Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues 12-Year Old Girl
tcp100 noted an article running at fox about
The RIAA suing a 12 Year Old girl: "'I got really scared. My stomach is all turning,' Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother."
Social engineering is right. The BBC is also reporting that the RIAA is suing a 71 year old man. Apparently his grandchildren were coming over to his house and downloading music.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
According to the article:
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
In that case RIAA should be suing Kazaa for providing service and content which they have no authorization to OR the family should be suing RIAA for misleading them OR maybe the family didnt read the License agreement...
But this makes me wonder as to what RIAA is doing about the websites that charge users fee and tell them they can download any number of unlicensed MP3s from their P2P application ??
An example is this site that I found by clicking on 'Search' hyperlink in article text:
Site offering unlicensed music for $0.97 a month
In case the site gets slashdotted, I am copying and pasting the content of the site (without any HTML formatting):
MP3U Club Access:
UNLIMITED Downloads
Full Length Movies
New Feature DVD's
Full MP3 Albums
New MP3 Hits
Exercise Beats
Hiphop, Top 40, R&B
Dance, Classic Rock
Unreleased Songs
XXX Movies (filter available)
TV Shows
Music Videos
JPG'S...
and MORE!!!
Get Instant Access!
Unlimited Downloads
We stand behind our commitment to quality.
If you don't find the mp3s
you are looking for, you may
cancel your membership and
keep the programs free!
- 100% RISK FREE! -
Total Users Online Now: 1835954
Total MP3's Available: 92315078
Total Movies Available: 130457202
Why Join the MP3U.com club?
Millions of Internet users have joined the exclusive club that allows them to find and immediately download ALL the latest Movies, songs, and mp3s FOR FREE -- Just as Napster did!
MP3U.com is your Gateway to the Hottest Online content from around the world. Just search, select and Download -- It's that easy.
Join the over 30,000,000 people who are downloading their favorite MP3's, MPEG Movies, hot unreleased DVD titles Right now!
Features:
UNLIMITED MOVIES, MP3's & DVD's
24/7 DOWNLOADING
LIGHTNING QUICK DOWNLOADS
NO INTRUSTIVE SPYWARE
POP-UP & ADVERTISING FREE
Multiple MP3 formats and bitrates supported
24/7 SUPPORT from our Knowledgable Tech Team
Only $0.97/Month!
You can download unlimited music files, MP3s, songs, music videos, software programs, TV shows, videos and movies. The best part is that you can start downloading now!
If it's Rock, Jazz, Hip Hop, Alternative, Rap, Classical, Country, Christian, Pop, Techno or Trance that you are looking for, MP3U has it all! You can also learn how to trade thousands of software titles, songs and videos with millions of people worldwide. Unrestricted access to as much music as you want, or until you fill up your hard drive!
Start Downloading As many Mp3's, Movies and DVD's as you can handle. You can learn all the in and outs of finding music through our tutorials, so you can get started right away!
That's right, we will give you the inside scoop on where to find any song you are looking for just like you could on Napster(TM). So check us out and give it a shot - for just a small monthly fee, what do you have to lose? Trust us, you won't regret it!
A few years back ASCAP threated to sue the girl scouts for singing campfire songs without a license.
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." I don't think the RIAA will care that they are going after children.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
Her parent(s) are responsible and will assume the debt, if a lawsuit is successful.
A Good Intro to NetBS
It's not that minors can't asssume debt, it's that they can't enter into legally binding contracts. That's why the cosigns are required. Credit card agreements and loans require written legal contracts.
This would be a good time for the People invoke jury nullification, assuming any of these go to trial. (Note that the Bill of Rights grants any RIAA victim a right to jury for lawsuits worth over $20 if they decide to take this to trial.)
So what is jury nullification? It is the principle that jury's may find a defendent "not guilty" if the law is unjust. This harkens back to British colonial days and is the primary reason we have juries in the Bill of Rights: both the defendent AND the law are judged. It is the Peoples' last check against unjust law when the three branches of government fail.
A prominent case of this was when William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was charged with assembling Quakers for worship when only the Church of England was permitted to assemble. (Again, pre-Revolution colonial days.) Though the jury found that he did indeed do just that, they gave a "not guilty" verdict on the grounds that the law was unjust. The judge held the jury without food and water for a couple of days and imposed fines, demanding that they give a "guilty" verdict, but they refused to budge. Events like this are what inspired our nation's founders to recognize the right of juries over the judge and the law. Jury nullifications also played an important role in overturning Prohibition. Juries often ruled against the law even when finding that the law had been broken, thus making Prohibition unenforceable, and I believe some regions of the nation still regularly have non-violent marijuana prosecutions lost due to jury nullification.
Jury's are unfortunately not informed of this right when they go to trial. I believe during the slave days the government realized that it was near impossible to get a conviction for violating the Fugitive Slave Act since people in the northern state juries, which was the only place the law really had any use, would rule "not guilty" on the grounds that the law was unjust. And so the government sadly decided to stop telling juries of their right to jury nullification.
So how does this apply to the RIAA? Well if enough 12 year olds, or any one else for that matter, being sued millions of dollars for downloading music take it to court then the People (ie-the juries) could toss out the cases as being unjust. Given enough of these rulings, the law could be forced to change to reflect what the People consider just or the RIAA could be forced to change tactics. Though this will remain unlikely if we do not go back to informing juries of their rights. (Plus stacking the jury by having the prosecution quiz them instead of making it truly random also undermines things...) So write to your state and federal legislative representatives today and demand that they pass laws requiring judges to inform juries of their "jury nullification" rights!
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
That's the amount specified by the laws governing copyright infringement -- $150K per instance.
For example, if you make a copy of a book, sell 100 copies, and get caught, you can be sued for 15 million dollars by the publisher.
The Audio Home Recording Act only allows first-generation recordings - not making copies of copies of copies of copies. Look here.
The DMCA didn't outlaw making copies - it still allows fair use copies - see page 4 of this PDF.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Another important legal question (and IANAL) but it is something I have been wondering throughout. If the RIAA sues people, don't they have to prove that they have suffered damages and losses?
No. The relevant statutes provide for assumed damages.
C//
Back during the Oil Embargo to conserve fuel?
Not for reasons of public safety?
Yes, that was how the NMSL was sold to the American public in 1973. It was made permanent in 1975 by Congress on the basis of the drop in traffic fatalities that occurred at the same time. Of course, the Arab oil embargo might have had a minor role to play in reducing traffic-related deaths too, but hey, all that extra revenue was too much for the states to let go of when the embargo ended.
Twenty years later, it became (literally) painfully obvious that unreasonably-low highway speed limits were costing more lives than they saved, and the NMSL was repealed. If you look at a graph of fatalities per hundred-million vehicle miles travelled (which is the only meaningful statistic in the traffic safety business, not the death rate per capita used to justify the NMSL in the first place), you'll see a slow and almost monotonic decline beginning in the early Seventies and continuing to the present day. The correlation between posted highway speed limits and the death rate is much more often negative than positive. The reasons are probably twofold: (1) nobody pays that much attention to highway speed limits anyway; and (2) higher limits on the Interstates encourage the diversion of traffic from slower but far-more-dangerous secondary roads.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
In fact, I got my first ADSL in my own name when I was 17 (the age of majority here is 19).
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
You think people downloading music are doing it becaues they "need" to?
Actually, they do!
My newphew is part of the video production class at school. Using older PowerPCs they produce the morning announcements, which include music clips. He is encouraged, and required to download music to add to the schools's archive of music. Not doing do would greatly affect his grade.
It goes without saying the teacher involved is doing something that could get the kids sued... it didn't change the credits reflecting that napster was responcible for providing the music, since changed to kazza.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
There's a difference in the bill between its intent and its wording. The intent, very obviously, was an agreement between the RIAA and the People, arbitrated by the government - we'll pay you a few cents for every blank tape or CD we buy, and in return, you won't try to sue private users for the occasional act of piracy. (since the amount you're making off the CD surcharge is FAR more than what you'd lose in sales to non-professional pirates) This is a perfectly fair, reasonable, and all around good solution to the problem. The surcharge doesn't financially inconvenience anyone directly, but collectively it adds up to millions going to the RIAA. Win-win. Unfortunately, the bill does not SAY this. The literal wording ONLY gives you the right to make a single "fair use" personal copy of a work. Which makes it a complete ripoff since we de facto had those rights ANYWAY thanks to the Betamax decision and a couple other related SCOTUS precedents in the early 80s. All it did was codify what was already an established Supreme Court judgement. (which, if you're not up on your civics, carries force of law) And further, the DMCA, by extension, destroys even that "right." Technically, if the album is encrypted in some fashion, all your Fair Use rights go out the window - you're paying that surcharge to the RIAA and getting nothing in return. I personally think one could build a strong case based around this. If we no longer have legal Fair Use rights to make a personal copy of albums\movies we buy, then that surcharge is accordingly illegal - it amounts to a criminal punishment on people convicted of no crime. Or, in reverse, it could be said you cannot be sued for copying an encrypted CD (as per the DMCA) precisely because you've paid the RIAA their piracy surcharge. (note: This applies only to the US version of the bill, I've heard the Canadian one has subtlely different wording and can actually support the theory that all personal copying is legal)
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
They rapidly announced today that they've agreed to a $2000 settlement, and went so far as to make a nice little public apology and promise to never do it again.
AP Excite News Story
It's just a shame that the family couldn't get help from a high powered lawyer who wanted to make a name for himself in this case. The publicity alone would have been phenomenal. Oh well. The RIAA has won yet another round on their campaign to step all over people.
Londovir
Londovir