad enough that they are willing to overlook the illegality of what they are doing
-- they have shown that, when offered with reasonable alternatives (i.e. terms of use offered through iTunes), they are willing to shell out money to get what they are currently getting for free
GIVE THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT!!
Instead, what do they do? Sue the users. Bravo.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I figure that the majority of /. users aren't buying many CDs, but shouldn't someone organize some sort of a protest against the RIAAs actions? Speak to the artists themselves-- Just about every news story has an almost obligatory reference to a possible "backlash" from consumers. Well consumers are cattle, they're not going to think on their own. I haven't bought a CD in probably 2 years or so, but I think a little effort would hit the RIAA pretty hard. Otherwise, we're all just targets, some just a little larger than others.
Mike
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
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.
So there you sit, all smug, shaking your head at these really stupid people who would have the gall to share copyrighted stuff on the net. You don't do P2P, so it's Someone Else's Problem. They deserve what they get.
So think about this the next time you're perusing your favorite porn site, or maybe if you don't do porn, a fan club site. Hell, it doesn't really matter: Any site will do, as long as you are downloading content.
Are you sure that content isn't copyright-protected? Are you sure that the content provider isn't sharing something (lesbo pictures, glamour shots, whatever) that they themselves don't have a right to share? What a surprise it will be when the local constable shows up at your door with a subpoena in hand, listing all the times you accessed www.analdestruction.com, how long you spent on the site, and what your browser downloaded, all courtesy of Comcast or some other ISP provider who really doesn't give a shit about your privacy. How will you explain that one to your wife? Or your buddies at work? Or the judge?
This "rape and plunder" tactic that the RIAA is taking is just the tip of the iceberg. As ISPs get jaded to serving up your IP/MAC information on a routine basis, your surfing habits will become easy prey for anyone with a grudge. Thanks to the RIAA, they are spending all the money necessary to establish legal precedence in this area, and to basically pave the way for anyone to start their own little money-making venture.
If you surf the web, you are vulnerable, because I seriously doubt you check the copyright status of each and every piece of content you download. So wipe that smug smile off your face, because it's just a matter of time before your IP shows up on a federal subpoena.
This isn't an issue of whether or not some morons sharing stuff that isn't theirs deserve what they get. Nor is it Someone Else's Problem. It's your problem, my problem, and everyone's problem. The madness needs to stop.
As if music sales aren't getting worse as it is, the RIAA is only hurting itself and its artists with this move.
As the article states:
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash."
Run the risk? I'm sorry, but they just created even more backlash by mearly mentioning the POSSIBILITY of going after these individuals.
How can they possibly go after the parents of children who are downloading music illegally? Most parents have no clue what P2P applications are, what they do, and what kids are using them for. If your son or daughter steals a CD from a store, you don't get fined for it, your child takes the blame. And even then, in most cases, the child involved pays a small fine and are left up to the parent's discipline. Sometimes the penalty can be community service, or juvinial court. At this point it's less risky to steal physical media than it is to steal digital work from the comfort of your own home....
Once again the RIAA is throwing their weight around, and once again the DMCA is burning people who don't deserve the law on their backs. I'm sure this type of action scares some, but it also makes many others want to buy less and share more just to stick it to "the man."
----------
word to your moms... I came to drop bombs...
written with a little poetic licence - maybe this will be a catharisis, and I will feel much better after all the emotional dump is made ....
I think this is one of the watershed moments of our generation, and these moments seem to come in cycles. A lot of forces are converging that shall give our generation a chance to have a revolution of its own - rather than just reading about the old ones in history or seeing them on TV. We must heed the bugle and assemble of our own accord, to wage a war, and the side we choose shall decide our fate, as the wheels of excess come crashing down on the unreasonable. So, be reasonable, and look at what your side is asking in sacrifice and compare it to what they provide in return.
And when you look at the other side and see the lawmakers and the Corporations lined up against you, don't be surprised. The lawmakers are in the pockets of the corporations that line their pockets. Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Votes So, the adversary is definitely formidable. And there is no other choice but to uproot them completely and totally, for their nexus has corrupted the system down to its core.
Some have already sold their soul, and for them the choice no longer exists. For the millions of others the day to make the choice is approaching soon. For about a 1000 the day of making the choice has approached. Will all of them be divided and individually be chopped to pieces, or will they recognize that providence has brought them together under a single banner - and now they must stick together, serve as the nucleus of this revolution, and even as the coalesce together, pull in together the millions of others who when presented with two choices will choose to join the "1000 Nodes of Light."
If the 1000 start by contributing 10 cents for each song on their harddrive today (instead of the $750 to $150,000 that they may be liable to pay the RIAA some sunny day) I am sure enough money can be collected to buy the materials like server space, paper, printing, postage needed to run their war. Then what is needed is time from volunteers which can be solicited from some in the 1000. If this movement has sticking power, then I am sure people like slashdotters would not mind volunteering. And then if there are enough volunteers, the broader population might even choose to support with their cents and dollars.
The money should be spread out to counterattack all the 12-24 lawyers of the RIAA, and drag them into a battle over the very nature of copyright and how their compensation should be calculated. It just needs a focus of a good case, and I am sure there are some in the 1000 that would just from the odds of it - qualify to be that Test case. And with a broad support of the other 999, and of the (23 million -1) people, some sanity can be injected into this whole issue. What the RIAA is demanding for one song is 150000 times what the song actually costs. Even if I pay 1 dollar a day to listen to the song, it will be 410 years of paying a dollar EVERYDAY, before listening to the song costs me $150,000. What sane mind could deem this arrangement reasonable ? Something is out of whack, and it needs to be whacked back into place.
And I think, just like Bush might have bitten off a little too much in Iraq, RIAA might have bitten off a little too much of the "Illegal" File-Sharers universe. The war has been started based on a deliberate misinterpretation of archaic data, and RIAA's assualt was started based on a jaundiced interpretation of archaic laws. Laws are being twisted to the word, even as the spirit is raped and pillaged. But, the hands of the masses will grasp these lying Boosies and rip them from their priviledged and ivory tower havens, and plunge them in the depths of Dante's inferno. And all this will be done electronically. Communication will be electronic revolution.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The people who were quoted in this article seem more like stereotypes than actual people. I mean, just take a look at this quote:
[Bob Barnes] said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.
"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."
So there's your halo-wearing "I only wanted to preview songs or download songs I couldn't buy" downloader, which, if some people around here are to be believed, accounts for roughly 100% of the music downloaders on the internet.
On the other end of the spectrum is Gordon Pate, who seems to be reading from a script provided by Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen:
Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.
Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.
Is this guy for real? And just what does denying yourself your fair use rights have to do with respecting copyrights?
In addition to the "honest downloader" and "Valenti's bitch," we are also shown a model of the RIAA's ideal downloader:
"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."
The only thing missing was the disenfranchised ex-customer, which would look something like this:
"This blows. It's bad enough that most music these days is crap, but now you can get your ass sued for listening to it. That's it, I'm not just going to stop buying music, I'm not listening to it anymore either. Screw those jerks at the record companies, it's comic books for me from here on out."
Get four second-rate washed-up stand-up comics to act out the parts and you'll have a mediocre bit on Tough Crowd with Colin "I used to be funny, really!" Quinn. Add two more and you'll have next week's "What Do You Think?" in The Onion. I sincerely hope the people in that article aren't for real...
Uhhh...its really none of your business what people have on their PC's. Do you open their quicken installs and check their bank acounts to make sure they have money to pay you also? Or check their history for IE to see what porn sites they've visited? How about their documents directories to see what letters they've sent to grandma?
Butt out of other peoples business and just do your damn job! I'd sue your ass if you installed something on my PC without telling me about it and it broke an application that was working when my PC arrived at your shop.
Its simple, they won't. They would have their lawyers do the research and find out who the people being subpoened (sp?) were and if it comes up as GW, guess what, they won't say a damned thing about it.
For this attack plan to be a big success for them, they need to either have these people settle, or take them to court and destroy them. The LAST thing they want is some politcally/legally connected child/family to be dragged into this because it complicates the matter and would make the other people they're taking action against think otherwise.
Business-wise, the RIAA are morons, but PR-wise, they are wise beyond belief and you can be DAMN SURE they are aware of this possibility and are doing everything in their power to avoid it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
People seem to keep getting caught up in technicalities. People that are trying to say "What if I had a virus...." or "What if someone stole my account..." are as bad as the RIAA. They are looking for loopholes and technicalities, not trying to see the spirit of the law and its protections for ALL parties.
The RIAA is trying to find and get relief from misappropriation of protected property (ie, the copyrighted songs) that people neither need (in the survival sense) nor have any intrinsic right to. They are going about it in a very poor way, granted, but, there is nothing wrong with trying to defend your property. After all, at night, if I forget to lock the door on my house, I still don't think anyone has the right to barge in and use it. Its my property, and I get to decide how it is used.
I think everyone knows the spirit of this. The RIAA does not want to sue people who have not infringed their copyrights. If they issue subenpoes for the wrong people, they want it corrected. No purpose is served for any party if the wrong people are punished. Their intention is to only go after people that have actually participated in infringed copyrights.
For that matter, they aren't really after song-swappers or P2P networks, at least in a purist sense. If I record a song (which I won't, becuse, like many very popular singers, I can't sing) and people trade it, the RIAA doesn't care. They only care about trading of songs where the copyright owner does not wish his property to be used in that manner (and, of course, said owner is a member of the RIAA... I doubt they care about non-members).
If you put your "reasonable, common-sense, business-thinking" hat on, I think it is easy to see what the RIAA is doing and why they are doing it. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but trying to pick away on technicalaities is just not a useful excersice.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
My mp3 collection is proudly offline. Never got into the Kazaa thing. However, pretty much everyone I know who has a CD collection, I've been ripping and adding to mine. So, instead of sharing stuff online, I suggest everyone start sharing with people you know off-line. Meaning, bring your HD over to their house, copy the contents, merge your collections. I don't see any way the RIAA will be able to stop THIS kind of sharing, unless they start busting down people's doors and seizing your HD because they saw you carrying a HD into someone else's home ... if they start doing that, then we've got much bigger problems to worry about ...
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.
"Welcome to the Springfield Police website. Have you committed a crime?" *Homer clicks no* "You selected no, meaning you committed a crime, but do not want to confess. A paddy wagon has been sent to your home."
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
when my neighbor gets his letter, i'll let you know.
Lastly, to those who say the RIAA is 100% pure evil and I should boycott them, don't forget that the RIAA includes a lot of great labels/artists/music in my opinion. I'm not talking about BoyBand Du Jour, but rather Count Baise, John Coltraine, Thelonious Monk, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Louis Armstrong, Nora Jones, Kurt Elling, Max Roach, Charlie Mingus, pretty much anything from Blue Note Records... You get the idea (and I'm just using Jazz artists as an example). I will continue to support the recording industry as long as they have these artists.
Please tell me how the RIAA has these artists, because to the best of my knowledge most of them are long dead. What the record companies have is the copyrights to recordings that these artists made, in many cases over half a century ago. How many of these artists are seminal musicians, treasures of our musical heritage, most of them. Now think how many of them get any substantial amount of radio play these days, how many of todays kids have even heard the great music they created. The current system is destroying our musical heritage not preserving it nor enriching it, and that is why things must change.
Yes music has value it has a value far greater than can measured in monetary terms. As long as those that control the distribution continue to value music only for the revenue it can generate then the further music will decline
Anyway, getting back to my point, I know several people who keep a list of RIAA members and make a point of not buying their CDs.
I wonder how many of these subpoena's have to be sent to ISP's before they simply stop recording the IP info? Already it has been reported that DePaul University in Chicago is saying that it no longer has the user info for that IP...
Are there any laws that require ISP's to keep track users & IP's? From the laws that I have looked over (without doing any real research) it looks like the law only requires them to turn over any relevant info availble.
With what has to be mounting cost I can imagine that small ISP's are dumping this info so when the request comes in they say- "Got nothing". How much longer before the cost gets to high for the larger ones?
Just a thought
Huh?
here is the number
1 800 223-2328
1 800 bad-beat
So now can we do what the Russian minister did yesterday?;)
I was just thinking of this the other day.
I, probably like many others out there, have a router which enables NAT.
The ISP account is under my name, with my information. So if my roommate downloads something, he could get me in trouble...which isn't good.
Sure I guess I'm supposed to be responsible for that, but, it's like me making sure he doesn't electrocute himself...since that's in my name also.
Bad Analogy, but I think you get the idea.
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
Hey RIAA!
I have over 100 GB of commercial works by many of the companies you represent on my network. Two computers my roomates use run Kazaa and Winmx non-stop sharing from the network drive. LimeWire runs on the server itself. We share over a cable connection, and I recently had DSL installed. Typically during the day there are thousands of uploads, so many sometimes LimeWire crashes.
And guess what? I have the money to fight you. The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case. It is unconstitional for private companies to issue subponeas because due process is not observed and there is no legal forward.
Sorry, but I am just begging they come after me. I have the cash ready and I come from a family (yes, it's sad I know) of very sucessful lawyers.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95