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."

Comments

Smooth move.

[grub]

Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses. They must be millipedes to have all these feet they keep shooting themselves in.

OK, cheap shots aside; what will this lawsuit serve? They obviously know they won't get much money, if any, from a girl living in a city's subsidized housing system. This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.

Re:Smooth move.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The idea was to select soft targets who would cave in and settle out of court. They forgot to check that these folks would be in a position to pay in the first place.

Re:Smooth move.

[Choobius Gothicus]

The RIAA is simply pointing out that they do not care who the suspected file sharer is. You could be young, old, black, white, hispanic, etc.

The parents are responsible for their children not sharing these types of songs. In fact, Kazaa, if not already doing this, should have filters preventing the vast majority of illegal files from being shared (i.e. music, movies) so they can share more constructive and legal files (i.e. past term papers/book reports from fellow students). The last paragraph had me rolling..."It's not like we're doing anything illegal", then spinning the matter towards stating that she's just a child. She won't pay...her parents will. The lawsuit is well served in this case, but as I've stated before, this lawsuit must be easy to defend against (which it isn't, for shame). See my other posts for constructive criticism against the RIAA's tactics.

Re:Smooth move.

[garcia]

the RIAA is unaware of who is behind KaZaaLiteUser@kazaa you know. They know an IP, a Kazaa username, and what service you are from.

So they get your information from the ISP. They are going to find (most likely the mother's name or some other guardian). 12 year olds aren't allowed to sign up for ISPs you know.

So as far as the RIAA was concerned, this was a "large" file trader, using such and such ISP, and went after the account holder.

While I agree that it's not very smart and makes them look bad (go media) it's not entirely their fault. Do you expect them to stake-out the house first and watch with binoculars who is using Kazaa?

Re:Smooth move.

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.

Which is really bad for business, at least from my experience.

Before we were old enough to get jobs (legally) in school the kids would all save up our paper route money and buy a new tape and a pack of the-cheapest-blank-tapes-made. We couldn't afford to buy more than one new tape every couple months, so we'd copy our friends' tapes on a dual-deck cassette player and we all got our music fix. It's not like Mom was going to buy me the latest Anthrax tape.

Guess what? When we got jobs we traded up to CD's and went out and bought albums. The illicit trade of pirated materials by children had created a consumer group of adults. We were hooked at a young age and the RIAA was better off for it. To this day I've only ever downloaded songs off of Napster that were out of print, and a couple songs from a box set from the iTunes store - I like the CD quality and longevity well enough to pay for them.

Even if they don't care about engendering bad will, going after children is going to eat into their profits.

Re:Smooth move.

[darkov]

While I agree that it's not very smart and makes them look bad (go media) it's not entirely their fault. Do you expect them to stake-out the house first and watch with binoculars who is using Kazaa?

Let's see. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not do what they're doing for profit. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not have the resources to fight any sort of legal action. They have said publicly that this is a fund raiser for more suits.

So, they're raising money from, and making examples of, people who will not get their day in court (becuase they can't afford to) in order to support their (often corrupt, as shown in price fixing court cases) businesses.

You don't need glasses to work it out. Maybe you could go and explain how the record companies are really trying to do the right thing to some poor, scared 12 year old they're bullying.

Get a clue, man.

Re:Smooth move.

[CrimsonTemplar]

While I agree that it's not very smart and makes them look bad (go media) it's not entirely their fault. Do you expect them to stake-out the house first and watch with binoculars who is using Kazaa?

I agree that there is no way for them to know, but with the broad swath of users their going after it was only a matter of time before they found themselves, inadvertently, suing such mediapathetic targets as little girls living in public housing and elderly men living on their social security. It's not going to help their image as the victims, it will mainly perpetrate the appearance of them as bullies.

Re:Smooth move.

[pmz]

"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.

Imagine how the music we take for granted today would be affected if the RIAA and ASCAP existed 150 years ago. Great compositions, folk music, etc. from the 19th century would still be under copyright and inaccessible to anyone without the necessary greenbacks. Jazz artists everywhere would get sued for incorportating classic themes into their solos. Cash-strapped symphonies would need to drive away an already too-small audience with higher ticket prices. Small businesses wouldn't be able to afford to put music into their products. Hell, we probably couldn't even sing the national anthem without stuffing a dollar into the panties of some RIAA whore.

Re:Smooth move.

[Ryokos_boytoy]

That is sooo fucking wrong. So I have the music in my memories, does that mean that can seize my brain and sue me for thinking it? Where does this bullshit end?

Way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go RIAA. You're now worse than the boogey man. Go ahead and take the candy from babies while you're at it.

This is getting ridiculous

[fr0z]

Suing a 12-year old? If this is not ridiculous I don't know what is. It's not even funny anymore; we should all just boycott the RIAA and their crap.

I've stopped buying CDs, and even ripping those that I own. This lunacy has got to stop. Let's hit them where it hurts most: their wallets.

Thanks for the free press, RIAA

[coupland]

"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.

This is precious, just the kind of screw-up the RIAA didn't need. They sued frickin' Tiny Tim. That's about one degree shy of suing the burlap sack boy. Way to go RIAA, we couldn't buy better press.

12 YO in Lawsuit

[TennesseeJeff]

And the amazing things are:

1. The RIAA honestly believes this is justified.

2. This is an accepted part of the RIAA business model.

Now I wonder how much music this girl will actually buy (and influence her friends to buy) as she enters her prime music consumer years. What about all those magazines, posters and concerts she will never buy because of this? Who is really getting hurt?

City Housing Authority?

[Surak]

Okay, this is not only a 12-year-old girl, but a 12-year-old girl LIVING IN THE PROJECTS. Her family is dirt poor. How exactly do you think this is going to play on the evening news? The American public will be OUTRAGED at the RIAA and this is going to be over soon. There will be a demand that Congress intervene and stop the RIAA from this course of action. The cries will be "will someone PLEASE think about the CHILDREN!" You watch.

Re:City Housing Authority?

[cybermace5]

Well, she's a 12-year-old girl living in the projects, but with broadband access and a parent who obviously think paying Kazaa 30 bucks is a worthy investment.

I think her mother is probably the real culprit here, she's using her daughter as a shield. And the press is eating it up like candy.

Seriously, people, what do you expect? You yell and scream about how much you hate the record labels and the RIAA, yet you scramble over yourselves to get their latest product, legally or otherwise. Totally the wrong signal, if you really want the RIAA to change its ways.

Either buy their CDs, or drop it. Don't share their crap, if you really believe that it is. Stop being hypocrites. All the RIAA can see on the P2P networks is proof of the popularity of their products, and until that changes, the RIAA never will.

Let me be a contrarian and say ....

[shri]

This is the legal equivalent of a spanking. Anyone remember the good old adage about sparing the rod...

While this is a PR blunder (and who said they were trying to score brownie points anyways...) this is going to enforce the message to parents -- watch what your kids are doing online.

Let the courts sort this one out, looks like one heck of a legal mess.

Best line ever:

[Demon-Xanth]

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres.

Well, I guess the whole DLing of copyrighted works w/o reimbursing the copyright holder isn't illegal anymore...

Re:Best line ever:

[CountBrass]

You're plainly a moron.

I don't know about you, but here in civilised countries we have this idea that children below a certain age aren't sufficiently mature to understand that what they're doing is wrong and therefore they can't be held accountable.

Clearly this is the case here - in fact I would go as far as to say that would hold true for any reasonable person - they're paying a fee to Kazaa - what for if not to download music. If anyone's guilty it's the Kazaa for charging the fee for a service they couldn't legally provide.

Telling Quote - Public Perception

[Bonker]

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

Public perception is that file sharing is NOT illegal. When there's a gap bewteen public perception and law, public perception usually wins. Public perception was that alcohol was not worthy of being banned. We no longer have prohibition. Public perception of drugs is that 'Drugs are bad, M'Kay?'. The negative effects of the drug war are felt more by non-voting minorities than the white majority, so the horrific drug crime laws we have in this country are allowed to continue.

The RIAA and other **AAs aren't convincing anyone. Young mothers and children beleive that file sharing is an OK thing to do. Therefore, it is and will continue to be. Law or no, public perception is going to win this one.

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"

[gotroot801]

From the article:

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

I disagree with the RIAA's ability to serve its own subpoenas, and this article might throw a little sympathy Brianna's way, but let's be totally honest here. Yes, Mrs. Torres, your daughter was doing something illegal. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Re:"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"

[Rogerborg]

You, of course, have never:

1. Jaywalked.
2. Crept one mile per hour over the speed limit.
3. Ignored a stop sign when you could see that it was clear for half a mile either way.
4. Run your tires 1mm under the tread limit. What's the tread limit where you live? Is it the same in the next county or state? Do you know if there is one? Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
5. Had consensual sex with a 17 year old in a county or state where the age of consent is 18, regardless of whether you knew that or not. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
6. Drunk under the legal age (what it is in the US, 40 or so?)
7. Drove while over the legal limit, regardless of whether you knew that or not. Ignorance, etc.
8. Backed up software or music.
9. Created a mix tape.

But wait! Those last two are legal now. Kind of. Sort of. Maybe. But only because case law precedent has decided so.

See, in the US, they aren't actually legal, it's just vanishingly unlikely that you'll be successfully prosecuted for doing them.

Do you begin to see how this works yet?

Re:"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"

[argStyopa]

I was waiting for SOMEONE to say this.

IANAL but at some point isn't someone going to question the logic of this statement? It's become such a truism of The Law (tm) that nobody thinks about it.

Let's look at her case.
If you took the totality of all extant Federal statues that apply to all US citizens, PLUS
The totality of all New York state statutes that apply to all New York citizens, PLUS
The sum of all city ordinances applicable to her city, borough, neighborhood, whatever:

You'd probably have more text than a single person could read in an ENTIRE LIFETIME of reading 24 hours per day.

Logically, how can anyone be expected to know all the laws?!?!?!?

I know as a practical matter, "ignorance is not an excuse" MUST be the rule, or people would always claim ignorance. But really, how is this dichotomy resolved, aside from us all just 'agreeing to ignore it'?

Parents' responsibility

[Wiseazz]

Well, even though they say the girl was targeted, it'll be the parents that are sued.

My first reaction was "they won't pursue this". But consider the reason behind these lawsuits: to make an example of people. Now they can also show that parents are responsible for their kids' downloading. Obviously the family can't pay out too much, but don't expect them to be let off the hook.

Not sayin' I agree with it... I'm just sayin'

Granted...

[Sataereous]

This was a really cheesy move on their part, but it seems almost as traumatizing to single this poor girl out as the poster-child for RIAA abuse...

Why the child?

[harmonica]

The article says: The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge. So why isn't the family (read: the parents) sued? In the end, they are responsible for their children's doings anyway. Besides, does anybody still truly think trading copyrighted material is legal? It may be a nice (if weak) defense, but I have my doubts believing that, with all those 'awareness campaigns' the **AAs are running.

Re:Set up?

[bahamat]

Setup or no, when a law is passed that automatically defaults the majority of citizens as being criminals, there's something wrong with the law, not the people.

Bad Media for RIAA

[bildstorm]

I was thinking about the possiblity of something like this last night when I was listening to NPR's report on the RIAA. All these lawsuits and going after downloaders have already created a bad identity for record labels. Before all this, most people didn't know about the labels, they primarily knew the about the artists. Now there are major negative connotations with the labels.

So, now the primary demographic they need to spend money, teens and college students, will now associate labels with persecuting them, asking colleges to violate their privacy, suing a 12-year old, and going after grandpa. Grandparents, a large part of the senior citizen voting group, will start to see themselves as potential victims.

If the studios want to make money from selling CDs again, they need to both drop the price and start really creating albums again. I remember albums that were created very well that the flow from song to song made listening to the album a joy, but now with pushing the crap they are now, they make an album just a collection of tracks of which one or two might be neat to listen to for a few months.

The RIAA needs to sack the lawyers and send their marketing people back to school for the fundamentals.

Re:gotta get at 'em young...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

We seem to think that giving a 16 year of 10 year in the pen for carrying a loose joint is ok. This just seems like a logical extension.

Don't think the bell won't toll for everyone else at some point.

Re:haha suckers

[Lawbeefaroni]

This isn't funny, it's entirely too representative. And it's people who pay for the service or think they have to (the majority of internet users) that the RIAA are trying to scare here. They see these lawsuits in the paper, they think they're valid and they sign up for iTunes or something. Or buy the album.

Re:Good direction for discourse....

[Bloodshot]

No, I just think shows how DUMB this girl and her family is. That $29.95 is a ONE-time fee for an ad-free version of Kazaa, not a monthly fee. Did they actually believe that paying $29.95 for a copy of a program meant that they can download all the copyrighted music they want? I bet the girl still thinks there is a Santa Claus.

The mother's quote at the end of the article is priceless. Of COURSE what they were doing is illegal. It's called copyright infringement. Is it theft? Hell no. But it's still illegal. I suspect the RIAA will quietly drop this case and move on to someone else who won't make them look so bad.

A diffirent view

[CrayzyJ]

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

I won't be the popular one around here, but I thought this quote was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The mother thinks the daughter's age allows her (the daughter) to do whatever she wishes! Hey, she's 12, give her a gun and tell her to shoot the number - it's not like she's doing anything illegal, she's a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud!

As the law stands, she IS doing something illegal and the law is (pseudo) blind to age.

This has been all over the NYC radio news this morning, and yes, they are slanting it towards Brianna being the victim.

(Don't mod me a Troll, just because I have a slightly different opinion...)

Re:A diffirent view

[nanojath]

Her assumption is false but it isn't all that crazy. The kind of people who have a Slashdot account are innundated with this kind of information. We've talked copyright up one side and down the other. The majority of people do not understand these issues so well. I realize ignorance of the law is not a valid defense but honestly: people are used to this world where you turn on an appliance, sign up for some service, and get content. Cable or sattelite TV, the radio - you record a tape, capture TV with your Tivo, nobody hassles you. These people signed up for Kazaa and assumed it was the same thing. It really isn't that crazy. They didn't read the small print.

True story: my sister in law, who is not at all a stupid person, is telling me about how her teenage daughter showed her how to go out on the internet and download a Neil Young album and she burns it to a CD. And she says to me: I don't understand how they get paid for this though. I didn't pay anything to get on the site. And I said, they didn't get paid for it. The people that gave you that content didn't have the right to do that and that copy isn't legal. She honestly didn't know. People assume if it is available, it is legal. For all the furor the industry and its representatives have done a terrible job of instructing people about the realities of copyright law. And now they are simply going for the jugular in a completely haphazard, scattershot way.

Re:Set up?

[allism]

I don't think any new laws were passed to enable the RIAA to file copyright infringement suits, and I don't think the majority of citizens download pirated software/music. Could you site a source, please?

There may actually be a strategy here

[astro]

Now, first off, this probably just is a screw-up, an unintended hit by the shotgun scatterblast of lawsuits, BUT:

The RIAA could still be in a good strategic place if this girl is found not liable for her actions. Think about it: if it's assumed that there IS an illegal action here, but the girl is not liable due to her age (among other factors, maybe, too), then that liability may lie with the provider of the materials that made it transparently easy for a *little girl* to engage in criminal activity.

The provider, in this case, would of course be Kazaa. It seems to me that if the little girl is found not culpable for this, that it could give the RIAA a new angle to attack Kazaa et al on.

Re:Says a lot

[greechneb]

As seen on ABC news this morning: the president of the RIAA Carl Sharman?? said that all they had was a list of names and addresses, no ages. I doubt they did a in depth profile search of all the ages of the sharers.

I would imagine she got caught because of what music she probably shared (N'SYNC, Britney, Christina, etc.) Guess I don't have to worry about being in one of their song searches. the stuff I share on Kazaa is all Indy bands who want to have stuff shared (From personally talking with the band members) - If I do happen to get sued I will fight, because the songs are not copyrighted.

I also wonder how many people have their entire song library shared by accident, since Kazaa will search your hard drive for media to share if you are not paying attention closely.

Anyways - I wonder if the RIAA will actually proceed with sueing a 12 year old. Dropping the case on her would be good publicity. Sueing the parent for her childs wrongdoings would be even worse publicity. It's hard to blame a parent who might not even know how to do anything more than email, and yahoo.

It's called deterrence

[Phronesis]

This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.

To the extent that making and enforcing laws is "social engineering," you're right. The whole concept of private property is social engineering (see Locke's Two Treatises of Government for a detailed explanation). Most of us approve the sort of social engineering that gives us government, laws, and property. Under this system, "instilling fear" into lawbreakers is exactly what lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are about. It's called deterrence. This is one of the principal purposes of the law.

Re:It's called deterrence

[JayBlalock]

Under this system, "instilling fear" into lawbreakers is exactly what lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are about. It's called deterrence. This is one of the principal purposes of the law.

I disagree for the most part, and it's this point of view which causes so many draconian laws to be passed.

Man is by nature a SOCIAL animal. We live by the herd. It's in our instincts (and by "our" at this point, I am speaking of people in general, NOT specific abberations) to, in essence, do what everyone else is doing. Why else do marketeers, politicians, etc try so hard to convince the "buyer" that everyone else in the world is doing something, even if, in fact, only a small fraction are? Get enough people to believe that everyone is doing something, and pretty soon, everyone WILL be doing it.

Accordingly, any child properly raised will know the mores, morals, and values of his society. You say that one of the principle purposes of law is deterrence - do you mean to suggest that, without threat of governmental punishment, people everywhere would start running around stealing and raping and burning? I certainly hope your view on humanity isn't that dismal. No, most people follow the basic rules of social conduct because its in our nature to do so, and the subliminal threat of social ostracization (known as the emotion "guilt") is FAR more of a deterrent than any stated legal penalty.

Will a starving man, looking at an unattended loaf of bread, say "Gee, I shouldn't take that. I might get locked up"? Certainly not. (in fact, in this case, the "deterrent" could serve as encouragement - jail time means a bed and three square meals) Does a man, upon seeing his wife in bed with his best friend, stop to consider the personal ramifications before pulling the trigger? I would doubt it. Do 90+% of drivers on the road every day keep EXACTLY to the speed limit out of fear of getting pulled over? (remember, 5 MPH over is STILL breaking the law) No. And in many circumstances, adhering to the speed limit is MORE dangerous - woe to the car going 55 when everyone around them is going 70.

The only way that a law is a REAL deterrent is if the penalties are orders of magnitude worse than the crime. The starving man above wouldn't hesitate to take the loaf of bread if the only penalty is jail time - but he might if he was looking at having his hand severed. A casual file trader isn't going to think twice about swapping a few MP3s, unless he's looking at penalties in the thousands or millions. However, this is NOT Justice, because if enforced, the penalty is several magnitudes worse than the crime. And a slavish adherence to overreaching punishments will lead almost inexorably (and I'm talking historically, do the research) into a police state. There hits a point where the laws are seen as justification unto themselves (ie, "If it is illegal, it MUST be immoral,") and that's when personal freedoms start going away.

This is why laws and society clash. When a government starts making laws which run contrary to the general behavior of society - like attempting to enforce a 55 mph speed limit when, as traffic engineers will tell you, traffic will generally find the correct speed on its own - it starts to create stress and social fracturing. The primary purpose of laws is, and should be, to remove those that behave contrary to the general will of society FROM that society. Murderers, rapists, rampant theives, etc. And, on the LARGER scale, society should be left to sort itself out. The only question is exactly what balance to strike between societal freedom, and legal rules governing conduct.

The alternative is a downwards spiral of ever more laws, with ever more increasing penalties.

Amnesty program

[theophilus00]

As this drags on, I expect the RIAA to actually drag very few individuals through court. It's interesting that they've already announced their amnesty program... all you have to do is swear on your mother's grave that you'll never ever ever ever do anything horrible like file sharing again.

What this will accomplish is to scare off all those borderline-computer-literates who found a neat program called Kazaa and thought downloading music was fun. Most of these people have never even considered the legal ramifications of what they are doing. Simply being threatened a little, or sued and then "mercifully let off" will cause people who have no interest in the issues at stake to delete their kids' Kazaa clients to make sure that never happens again. These people will then go back to watching television and shaking their head over this whole Internet thing.

Since this same demographic probably buys 80% of popular music, the score will stand: RIAA 1, angry informed minority 0.

Evil RIAA Bastards -Stupidity Never Gets Unfunny

[gadlaw]

This looks like a bad job of research by the RIAA lawyers. You would think they would have confined themselves to unsympathetic looking guys with long hair, past criminal histories to include beating of their wives, drowning of kittens and possible ties to the KKK. NO, instead they find themselves a twelve year old girl in a single parent home. Personally I love it. I want to see more stupidity. I want the RIAA lawyer to come out and tell everyone a twelve year old girl is responsible for their 31 percent decrease in music sales. That decrease in sales has nothing to do with the overpriced crap they put out. I want him to say with a straight face that the 20 dollars for a Brittney Spears CD is worth the same as that 20 dollars I just paid for the Lord of the Rings Two Towers DVD. I want that lawyer to be on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and even the BBC telling us how this twelve year old needs to have her life ruined so that Justine Timeberlake can get another SUV. Please please, bring on more stupidity, I need to be entertained.

Wrong Venue

[The_Pey]

This shouldn't have been posted on Slashdot... It should have been posted on The Onion...

Re:In case of /.'ing

[carlos_benj]

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

I've worked with lots of 12 year olds. Being twelve doesn't prevent kids from breaking the law. The two are not linked.

Hopefully, though, the public will see this as an extremely heavy-handed approach and the backlash against the recording industry will cause the dinosaur to rethink its business model in today's electronic age. I mean, even $3,000.00 for the smallest settlements seems steep. But supposedly they're only going after the most prolific traders who have downloaded hundreds of albums or thousands of songs.....

Re:In case of /.'ing

[Jellybob]

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal,"

Huh? Isn't that a bit like holding up a bank, and then saying "It's not like we were doing anything illegal".

Copyright theft is illegal, you may not agree with that, but it illegal.

Re:Good direction for discourse....

[mnmn]

I suppose it is exactly the fact that they were paying $29.95 why she was sued. When you sign up for a subscription like that, you are offering your personal data as well. How else could they know it was Brianna and not her mother or brother downloading the files? They would just have to sue the head of the household or whoever signed up with the ISP.

So if you pay for songs online, theres a chance you might get sued. So RIAA is teaching us not to subscribe, use P2P software that makes it hard to track, exchange files with friends rather than strangers and keep files in an encrypted filesystem. All the while never enter personal data, and only then you can be among the millions who have NOT gotten sued yet.

At best, RIAA is portraying themselves as a wicked beauraucracy that must me opposed and fought. Most people I know do not bend and break under such kind of 'fear', and this will make P2P software more sophisticated, the listeners more determined.

Re:Says a lot

[I8TheWorm]

It's hard to blame a parent who might not even know how to do anything more than email, and yahoo.

I understand your point, but as a parent I have to know what my children are up to all the time. If they're on the pc, I need to know if they're chatting, with whom, what kind of information I'm giving out.

Obviously, that's not always possible i.e. they get home before I do. However, that's no excuse for me. I can't say "well, yes, I provided a pc, an internet connection, but I had no idea whatsoever what my kids were up to." That's like saying "Yes, I had cigarettes and whiskey in the house, but I had no idea my kids were getting into them and taking them to school." Either way, it's the responsibility of the parents.

Re:Set up?

[quantum bit]

I don't think any new laws were passed to enable the RIAA to file copyright infringement suits, and I don't think the majority of citizens download pirated software/music. Could you site a source, please?

Maybe not a "majority", but certainly enough to elect a president.

According to CNN:

Bush received 50,456,169 popular votes.
Gore received 50,996,116 popular votes.

According to yesterday's article in the Washing ton Post (reprinted by Yahoo):

About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services...

I think the winner is pretty clear.

Re:Set up?

[Zigg]

One could also quite convincingly argue that it is this girl's guardians' responsibility to find out what their charges are doing, and the illegality if any...

Re:In case of /.'ing

[cHiphead]

by having to pay for the program, whatever kazaa ripoff company she paid was in fact the one doing something illegal by alluding to the idea that the content on the service was legal. the parents were paying for the service including the content. its more akin to walking into a bank, already under the control of bank robbers who happen to be standing in the teller booth, making a legitimate withdrawl and not having the withdrawl taken out of your bank account.

Re:Says a lot - it sure does

[gosand]

Let's not miss the point. I don't think the RIAA knew she (or even that it was a 'she') was 12; it was sent to the household where the ISP account is registered.

And here I thought that lawsuits shouldn't be dropped out of airplanes like propaganda flyers. Hell, why don't they just send out notices to everyone they won't be suing, it would be less paperwork.

It may or may not have been this girl who downloaded the music, this point is moot. The parents are responsible as they most likely set up the account.

To the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars? That is some pretty big punishment if you ask me.

Yeah, I recognize this story as RID (My new term - Reactionary Incendiary Demonization) towards the RIAA, but if anyone ever deserved it, it was them. I'll bet the little girl has a wooden leg too.

Re:Good direction for discourse....

[Havokmon]

No, I just think shows how DUMB this girl and her family is. That $29.95 is a ONE-time fee for an ad-free version of Kazaa, not a monthly fee. Did they actually believe that paying $29.95 for a copy of a program meant that they can download all the copyrighted music they want?

Why not? You buy a stereo once, and get all the free music you want.

You think the average person is aware of business models behind the products and services they receieve on a daily basis?

The mother's quote at the end of the article is priceless. Of COURSE what they were doing is illegal. It's called copyright infringement. Is it theft? Hell no. But it's still illegal. I suspect the RIAA will quietly drop this case and move on to someone else who won't make them look so bad.

Everyone on this site knows it's copyright infringement. But the lines are blurred to the 'average joe'. IF you can listen and watch for free just by buying a radio/tv, why would the internet be any different? You get a FREE web browser with a computer, an have access to a lot of free information (like newspapers that you can just pick up and read at a bookstore/library), why would downloading music be viewed any differently?

It's also a matter of computer EDUCATION...

[Rinikusu]

Did anyone else read the article but me? That story can sum up everything that "geeks" get wrong about user interfaces and assumptions about "levels of knowledge" when it comes to computers. Let's look:

She's paying $29.95 for KaZaA service. Now, unless they paid for the application (didn't specify), maybe they were referring to their ISP service? Kinda like when users point at their computer and say "My modem".

Dig deeper (paraphrase):
"We just listen to the songs and then just let them go. We don't save them."

Obviously these folks do not realize that KaZaA saves the files to their harddrive and automatically "shares" them. They don't even know they still have the song! Not to mention that they probably download the song over and over if they want to hear it again. Don't laugh, I've seen my dad do that. He didn't know, literally, that just because he downloaded a song via napster that he still "had it" and had no idea on how to find it if he didn't use Napster to get to it.

I cringe at the thought that my own dad can't use a computer and has no inclination to learn. I've literally shown him a dozen-times how to open up windows explorer and browse through to find stuff, but he doesn't use his computer very often and by the time he wants to find something, he's forgotten again. It's not that he's stupid (to the contrary, he's a professional musician, a retired machinist, etc etc), it's just that computers are something he very rarely uses and he just doesn't have the dedication it requires to learn the basics.

But that's Joe Average User.

This little girl might know a bit about IM and kazaa and how to use Internet Explorer, but I doubt it goes much beyond that.

Yeah but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... did she run Linux?

Anyways: she's twelve, so she has her whole life left to devote to paying back the enormous damage she has caused.

No kidding.

[Lendrick]

If they sue her, then they'll have the PR nightmare of suing a poor 12-year-old girl living with a single mom.

If they drop the case, then all of the other people they're suing will (quite publicly) ask: "How come it's okay if a 12-year-old does it, but not if I do?" Because really, if it's unjust to do it to a 12-year-old girl, it's unjust to do it to anyone. Little girls just catch the public eye more because they're sympathetic characters.

It's a lose-lose situation for the RIAA. I love it. :)

Re:No kidding.

[Gonarat]

In this case, the mother paid $30 to allow her daughter to download music on kazaa.

This may be enough to give the Mother an out. If she can convince the court/jury in a civil trial that she paid her $30 to Kazaa in good faith for the product/service, expecting that she and her daughter could use it, then she should be able to beat the RIAA. Many everyday Joes and Janes do not have any concept what current copyright law really is, so I can see where if she paid her money, she would expect to be able to use the software. Hopefully someone will work the case pro bono for her since this would be a good case to fight.

The RIAA has and continues to make a mess of things for itself and everyone else. If they would have just taken advantage of music downloading back in the Napster days instead of acting like a bunch of Fat Ass Morons, then everyone could have been happy. Now instead of profiting, they continue to pi$$ off their current, former, and potential customers. The quicker the RIAA dies, the better off music will be.

Re:Set up?

[Elbow Macaroni]

Yeah right and the Nazi's were okay too? I don't care about downloaded music, I think the RIAA are morons. But it isn't really "right" to download the music now is it? Downloading music for free is stealing. The artists who created the music will have no incentive to keep creating music if they know everyone is just going to steal from them.

Re:Set up?

[LiquidCoooled]

If a person unknowingly purchases what later turns out to be a stolen item, the goods will simply be returned to the owner, and the original crook will be targetted.

This is NOT the same as purchasing a legitimate item, and then misusing it.

Re:Good direction for discourse....

[casio282]

I can't believe you're accusing Fox News and the NY Post, two of the most conservative news sources around (and both owned by Rupert Murdoch), of spinning anything to the left. You've got to be out of your mind.

The NY Post may often be guilty of sensationalizing a story, and playing up the human interest bits, but no one has *ever* accused them of being anything but a reactionary right-wing rag, at least since Murdoch took over...

Light at the end of the tunnel?

[tarnin]

While this in and of itself is horrible, so is them going out and blanket suing people. Maybe this will make the law makers finally wake up and realize that give an origanization like the RIAA the power to do this is not as good as they thought. I don't even think that the RIAA's deep pockets can fix this mess.

Maybe, just maybe this is the begining of the end for this type of behavior. One can only hope.

Re:Never sue poor people

[Dolly_Llama]

The idea of suing poor people, in general is not to win large settlements, but to win a decision which will set a precedent to allow you to get the fatcats more easily. Poor folks can't afford good lawyers who can put up a fight.

Re:From the articel

[Zed2K]

Wrong. As far as I know the law does not say that you cannot download music from kazaa. It says you can't steal a cd from walmart but if it were as cut and dry as that then there wouldn't be so many questions and debates over it.

The RIAA says its illegal, but they aren't the court. SCO says you are illegal if you don't buy a linux license from them but we all know thats BS. But they say it isn't.

So lets just wait till the lawsuits hit the courts shall we.

Re:Hehe, spoke

[Fishstick]

> the studio execs try to work out how the *hell* they are supposed to spin this.

Apparently this is the best they can do:

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.

Poor them! Their hand was forced -- nobody likes being an asshole, but you have to do what is "appropriate" when someone is doing you wrong.

Apparently, this includes scaring the shit out of a 12-year-old honor's student who lives in public housing.

"We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

Hey, when you're blindly suing hundreds of people, who has time to check into anything? Poor RIAA!

Re:Set up?

[michaeltoe]

Human beings have been producing music since before the dawn of agriculture... while capitalist 'incentive' sure does generate a lot of boy bands and pop idols, I don't think music would die out when it's gone.

Re:Set up?

[michaeltoe]

Oh lighten up... the point is obvious; a hell of a lot of people use file sharing services.

Re:Set up?

[AftanGustur]

One could also quite convincingly argue that it is this girl's guardians' responsibility to find out what their charges are doing, and the illegality if any...

Quite the opposite, an activity so common that it is even practiced by 12 year olds, shouldn't be considered a cause for lawsuit.

It's clear that there is something rotten about this law..

Shouldn't target RIAA

[Tristfardd]

It would be more effective if people and newspapers stopped saying "RIAA sued a 12 year old girl" and instead said something like "Sony and other labels through the RIAA sued a 12 year old girl". Currently the use of the term RIAA allows the labels to keep themselves at a distance from most people's perception. The general public doesn't equate the two. The labels would hate to get bad press directly.

Re:Shouldn't target RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. It's utter cowardice that multinationals like Sony and Unviversal hide behind the RIAA. People should be informed who pays the RIAA's wages and pulls their strings...

What also strikes me is the utter hypocrasy of companies like Sony. If they are so against file sharing/piracy etc why do they promote and sell products such as CD/DVD writers, mp3 players, netMiniDiscs etc..?

Riiight

[tkrotchko]

"One could also quite convincingly argue that it is this girl's guardians' responsibility to find out what their charges are doing, and the illegality if any."

I want to see you argue that in front of a jury of parents.

I double-dare you, in fact.

Re:Exactly.

[e2d2]

If the piracy continues the recording industry may we wiped out, then would would all those poor executives do

Probably sell their ivory back scratchers and go live in City Housing Authority apartments.

Re:Old enough to bleed...

[quantum bit]

how fast could there connection be??? if they truely are on subsidized housing then they are most likely using dial-up. maybe they didn't notice kazaa's icon in the start bar, but how much could they truely share on dial-up versus the tens of thousands of college kids on T1 connections?

If they had 1000 files on a dial-up connection they would still be sharing 1000 files, just not very effectively. I'll bet the RIAA's bots just get the list of files and don't actually try to download them.

Re:Set up?

[kgarcia]

Downloading music for free is stealing. The artists who created the music will have no incentive to keep creating music if they know everyone is just going to steal from them.

There is some truth to this. However, big players like clearchannel have traditionally accepted payola from the RIAA to boost a particular's artist play time. In fact, we are at a time when most songs don't get airtime UNLESS riaa pays for them. You could almost say that File sharing services are a modern form of radio (and thus, free advertising). However, this is a control issue. The RIAA can't determine (in advance) which artist get "top downloads", therefore, they sue...

there was a point there somewhere

Re:Exactly.

[hattig]

The RIAA keep portraying it as "theft", "stealing", etc... but it is actually only a copyright breach. Yeah, it is illegal, but supply and demand (high demand for music, one supply is overpriced and the prices are fixed by a massive cartel, another is free but at lower quality) mean that as long as the prices of CDs are high, people will go elsewhere for music.

In many people's cases, file sharing allows them to find new music, which they will then buy IF they can even find it in the shops. Most people like to be legal and own the real thing, whatever the IRA, sorry RIAA, say.

Fact is, most illegal music downloads are made by those without the money to buy it anyway at the current prices (no loss to RIAA), such as students and impoverished people. We were promised cheaper CDs at the launch, but the price has only gone up even as the cost of making them has dropped massively. I'd imagine that a $10 store price would be much more amenable that a $16, or even $12 (for UK: 8 vs 14). I'd buy a lot more music if the price was reasonable.

Music is no longer a luxury. It is a commodity. It should be priced as such. People want to buy more music for less, not buy a few bits of music.

Also, a lot of the teenage music sales drop is due to the teenagers spending their money on mobile phones and ringtones. They only have a bit of money to spend, and the current trend is NOT music.

Deal with, RIAA. You don't control the market, the market controls you. Hmmm, should that be: "In Soviet Russia ... " :)

The RIAA is like the ferry boat owner complaining about the new bridge.

Re:Set up?

[bahamat]

I was talking about the DMCA. According to the Federal Home Recording act of 1992, all activity done under P2P sharing services would be deemed legal. The FHRA was enacted to lift the burden of mass copying that had occured over the past 20 years as tapes became more popular because gradually, virtually everyone in the US became a criminal by recording a song off the air, recording a concert, copying a tape from a friend, etc. Congress knew calling all of your constituents a bunch of dirty thieves doesn't help you get re-elected. Well, according to the DMCA we're all a bunch of dirty thieves again. Ho hum.

IMHO, the DMCA is a bit like prohibition. Once it was enacted and the entire alcohol industry moved underground and nothing else changed. Congress later realized fighting it was stupid and a waste of time and repealed it.
File sharing has moved from the once semi-legit but mainstream napster to the semi-underground anonymity of gnutella and kazaa. Continuing the witch hunt will only drive people onto FreeNet, where they'll be virtually impossible to catch. The more they dig, the deeper underground it'll go. They can never win.

I'm not condoning any of this, just a prediction of how things will go over the next few years.

Re:Set up?

[fbjon]

The artists who created the music will have no incentive to keep creating music if they know everyone is just going to steal from them.

Hum, actually, I'd say that the incentive for creating music is just that for most musicians, creating music. If not, well, I don't really care for mass-produced semi-musicians. What is being endangered is the ability to make a living on making music, not the act of making music.

Unformtunately, it is the law

[EtherBoo]

This may be a little redundant, but it is the law. The article said the girl is an honor student, she should of read the EULA which informs her she is purchasing the rights to use KaZaA, not download the music or whatever else she looks for, it is there in black and white. The RIAA's lawsuits aren't anything new and have been going on for a while now, I'm sure her or her parents have heard something about the lawsuites, so it's thier own ignorance that caused this.

I've gotten a few hard to find tracks here and there from KaZaA, but the minute I heard of the lawsuites, I got rid of KaZaA. I don't agree with the RIAA, but I can't criticize them for taking the legal action that they have the right to take. If you had a business, and you felt someone was stealing from you, wouldn't you take legal action? It is unfortunate that it has come to suing a 12 year old girl from the projects who can afford a 30 dollar fee for the service, but I can't side with someone because they got in trouble for thier own ignorance. The RIAA is trying to make an example. They've tried suing old men, and hundreds of other people, maybe people will wake up and realize what they're doing isn't legal, even if it takes a 12 year old girl to prove it

Thats all, troll me if you must.

Re:Set up?

[John Miles]

but I'm not crying unfair law when I get pulled over.

You should be. Traffic engineers will tell you that the speed at or below which 85 percent of the public is travelling is actually the safest for a given road. Politicians and crooked police departments will tell you something very different, though, because while "majority rules" may be the safest way to set speed limits, it certainly isn't the most profitable.

Apart from that off-topic rant, the original poster does have a very good point: when the laws do not reflect the values of the populace, respect for the law in general is endangered. The DMCA is teaching today's kids the same lesson that the old Federally-mandated 55 MPH national speed limit taught me when I was a teenager: that lawmakers in this country have their heads up their asses.

Re:Set up?

[JonathanBoyd]

In that case, someone's freedom is being unreasonably restricted. In this case, no-one's is. You are free to buy an album. You just aren't free to 'buy' it at the price you chose. That's not unreasonable. You don't need music. You have no right to music. It's a luxury that you should have to pay for if people want to charge for it.

Re:Set up?

[Merk]

I hope you manage to find a way. Teaching your kid that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong is a very important lesson. If people hadn't realized that we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, etc.

If you're still having trouble explaining it to the kid, maybe use this as an example: "Jimmy, you know how it's bad to push someone, most of the time? Well, if you see that somebody is about to be run over it is a good idea to push them out of the way. Laws are like that too. Most of the time they're good, but sometimes they're bad. Until you know the difference, it's probably better to think of them all as being good, but when you grow up you'll realize that sometimes they're bad."

This is a good plan.

[dr_eaerth]

Heheh, this girl will have her income garnished for the rest of her life. The RIAA has gained a lifetime slave. I predict further targeting of children. Waiting for them to reach college age is inefficient, because the RIAA misses out on all those wages from summer jobs, paper routes, and Christmas gifts from grandparents.

The RIAA really is taking its cues from Zappa's JOE'S GARAGE.

Re:Set up?

[untaken_name]

What about speeding then? I am going to go out on a limb and say that based on my 15 years of driving experience that a majority of drivers speed. Now I think that speed limits are too low and that some small towns use speed traps as a significant source of income but I'm not crying unfair law when I get pulled over.

You should be. Speeding is an unenforceable law that doesn't add anything to actual safety. (Obviously it can be selectively enforced. However, it is 'unenforceable' in that most infractions are not punished, and most violators have no reasonable expectation of being punished.) There is already a law stating that you must (as a driver) control your speed, and failure to do so (based on if you cause an accident, not an arbitrary 'speed limit') results in tickets, fines, and possibly civil suits against you. Speeding laws are unfair laws. As you yourself pointed out, it seems that a majority of drivers do not follow the 'speed limit', so what good does it do? Also, no driver has a reasonable expectation of being caught on any given infraction. Laws which are not uniformly enforced are unfair. Laws which CANNOT be uniformly enforced are unfair and stupid.

Personal Information

[PaladinBLZ]

Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

Before you can issue a subpoena or sue someone don't you have to know who they are first? If they already had the child's name, couldn't they have found out other basic information. At the very least, her age, residence, etc...

Otherwise, couldn't RIAA mistakenly sue someone for filesharing, by not having all of the necessary information or the individual they plan to prosecute?

Lack of RESPECT for copyright

[DickBreath]

I have had this argument two different times in the last week.

Some people on slashdot point out that copyright infringement is against the law and that file sharers are the problem.

In my two above linked past postings, I argue that file sharing is merely a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that nobody respects copyright anymore. And it is only going to get worse.

If copyright holders want some respect, they need to act in a fashion deserving of such respect. Let's see. We have

• way overpriced music -- especially compared to movies -- how many hundred million $ goes into a DVD vs. a CD?
• the DMCA
• The whole DeCSS fiasco
• digital rights management -- despite the sillyness of such a concept unless you take it to its logical conclusion, but in that case I would say, substitute "sillyness" for "draconian" or "orwellian".
• The RIAA tried to sue Diamond Rio for simply seilling an mp3 player.
• RIAA companies being found guilty and penalized for overcharging and anti competitive practices.
• copyright term extensions -- the fact that nothing is likely to ever fall into the public domain. "Happy Birthday To You"
• Jack Valenti suggesting to congress that the "limited time" of copyright could be extended to "foverever minus a day".
• DVD region encoding, even on very old movies -- while arguing that the purpose of regions has only to do with new releases. (Can you say hypocracy?)
• RIAA trying to kill small webcasters -- by structuring deals so that they can't pay a fair price
• Clear Channel

I just don't care about copyright. Sort of like prohibition. If the copyright holders, like the government, want respect, then they need to set a better example.

What is the purpose of copyright? When does anything ever fall into the public domain?

In my above linked posts I argue that...

• It is not that people don't understand that what they are doing is illegal, it's that they don't care. There is no respect for copyright or copyright law.
• Someone argued that the RIAA will put fear into them and that this would fix the problem. The problem is not lack of fear, it is lack of respect. The RIAA may generate more fear, but they will at the same time get even less respect.
• The only way the problem will really get fixed is to fix the broken copyright (and patent) system.
• The RIAA is fighting a losing battle. They are guaranteed to lose. (We now have alcohol to drink, and a 70 MPH speed limit on roads where it matters.)
• Someone pointed out that slashdot is full of knee jerk paranoia. I responded to that in one of my above linked posts with a long list of the abuses that justify such paranoia. They ARE out to get us.

The latest efforts seem to be that even mere compilations of facts should be able to be copyrighted.

Re:Click bang !!

[Kombat]

While that would certainly make for an entertaining news tidbit, you won't see it. Why? Because billionaires generally don't need to steal (oops, sorry, "take without paying for") their music. When you've got a billion dollars, you don't care about dropping $15 for the new N'Sync album (or heck, just calling them up and inviting them to perform at your bar-b-que).

Kids know 'net better than parents

[RobertB-DC]

Next stage is that the parents say "shit", we're in trouble, let's contact the papers and try to get out of this mess by way of our 12-year old daughter.

Plausible, but based on my experience with 12-year-old daughters, not likely.

With the current state of technology, it's really not that difficult to install "stuff" on a PC, if you're interested in doing it. That "if" is the difference -- her parents probably aren't interested, and therefore have no clue. The kid (and her friends) are very interested, and IM even gives them a free tech support network. So she's able to install whatever she wants. If it costs, she just bugs Mommy, who comes over to the PC just long enough to type in that magic 16-digit number.

On the other hand, she still has no clue what she's actually done to her PC. She clicks, she gets music. As a poster in another thread noted, she's probably downloading songz without realizing that Kazaa is saving them on her PC -- and to her, "peer to peer" means chatting with friends at lunch.

If I weren't a geek myself (I'm on Slashdot, after all), I'd probably have no clue what my daughter does online. Which means that 99% of her friends are basically surfing on their own.

Leave the poor girl alone I say

[SpiritedAway]

What the 12-year old's mother should do is sue Sharman Networks (KaZaa) for conspiracy (inciting attempts to break the law - they PAID for kazaa while Kazaa AFAIK has no safeguards).

Also, how could you expect a single parent to monitor all their childs activities while they are out working to pay all the expenses.

Even so, sending the single parent to jail is more wrong than copying a few songs and not knowing what you were doing was illegal because you paid for it.

If Kazaa was causing so much grief for the RIAA/MPAA, why not sue the makers of KaZaa (Sharman Networks). It happened with Napster, and other P2P networks.

Re:Set up?

[ichimunki]

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote this Letter from a Birmingham Jail which talks about when breaking some laws is OK.

The question for file-sharers is: at what point does sharing become a valid act of civil disobedience. For the most part, it is clear that we are not there. While I strongly believe that sharing songs, stories, ideas, and information is a natural human right (essentially the right to free speech and the right to use one's own property as one sees fit), I am not sure that sharing 1000s of copies of the latest top 40 hits really makes this point.

Personally I don't like your characterization of file sharing as "stealing". Indeed, the penalties for shoplifting a CD are lesser than those for sharing the information contained on the CD! But while the former directly deprives the store of an actual scarce good (the physical CD), the latter does not (i.e. the record company still "owns" the music and can make all the copies they like).

But as long as there are legal alternatives such as buying non-RIAA-member-produced music, you have the right approach: support alternatives. It is only in an unlikely, but perfectly possible (using "trusted computing" combined with heavy-handed DRM) future that file sharing could become an act of civil disobedience. The requirement would be that it was literally impossible for an individual or non-affiliated entity (e.g. independent record labels) to produce and distribute music, movies, stories, etc etc. However, if that does happen it is still a long way off-- and smart people will support alternatives now, so that such a future will never come about.

Social mis-engineering

[sterno]

This may very well be an attempt at social engineering but it's backfiring miserably. As if we didn't need more evidence that the RIAA was a bunch of greedy jackbooted thugs, they now go out and sue people who are about as far from being pirates as you get.

The DVD-CCA lawsuits is, unfortunately, an example of how you do this sort of thing the right way. You go after people who look direptuable. Why sue the New York Times when you can sue 2600? Suing a 12 year old girl living in public housing and a 71 year old grandfather is just prooving the point that they are thugs.

This is the sort of thing that could finally stir the masses to make intellectual property an issue that the masses will consider. If they think, "it could be my child next", it's much more likely they are going to bug their congressman about it. This could ultimately lead to legalization of file sharing networks.

Re:Social mis-engineering

[HiThere]

There is no end result. There's only an effect at some point in time.

But I really can't predict the result of this thing. Most kids will ignore it. Because kids only notice things that are quite local. Many people will become even more embittered against "the man". Police may find their jobs more dangerous, even when approaching people that they believe innocent. ("Who knows what evil dwells in the hearts of men?" etc.)

If there are really that huge number of people sharing illegal music, then probably any local community that decides to "get tough" will end up in a war with it's citizenry. Even more than they already are. And it may not just be the poorer element that is violently opposed to them this time. (Or they may again go for selective enforcement.)

I can only see two possible beneficial outcomes:
1) the RIAA may disintegrate (mass boycott? assassinations? some other reason?)
2) the DMCA may be overthrown.
Both of these seem rather remote chances.

But the Record Industry Needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow taking money from a 12 year old girl to give it to some Rap star to buy another gold neck chain is enough to make me never buy another CD again.

Re:Click bang !!

[elmegil]

You think people downloading music are doing it becaues they "need" to?

Try again.

Re:Set up?

[Alsee]

has given up their right to privacy

Nonsense. Even someone who commits murder has not given up any rights. Rights may only be abriged through due process. The DMCA claims to abridge theses rights without providing proper due process. This is yet another unconstitutional clause of the DMCA. Unconstitutional law is not in fact law, it is null and void. The issue has simply not been brought before the supreme court yet.

I am not familiar enough with the NET act to comment on it, but I don't see the relevance in what you stated above to copyright infringement.

Traditional copyright law was never intened to criminalize individuals in non-commercial activities. It was created to provide lawsuits that seize ill-gotten profits from those who exploit a work and to redirect those profits to the copyright holder. Traditional copyright law is exceedingly effective in accomplishing this task. Traditional copyright law is effective in giving people an insentive to create.

Todays story is a perfect example of how copyright law becomes a disaster when it it improperly stretched beyond it's designed purpose. Copyright law is not supposed to smash little girls sitting at home. It is not supposed to make FELONS out of some sixty million ordinary Americans.

Copyright law is supposed to seize ill-gotten profits and turn them over to the copyright holder. This 12 year old girl in a city housing project has no "ill gotten profits".

-

Culture! Think about the culture.

[Bendebecker]

What worries me about this whole RIAA-sueing-everyone-on-earth thing is the effect it is having on our culture. When people have to spend money just to get what in every other century was freely provided, one has to wonder what the effect will be. Will the poor not have music in their lives? Will the young no longer be inspired by great stories simply becuase they can't pay the publisher his outrageous dues? Will the average man on the street have to be worried about the song he hums to himself on the street for fear of being sued? Perhaps the furure of music isn't on cd's at all, perhaps it is the street musician. Maybe, in 100 years when they look back on this time, they'll discuss the rise from the streets of the great musicans and the RIAA and all its assembly-line produced music will only be a footnote.

Law = collective prejudices of society

[panurge]

Some people seem to forget that in any half way democratic society, law is to a certain extent the codified prejudices of that society. IANAL but lawyers go a long way back in my background, and I think this is a fair restatement of their views.

If a sufficiently large number of people - more than it takes to elect a president, say - do not understand a law or its basis to the extent that they regularly break it, eventually it falls into desuetude. That's why Prohibition ended: it was unenforceable. Equally, if enough people decide that certain people shall not be rewarded for certain activities, that business plan is doomed. (and vice versa, of course, hence the fruits of the cult of celebrity.) In the UK, you cannot legally make money selling handguns to people. In the US you can. I do not believe there is any absolute moral standard for this difference: it reflects different views of different societies. If the RIAA pushes things to the point that a lot of people turn round and say, in effect "We didn't understand that was what copyright meant. Now we do, and it sucks", then ultimately that business model will fall.

Perhaps successful musicians will only be rewarded for live performances. Perhaps music will only be sold in conjunction with some other service, as has been suggested by the guy who thought the telecoms companies should buy up the studios. Just as a record company can lay off an exec because of a downturn, incompetence or whatever, we the people can decide to lay off an industry. When we started to travel by air, the railways could not impose a tax on air travelers to recover their lost revenue. But the airlines were certainly taking away the railways' monopoly on long distance intracontinental travel.

I think one thing that obsesses some people here is the idea that the most sacred thing there is, is property, and that anything which apparently removes my property is theft. (Strangely, many of them will claim to belong to a religion whose founder was extremely anti-property, but I leave that one for the psychoanalysts.) Yet things are constantly encroaching on my property. It gets old, it wears out, it falls out of fashion, and one day I will die and it will cease to be mine in any very meaningful sense. Somehow, the suits in the RIAA need to realise that they need to adapt to society, rather than the other way round. But they won't...they are actually frightened, and behaving like frightened men in a position of power.

What needs to be done is:

[master_p]

1) Educate the family of copyright issues and illegal software/data

2) Give them one more chance. If they blow it, fine them. Don't send them to prison.

3) Publicize the case as much as possible. Yes, social engineering is the reason.

If you ever made something and seen it pirated across the neighbourhood, you would know how much it hurts. It's the same about an artist that worked hard to produce a song.

The problem though isn't that the artist isn't right. The problem is music companies rip us off. Virgin Music decided to lower the price of music CDs by 2 euros(there is a story at www.theregister.co.uk). So what ? from each CD sold, after the productions cost are met, 99% of the CD value is NET profit. The CD costs a few pennies to make.

So, the problem isn't that of piracy, it is that of prices. We shouldn't let rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. In the US alone, 5% of the population owns 80% of the world's wealth. That's ridiculus. They are after a little girl and her family...they won't to milk every last penny out of us...let's not give them excuses for doing so!!!

Poor? Oh really?

[JonTurner]

>>they'll have the PR nightmare of suing a poor 12-year-old girl living with a single mom.

If they're so poor as to be living in welfare housing, why do they have a COMPUTER and INTERNET ACCESS? Or are we giving that away with the free food/shelter/check these days, too?

Just wondering. I'd hope that if someone were that broke, they'd focus their priorities (read: "budget") a little better.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[fleener]

For many, Internet access is like any other utility - water, garbage, electricity. It's not hard to scrape together a computer for $200, or obtain one free from various charities. It's also not hard for a 12-year-old to get a job that pays $20 a month for Internet access.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[Computer!]

If they're so poor as to be living in welfare housing, why do they have a COMPUTER and INTERNET ACCESS?

A high-speed internet connection is a $30/mo investment in your childrens' education. Her priorities are right on track.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[revxul]

/* Just wondering. I'd hope that if someone were that broke, they'd focus their priorities (read: "budget") a little better. */

Through places like PeoplePC you can get a shitty little economy winbox and some dial-up internet access for pretty low monthly rates. though this is just assuming (ass, u, me; the whole deal) I'd imagine the mother's reasoning was validated that the computer could be a big help with her daughter's homework and schooling. 'then why was she just sitting around downloading music all day?' the school year is just beginning, she's probably up on downloads that occurred through the summer.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[StevenMaurer]

You're absolutely right. This poor single mom and her kid should not only have no internet access, she shouldn't have water or electricity either. That way taxpayers can save an average of a ten thousandth of a cent.

My goodness, do you realize what this twelve year old is probably going to be doing when she grows up? She'll be in some high paying technical job paying taxes, instead of being a crack whore - depriving pimpz like you the steady supply of fresh meat you need to keep your business running.

If the government continues to misuse their budget supporting such socalism as this, you may very well go out of business. It just shows once again, how average Americans like you are being hurt by the anti-business sentiment in this country. You certainly have every right to complain. As do drug dealers like tobacco companies.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

Silly argument. Recently I found myself out of work, and rather poor. I drastically cut back on my food intake, expenditures of almost any sort, but I kept my ADSL.

Good thing I did too. After months of old-fashioned jobseeking failed to turn up any leads, a contact on the 'net found me a job doing PHP for a local startup.

If you want people to make something of themselves and stop being a drain on the system, they have to have the resources to educate themselves, and to find employment.

A computer is a much better investment for a low-income family than cable TV or console game systems (which both seem much more acceptable by most people's standards).

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

If they're so poor as to be living in welfare housing, why do they have a COMPUTER and INTERNET ACCESS? Or are we giving that away with the free food/shelter/check these days, too?
Just wondering. I'd hope that if someone were that broke, they'd focus their priorities (read: "budget") a little better.

How do you know the machine wasn't a gift from a wealthy relative or a hand-me-down from a friend? Also, many apartment complexes offer built-in internet access these days. How do you know they don't live in one? Section 8 housing is in all sorts of unexpected places these days, now that the government got smart and stopped putting 1000 low-income people in one building, but rather one or two in 500 buildings. My complex offers free internet access, and also have section 8 units. Crab crab all you want, but a computer as a tool is no more an extravegance than a screwdriver or power-drill. After all, shouldn't the mom be able to create a resume to get a job with?

To put it another way, your assumption that all the people using computers are wealthy is quite erroneous.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[immanis]

By most standards, I am doing ok. I don't live in a box. I work for a fairly large software company. I have all my limbs, healthcare, and food for me, my son, my fiancee and my pets.

We live in a midsize yuppie town. My son attends, for all intents, a poorish school. About half the students do not speak english as their first language.

Most of their parents live in considerably worse conditions, have to work long hours for little pay at unskilled jobs. In other words, they're pretty poor.

I work at the school on request to help with their computer problems. Through a small network of connections, I am beginning to work to get computers and net access into these homes, as hardware becomes available to me.

Someone mentioned PeoplePC. There was a time when PeoplePC had a companion program - PeopleGive - where computers and access were given to low income families.

So the answer to your somewhat abrasive question is, no. "We" aren't giving away computers and net access. But apparently, some of "Us" are. You can call me whatever you like, be it communist, socalist, ignorant, naive or just plain stupid. But for some reason, I have to think that opening up the net to kids who might not otherwise be able to get to it is somehow better than using old computer hardware to fill otherwise empty and usable space in my garage.

Anyone who sees why this might be a good idea and who might want to contribute, mail me. If you don't see the merit, then move on. I'd rather see some kid using hardware I hadn't powered up in months to access the net than watch it gather dust.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[TheSync]

Keep in mind that what we consider "poor" has changed over the years. In 1950, half of the households in the US did not have indoor plumbing. Today, even many of the poorest in the US have refrigerators, indoor plumbing, at least one television, a microwave oven, and increasingly, a computer (though often used).

Looking at Ebay, I see a Compaq Deskpro Pentium II/P2 350MHz 6.4GB which is fine for Net surfing and playing simple games. The price: $35.

Compared with rent of $500-$1000 per month in US urban areas, computers are no longer a "luxury," even for people living near the poverty line.

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[good soldier svejk]

If they're so poor as to be living in welfare housing, why do they have a COMPUTER and INTERNET ACCESS? Or are we giving that away with the free food/shelter/check these days, too?

Just last night I saw on the news that the latest numbers say a person must make $27.50 per hour to afford a two bedroom apartment in Boston. That does not account for dependents. It is hardly unfathomable that a woman with two children would need, and qualify for, housing assistance and then be able to afford internet access. Granted, rents aren't quite as bad in New York as they are here, but I don't think they are exactly cheap. Also, I suspect NY has better subsidized housing availability. Not surprisingly, we have a serious crisis up here.

Remember, for the bottom half of wage earners, wages have fallen significantly since the late seventies. For the bottom tenth, real dollar incomes dropped 16% between 1979 and 1989. And they only rose 1.6% in the "boom" nineties. Rents, OTOH, have shot through the roof in recent years. And as I'm sure you have noticed computers and internet access have dropped quite a bit in real dollar price since 1979. Bottom line, there are a lot more people who can't afford an apartment but can afford a computer with internet access.

Re:Set up?

[allism]

There's no way to justify that stealing something is OK just because it's from a big bad company, sorry. Just because something is widespread doesn't make it morally right.

Re:In case of /.'ing

[JeffTL]

Nope, they're actually suing a 12-year-old, which would mean that POSSIBLY the suit is null and void, and another one needs to be filed.

Re:Click bang !!

[Kombat]

You think people downloading music are doing it becaues they "need" to?

You think people who have amassed the financial resources to confront the RIAA have time to sit around and download music? Try again.

Re:Message from Madonna?

[Kjella]

1. I wonder if this 12 year old got the "What the F*ck do you think you're doing" message from Madonna?

My god, explicit lyrics? Ok, maybe better than all the kiddie porn RIAA claims she'd find instead. Doh.

2. How is it that a single mom with 2 kids in city housing can afford $30 just to avoid seeing advertising while stealing music?

Compared to the cost of buying CDs? Even the "poor" can find $30, if it keeps them from paying for CDs. Particularly if they by some misdirecting marketing thought it was now legal to download what they want.

3. If the RIAA are in fact only going for the flagrant downloaders - people sharing thousands of songs - then that would mean that A) They must have broadbank and B) They must have a good sized hard drive - See #2 above.

All depends. I was swapping CDs with my friends, and had well over a thousand before I got broadband. As for B), how much does 1000 mp3 take? 5Gb tops. And unless you've been paying attention, every new PC sold recently has way way more than that, personally I got 220gb (of HDD space, not mp3s).

4. Anyone who lets a 12 year old use the Internet, especially Kazaa, unsupervised, should be investigated for child endangerment. And if she was supervising her daughter 100% of the time, then she's the one they should be going after.

Take a poll, see how many parents in the US you'd have to jail. My guess is, you can save yourself the trouble by building prison walls on the borders of Canada and Mexico...

Kjella

Well,

[tkrotchko]

That's the point, isn't it?

Since much of the adult world is comprised of parents, getting in front of a jury of parents is going to be a tough sell.

Combined with the idea that all she was doing was listening to music, I think at best its a long shot.

The name of "Briana"? Simply icing on the cake. Living in public housing, honor student... I'd like to be their lawyer, and I don't practice law. I could win that case.

The RIAA will probably back out of this by the end of the day.

Times change

[pjt48108]

I know these thoughts will entertain some and enrage others, but I will post them anyhow.

The fact that a 12-year old girl in 'government housing' is being sued seems to indicate that the file-sharing issue is not an 18-24 age group issue. It is apparant to me that people of ALL ages are sharing files, some of which are music.

I had an argument with a friend of mine recently. He lives in LA, and is, like EVERYONE there, it would seem, affiliated loosely with the entertainment industry. His stance was that the artists are working and ought to be paid. If not for the RIAA, their music wouldn't get distribution. To make money, they require distribution, and the RIAA is the only one in town through whom they can find it.

My perspective, being in Michigan, unaffiliated with the music business, experienced with technology and trained in the performing arts (theatre degree--marketable as galoshes in the Mojave), is vastly different. I understand that artists, like everyone, are working for pay. However, the advance of technology has been marginalizing the RIAA/record producers for some time now. I believe that technology has come to the point where artists, assuming they are enterprising and not lazy asses, can entirely circumvent the recording houses. Sure, they might not have instant distribution, but AFAI am concerned, when they take it upon themselves to market themselves and what art they have produced, any success is well-earned and not as likely to crumble or fade, as would an artificial creation of the industry (Menudo, Brittney, Tiffany, etc.). Additionally, since they chart their own course, they are free to take whatever artistic tangent they care to explore. In my opinion, the RIAA stifles artistic expression in all but the few artists whom they have contracted whilst on cocaine binges, and who would sign anything to get more blow.

I can't really elaborate any better, seeing as my boss is sure to see me typing madly on non-company business. But, in short, I believe that the RIAA, etc., are close to joining the buggy whip industry: their raison d'etre is about to expire, thanks to technological advances, and their realization of this threat of extinction is evidenced by their willingness to blindly sue a 12-year old, financially disenfranchised girl. When a corporation feels it must go after kids to get its pound of flesh, I believe that its social contract to provide whatever useful services to society has effectively expired or must be revoked.

Re:Click bang !!

[zapp]

This won't happen because:
* Downloading copyrighted material IS illegal, and I doubt you'll catch any higher ups doing it

* Higher ups tend to have more money to spend. I personally HATE trying to get a full album off kazaa and would rather go buy it (though I also HATE supporting the recording studios, so I end up with no albums :))

* Higher ups probably don't have the knowledge to get on a P2P network, or don't care enough, see #2.

Re:Set up?

[allism]

So if I photocopy a book in its entirety and start giving out copies, does that make it OK? At what point do we protect the rights of the producer of a good to make sure they are able to make a living off of it?

I know this point of view is unpopular here - but I don't believe in granting rights to people based on the amount of money they have, whether they have very little money or a ton of money and are looking to rake in more.

Re:Click bang !!

[Kombat]

I think you're missing the point. Imagine you're living in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion with 2 butlers, a cook, and a 26 year old supermodel wife. You come home from the office around 8:00 PM driving your Porsche 911 Turbo, pull into your 8-car garage and park between the Beamer and the Caddy, then sit down to a nice meal. After supper, you've got a teleconference in the study with the board members and 3 VC investors looking for an explanation of a recent dip in share value. You want to wrap up the meeting quickly, because you and your lovely wife are leaving on a chartered flight for a 5-day vacation in Italy to see her family.

Now, at exactly what f***ing point do you think Joe Billionaire is going to sit down and search Kazaa for the latest Madonna tripe? What in the hell makes you think he just doesn't hand his son a fistful of hundreds and ask him to pick up the CD the next time he's in town (along with a few for himself, of course)?

What She Is Really Saying.

[lysium]

Comeon, you sound as if you live in the metro area.
For someone living in the projects, mostly likely in one of NYC's ghettos, what is the definition of "illegal?"? Would it be "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works" or would it be drug dealing, stealing, fighting, prostitution, and stuff like that? You know, the stuff that the other kids/young adults/old addicts do outside her apartment building every day?

Their (the Torres') perception of the situation is a pretty good example of what most of the population believes about file sharing. It's about as much of a crime as jaywalking. Yes, any street cop can give a ticket for jaywalking, but only if he's a complete loser. Same principle applies here.

========

Re:Click bang !!

[elmegil]

The billionaire that you describe is certainly unlikely. Except the problem is, he may have children who have plenty of spare time. If we go back a few years to the dotcom boom, there were some billionaires that I doubt would fit your stereotype either, though obviously they no longer apply. The fact is, billionaires are individuals like everyone else, and who's to say that none of them (or any of the multi-millionaires lying around) and more to the point none of their children for whom they'd be responsible in such a lawsuit, do any downloading? Oh, wait, I forgot that you had infinite and complete knowledge of everything. Hopefully you're helping Herr Ashcroft with homeland security.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IS OUT OF CONTROL!

[popo]

We are surrounded by intellectual product. All our technologies and products (ALL OF THEM) are merely constructs of pre-existing technologies.

Wheels, incandescent lights, circuits, building materials, plastics, adhesives, machines, our knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology. Everything we know, understand, and utilize as a culture is all based upon the intellectual developments of preceding generations.

To suggest otherwise is to start history at a convenient point.

The great composers adapted ancient folk songs into their work. Jazz musicians then played wonderful creative games with the works of great composers. And then the Rolling Stones came along and claimed ownership over those jazz standards. Anyone who believes in the right-of-ownership in pop melodies has a very small understanding of music composition.

Can you imagine how stifled creativity and progress would have been if the "wheel" was patented.

The lawyers and the big corporations are attempting to create ownership over our cultural heritage, and ultimately they are trying to maintain in unsustainable business model in the face of new technological developments. It is neither our national responsibility nor our legal right to maintain business models that have been surpassed by technological evolution.

And remember: 99.999999% of musicians in the world are doing it for free because they love music. (Myself included).

Peace.

Re:Click bang !!

[1nsane0ne]

You don't have any time to download music, but your kids have nothing but free time. And I'm sure you've supplied each of them with their own top of the line computer complete with cd burner. And if they're under 16 what's easier? Pestering mom to drive you to the mall or just downloading an album?

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IS OUT OF CONTROL!

[popo]

We are surrounded by intellectual product. All our technologies and products (ALL OF THEM) are merely constructs of pre-existing technologies.

Wheels, incandescent lights, circuits, building materials, plastics, adhesives, machines, our knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology. Everything we know, understand, and utilize as a culture is all based upon the intellectual developments of preceding generations.

To suggest otherwise is to start history at a convenient point.

The great composers adapted ancient folk songs into their work. Jazz musicians then played wonderful creative games with the works of great composers. And then the Rolling Stones came along and claimed ownership over those jazz standards. Anyone who believes in the right-of-ownership in pop melodies has a very small understanding of music composition.

Can you imagine how stifled creativity and progress would have been if the "wheel" was patented.

The lawyers and the big corporations are attempting to create ownership over our cultural heritage, and ultimately they are trying to maintain in unsustainable business model in the face of new technological developments. It is neither our national responsibility nor our legal right to maintain business models that have been surpassed by technological evolution.

And remember: 99.999999% of musicians in the world are doing it for free because they love music. (Myself included).

Peace.

Re:Set up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.

Basic Math:

"If a state has 5 million registered voters, they stop counting the votes after they count 51% of that total for any one candidate. This means that the remaining 49% of votes were never counted by CNN or anyone else."

Not likely, unless by some coincidence, every one of the first 51% of votes was for one candidate. More likely there would be a couple percent of votes not counted.

Change the Law

[sprekken]

In all of the raving and ranting that most of us frustrated /.ers are doing against the heavy handed tactics of the RIAA, I see that it really doesn't add up to anything. Really. Tomorrow morning the RIAA will send out another thousand lawsuits against another thousand teenagers and granparents, and /. will again rant and rave against it... but what will happen?

Sure, a lot of people will be pissed, and a lot of people will boycott the labels, but how long will that last? After all the smoke clears from the lawsuits the public perception will have been changed from one of believing that it's OK to copy music from the Internet to one of believing that the ONLY way to enjoy music is to pay for it. There will be a lot of hard feelings, but give it six months - a year - and most of those boycotting will go back to buying CDs, or otherwise paying for music.

WHY? Because there is nothing to stop it from happening. The RIAA has millions of dollars to spend on this social engineering campaign, and there is nothing but a small bump in the road (EFF) to get in its way. I submit that the ONLY way to ultimately stop the RIAA from persecuting everyone is to change the law.

Laugh you may, but as another poster pointed out, approximately 57 million people use P2P services. It took 50 million people to elect the president. I'm sure it will take far fewer votes to elect a congressman or senator that won't sell out to the labels or movie industries. I even think that if your current congressman or senator were to receive, say, 5 to 10 thousand letters from their constituents it would not go ignored.

Our (US) government is supposed to be set up to make laws based on the voice of the people NOT the corporations! It is imperative of the people to make its voice known, or suffer the consequences! The people must speak, so please, please, just write a little letter to your congressman or senator. It doesn't have to be long, just a few words to express your position. Make sure you sign it, put it into an envelope, stamp it, and put it in your mailbox.

God bless America!

Re:Set up? Give it up!!

[ralphclark]

Gore admitted as much, and stated his support for those rules in his concession speech.

Ahem. You may need to re-read that speech. I quote (emphasis mine):

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

Gore supported the Supreme Court decision only in order to bring an end to the country's uncertainty, misery and embarrassment. He didn't agree with it though. How ironic that the electors should be deprived of a man noble enough to make such a sacrifice, only to be left with a President who was apparently willing to bring the country to its knees rather than relinquish his ill-gotten gains.

RIAA vs Bush

[arth1]

This won't happen because:
* Downloading copyrighted material IS illegal, and I doubt you'll catch any higher ups doing it

Cocaine IS illegal too. Of course, no one at the top has ever used it...

So is drinking under the legal age. Didn't stop Bushettes from being caught.

Murder is illegal too. Didn't stop Skekel from being caught.

* Higher ups tend to have more money to spend. I personally HATE trying to get a full album off kazaa and would rather go buy it (though I also HATE supporting the recording studios, so I end up with no albums :))

You make a presumtion here -- that people are downloading music to save money. Some people may do it for other reasons, like convenience, disabilities (I can't browse the record section like you can), or the music just not being available for immediate physical purchase (try finding Mike Oldfield's latest 3 albums in your local store in the US -- yes, I download them while I wait for the CD's to arrive in the mail from the UK).

* Higher ups probably don't have the knowledge to get on a P2P network, or don't care enough, see #2.

Not all "higher ups" are technophobes or computer illeterates. I'm sure Woz, Kramen and others might dislike your implied characterization of them.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Watch Your Children...

[lysium]

I feel bad for the girl, and I know we've been down this road on other RIAA threads, but where were the parents?

There is a single parent. They live in Government Housing. This means that the mother is mostly likely out working a minimum-wage job to meet NYC living expenses. She keeps her kids off the streets, off of drugs, and out of gangs; but no, she needs to make sure they don't infringe on the copyrights as well. Would you mind covering her shift so she can watch her kids 24x7?

=========

Re:Click bang !!

[WNight]

Ahh yes, the twelve year-old daughter of a wealthy software magnate is going to be too busy to play on a computer...

Also, you can get music on P2P programs that you literally can't buy except perhaps for ebay (which does take a lot of time). I bet that many wealthy people use P2P programs to get their favorite rare music. It's just a couple of clicks awya, if they've got time to play music, they've got time to download it.

Re:It's called deference

[Phronesis]

You make a very good point about the difference between intellectual and physical property. I argue that if the creation of intellectual property and its protection by law can be called social engineering (and I believe it can), then so can the creation of physical property and its protection.

That doesn't mean that I believe that all social engineering is equally legitimate. There is good and bad social engineering, so merely that calling something social engineering does not make it bad.

Personally, I don't like suing 12-year-olds for trafficking in contraband IP, but the argument against this practice must be put on a firmer basis if it's going to gain any legitimacy.

The best part:

[sammy baby]

Reading the Fox writeup, I couldn't help but notice this:

Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, [RIAA spokesperson Amy Weiss] answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

"Oh, except for her name," Weiss then went on to say. "And her address. And phone number. And her Kazaa details, and who her ISP is, and a bunch of the stuff she downloaded. Nothing except for that."

Re:Yeah, right

[RazzleFrog]

Did you read those other articles? They are much less sensationalistic. They talk about the various people getting sued but don't outright attack the RIAA. Only Fox chose to go exclusively with the 12 yr old and turned it into an attack.

Re:Set up?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true, is it? When the first shiploads of slaves came to the U.S. the owners were probably in the majority. Laws are what they are, and are the only notion of "illegality". Just because we hate the RIAA doesn't mean it is not illegal to pirate music. You may argue that it is not *amoral*, and that's the argument that really remains to be settled (and new laws fashioned following conclusions society and the music industry come to on the mattter). It's hard to argue that pirating music is not technically wholly illegal.

Re:Media Nonsense

[in7ane]

Since they paid for Kazaa (or was it just the ISP connection?) and seem to be not too computer literate, chances are when she was setting up Kazaa (c'mon all you 'parent's responsibility' people - chances are a 12 year old girl is more interested in music than her single mom) she entered her real name - so RIAA has the address + mom's name from ISP + the girl's name as the actual sharer.

All the people arguing that she is in the wrong here - is RIAA paying people to argue their point in places like this to sway opinion / show public support?

Oh please...

[KalvinB]

"Many everyday Joes and Janes do not have any concept what current copyright law really is"

How long have warez sites existed? Have they EVER been legal?

NO. It doesn't matter if you download it off a site, buy it off the street, or get on P2P. Warez are ILLEGAL. What's the difference between an illegal copy of software and an illegal copy of a song? None.

"they continue to pi$$ off their current, former, and potential customers."

I'm not seeing it. All I see is Slashdot bitching constantly that things that have always been illegal with those perpetrating the crime being punished, are still *shock* illegal.

Warez site owners are constantly getting shut down, fined and or jailed. Just because you put your warez on P2P and happen to "specialize" in songs doesn't make it any less illegal. Just as it always has been.

The only leg the mom has to stand on is the $30 fee. But that doesn't allievate her from the crime of being a supplier in the digital black market. That simply potentially makes Kazaa also liable. How liable they are depends entirely on how they sell their subscription.

Kazaa isn't responsable for the illiteracy of those who pay for their service.

Ben

Re:Oh please...

[Gonarat]

Good comeback -- you brought up points that I thought would be brought up. Remember this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal trial. If the defense can present the Mother as person who bought a product/service for her daughter so she could listen to music and stay out of trouble (off of the streets), then they should be able to convince a jury that no damages are due. Of course, the RIAA lawyers will attempt to convince the court that this is not the case, and that damages are due. I think in this case a good lawyer could successfully defend the Mother and Daughter.

Re:Oh please...

[Skwirl]

People have a moral responsibility to fight and disobey immoral laws. Copyright laws, as currently implimented in the United States, are IMHO, immoral because they actually succeed in defeating the true historical purpose of copyright law. The idea used to be that art and its society heightening effects would be promoted by giving artists a limited monopoly on their creative works. Therefore, artists would be motivated to create new works because of their profitability. These laws were not created to protect the invincibility of soulless entertainment monopolists.

And yet, current copyright law extends the monopoly until 70 years past the life of the author! I don't know about you, but I haven't heard any new and creative songs from Sonny Bono in a long time and I don't really expect him to push any new and innovative musical boundaries between now and 2068.

The fact that the RIAA failed to take advantage of new, popular and cheap music distribution technology just shows that the ideals of capitalistic innovation and competition have been hijacked by America's corporate leadership. The fact that they're turning record profits and feel comfortable enough with their hegemony that they can randomly sue normal citizens in order to have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas is an outrage.

Re:Click bang !!

[EvilAlien]

Kazaa, a terabyte of storage in a PC that would make most IT staffers drool, and nothing but time to poke around the internet on a private fiber drop... money is irrelevant. The argument that people use Kazaa because of financial considerations rather than a love of music supports the RRIA's position. I don't believe that people with enough storage to host MP3s, money to pay for Internet service, and so forth are particularly put off by the cost of a CD.

People don't download MP3s because they lack money (at least not in all cases). They do it because they like music. They share because they have an excess of available bandwidth (which costs money), storage (which costs money), and actually subscribe to the idea that sharing is good.

The RRIA is alienating music fans because of a misperception that they are losing money due to digital media. They are like SCO, unable to competantly respond to market forces and using legal means to attempt to gain income. These despicable bastards are making me consider a boycott on recordings from their members. I buy (or bought, until the RRIA went evil) a lot of CDs, and don't share MP3s (I don't put Kazaa or other Virus-to-Peer applications on my home computers).

Its time artists took control of their creations before groups like the RRIA eliminate their fans. By the way, I don't include talentless has-been sell-outs like Metallica when I say "artists" ;)

Did the RIAA get the 12-year-old's name? Doubtful.

[LinuxParanoid]

Although it *does* beg the question: if a 12 year can't assume debt, then how exactly did they get her name in the first place?

I've not seen anyone confirm or deny the following scenario, but I was thinking about this question this morning.

I suspect the mom, who was likely the owner of the ISP account (billed to the mom's credit card) is the one who actually had her name on the suit since the RIAA got her name through subpoena'ing the ISP. But in a brilliant PR move, the mom is telling the press that the RIAA is suing her daughter (since the mom had nothing to do personally with the copying.)

This is the only scenario that makes logical sense to me, but I'd note that it is 100% speculation.

--LP

Re:Click bang !!

[AvitarX]

If you only have a few million though, can you afford to pay people the time to rip those CDs to MP3's. can you afford them to buy every single CD so that you can get any song you want in an instant. Who is it that knows you so well as to pick the exact songs you want. Unless you are profanly rich file sharing is the easy way to get what it offers. The original poster was talking about somebody with with a billion dollors, that is probably unlikly. But somebody whos parents have a few million may be willing to fight it, and I could not imagine going through all the work to be legitimate about it even if I was rich.

PS, I don't like enough music to use file sharing. If I were to start sharing on a service that encourages communication or seeing what other people like at least that might change, but currently my exposure to new music is so slight that I have no need to steal (obtain for free anyway) the music.

No, this is NOT good news.

[LesPaul75]

This is not good news. This is not the light at the end of the tunnel. This is not the moment where the general public wakes up and sees the evil RIAA for what it is. You will never win a war against the RIAA for one simple reason: They have orders of magnitude more money than you do. They don't care if you boycott their product. Slashdot readers aren't in their target audience anyway (young teens).

• Microsoft: The evil empire that controls all PC software. They've survived Linux, OS2, and anti-trust litigation from the US government itself. Hell, Linux is FREE and still can't compete with Microsoft's $99, security-hole-riddled garbage.
• Intel: The evil empire that controls all PC hardware. They've survived Cyrix, AMD, VIA, Transmeta, and every other CPU maker. Why? Because if you have "Intel Inside" your web browsing will be much faster. Don't buy anything unless it has "Intel Inside."
• DeBeers: Diamonds? For crying out loud! They're not rare, they're not "precious" in any way. They literally have warehouses full of diamonds! They sell clear chunks of carbon and every schmuck in America buys one for his fiance. Why? Because, if you love some one, then they deserve a diamond. A diamond is forever.
• Cigarettes: THEY KILL YOU! I think the cat is out of the bag... yet, somehow, cigarette sales continue to increase.

It's simple. He who has the most money has the best marketing. And he who has the best marketing wins, because people are stupid. And it doesn't hurt to buy a few politicians, either. Money is power, period. You can polish a turd.

So, go ahead and boycott the RIAA and listen to indy music on your AMD system that runs Linux. You are the exception, not the rule. You will not bring any industry to its knees. Sorry.

Shoplifting comparison

[Vancouverite]

I've seen a number of people use a comparison like this one from further down the line:

[S]houldn't a shoplifter who is 12 years old be treated the same as another 12 year old who essentially is doing the same thing, only online? we tend to forget that music piracy IS a crime. if you were a musician would you like your music to be STOLEN by anybody 12 or 112 years old?

The comparison is not precise. A better comparison would be between file trading, and taking a picture of a piece of copyrighted art. Taking the picture is still a technical violation of copyright, but most people would not think of it as one.

Why is this a better comparison? Because nothing physical has been taken (unlike in shoplifting), and the copy is not a perfect reproduction.

So, I walk up to a painting for sale, and take a picture of it with a digital camera. If I offer this picture on my web site, I am subject to the same laws as a file trader is...

Re:It's about time...

[metachimp]

Well, how likely is it that the ISP knew it was the girl? I doubt the girl's name is the one on the account at the ISP. The ISP turned over the info they had, but how did they know it was a little girl?

I mean, this whole thing is lame, but the subpoaena was undoubtedley for the Mom's ISP account.

Can't wait now

[salesgeek]

Well, RIAA, congrats. You've just succeeded in educating the masses as to what is at stake. You are ruining peoples life over songs I can hear for free over the radio.

Idiots.

The Stupidity Amazes Me.

[Hank Reardon]

It's comments like this that destroy my faith in the human race:

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

What in the world does being 12 years old and female have to do with the legality of an action? These statements are equivelant:

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, we have curly hair!"

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, I have a pet lizard!"

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Yeah, the RIAA is scum. Yeah, copyright law blows. But, jeez people, what the hell is happening to taking responsibility for your actions.

It makes me want to wish her a happy birthday

[echto_gammut]

Happy Birthday Copyrighted

While a lot of people have been focusing on the RIAA's most recent doings, I am still writing an alternative to the Happy Birthday song, so I can legally and freely sing a ditty to wish someone Happy Birthday. The story of Happy Birthday shows the extreme end of how ridiculous and corrupt copyrighting music can be. I first became aware of the Happy Birthday copyrights, when a friend pointed out to me that restaurants no longer sang Happy Birthday. Looking into the history of Happy Birthday got me thinking about how we view recorded music. For this little girl Kazaa functioned as radio, something that everyone in the US has taken for granted. This, I believe, is fundamental to understanding why people download music.

Simply put, downloading music is illegal. However, instead of focusing on how they can sue everyone on earth, the RIAA should be looking into why people download instead of buy music.

People around the world have been exposed to free music since the turn of the century. The largest provider of free music has been the radio. Granted the radio pays for the music lists that it aires, which is paid for through advertising revenue. However, the end user does not pay to listen this music, except through listening to ads. People feel the desire to buy copies of this music, so that they can listen to it free of ads and at a higher quality level.

The advent of tape, introduced people to the idea of protecting their investment in music or creating custom mixes through the making of copies. Here is where the whole recording situation became sticky. No longer could the recording industries easily control people's access to high quality music. This problem did not turn out to be a significant issue, especially with the advent of CDs which offered people even higher quality listening.

Nowadays CDs are considered to be overpriced and digital radio stations offer CD quality music. MP3s offer better than FM quality music in a small compact format. Additionally there is more music available now than at any previous point in history. Music trends, largely dictated by radio and MTV, rise and fall faster than people can appreciate them.

This leads me to believe that we should focus on convincing people that their ROI is justified when they buy music. For instance, if you buy a CD, you gain access to a site that will allow you to download a variety of MP3, WMA, etc versions of the music on the CD in varying compressions and sizes, so that you can take your music with you anywhere you go. Make people feel that they are getting something better, by offering HD-CDs. Offer more singles and custom made CDs (pay based upon the song not the album). Offer more low quality MP3 versions of music (FM quality) for free, so people who want to buy an album know if they want to buy all of the tracks. If consumers were offered those options, maybe they wouldn't question the $10-$20 price tag on a CD.

People enjoy music, however if they cannot afford it or do not see the value in buying a CD, they will find a way to access that music. The RIAA cannot sue everyone who uses CDs, but they can change it so that people do not feel that free is better.