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

Of course

[aridhol]

The subpoenas are going to the owners of the computers, as these are the ones who can be found. From the article:

Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address were being turned over to music industry lawyers.

Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility. It should be apparent, but for some reason it isn't to most people.

Re:Of course

[Quixadhal]

Yup, just like if someone breaks into your house and uses your (legally registered) gun to kill your family, you should go to jail since you are responsible for the firearm.

IANAL, but I think there's a lesser crime involving negligence, with which you should be charged... not the multiple murder raps the person doing the killing should get. Likewise, the RIAA shouldn't be able to sue you if someone else uses your computer to break the law... but since you are an unknowing accomplise, perhaps you should get a (smaller!) fine of some time?

Re:Of course

[pbox]

But of course you should. If you demand the right to own a firearm, please note that it should come with very heavy penalties for letting it out of your control. You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.

We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.

Re:Of course

[DarthWiggle]

Actually, you might not be guilty of the criminal act of murder, but you might very well be civilly liable for negligent supervision or some other negligence with respect to control and operation of the firearm.

Torts primer:

All torts have five elements, a duty owed, a breach of the duty, causation between duty and harm, any harm caused, and any defenses.

A parent who owns a computer might have a duty to supervise her children to ensure that the child doesn't cause a harm (copyright infringement, harassment, etc.), in the same way that a parent who owns a gun might have a duty to superviser her children to ensure that they don't shoot someone in the face.

Now, where things get screwy is in the damages caused. If the negligently supervised kid shoots someone in the face, the survivors ("heirs", though that's not the right term) of the deceased might be able to sue for that negligence. Maybe they'd win $1,000,000 out of the negligent parent's homeowners insurance policy, or something of the sort. The problem is that even if you can show that the parent has a duty to the RIAA to ensure that the child doesn't use the instrumentality (computer) to cause harm, that the parent failed to do so, and that the failure to supervise then CAUSED (very important word) some quantifiable harm to the company/organization, it's hard for me to understand the dollar amounts attached to these lawsuits.

But that argument's been rehashed a thousand times. I just wanted to give a little primer on how the parents could be implicated in the wrongful acts of their children.

(IANAL...Y) (figure it out)

The family that shares together stays together...

[Anonymous Coward]

IN JAIL.

Don't make your kids angry...

[Burlynerd]

What an excellent way for a rotten, rebellious brat to get his parents in trouble for spanking him!

It don't mean a thing...

[sharky611aol.com]

...if it don't bling-bling.

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.

With apologies to Spaceballs

[Matey-O]

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.

Suggestion for action...

[NanoGator]

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.

War On Piracy?

[PontifexPrimus]

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?

Re:War On Piracy?

[El]

And in the end, no Weapons of Music Distribution will be found?

*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good

[eclectic4]

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.

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.

Once again, this shows that...

[Faeton]

... nothing is more powerful than "I'm gonna tell your dad!" - Chris Rock

If they do sue you

[Evets]

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.

Thank God It's Not What I Thought

[Nom du Keyboard]

Father: What's that on your computer, son?

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.

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.

Let The Backlash Begin

[pickity]

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."

Re:responses from file traders

[Zed2K]

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.

Re:RIAA contact info

[Luigi30]

"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."