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

Click bang !!

[panxerox]

Owwww !!! My foot !!! My foot !!! Owwww !!!

Re:Click bang !!

[Jaysyn]

That's fine, I hope they start suing quadrapledgics & orphans too. And the Easter Bunny.

Jaysyn

Re:Click bang !!

[MarvinMouse]

Well, I am waiting for them to sue someone who really matters, like Bush or his daughters, or heck even the Pope would be entertaining

You know, someone with a billion dollars to fight back. If they are truly doing blind suing they should hit one of those sooner or later, and if they don't, that says something about this "blind suing" that they claim to be doing.

Suing blindly leads to uncomfortable lawsuits.

Re:Click bang !!

[autosentry]

This reminds me of that scene with the twelve year old from The Big Lebowski: "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass! This is what happens!"

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).

Re:Click bang !!

[Mysticalfruit]

This is what I'm expecting next in the news:

"RIAA TO BEING WHIPPING CHILDREN"

In a statement released by Riaa president Slain Brosko

"After unsuccessfully using price gouging, poor music quality and then obnoxious lawsuits to drive our customers from the stores, the little bastards are still trying to buy CDs! We figure after we whip a few dozen children, they'll all learn to stay home and just download content that's being shared from other countries. Though on that front we've just heard from Donald Rumsfield that he'll loan us a couple stealth bombers to take out those little bastards too!" The president then burst into some manical laughter for a few minutes before eating a wriggling frog from jar and pulling a lever that dropped a rather cute dancing girl into the jaws of a Rancor.

Re:Click bang !!

[elmegil]

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

Try again.

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: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)?

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.

Re:Click bang !!

[mosch]

Now imagine for a moment that you're the 14 year old child living in that house, with a comptuer in your room that's hooked into the home network. Or heck, even an 19 year old, on break from college. Yep, that child just might have kazaa. Oddly enough, man wealthy people don't give their kids piles of money, some of them want their children to actually earn a respectable living. Can you imagine that?

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?

Re:Click bang !!

[Anthony Boyd]

Imagine you're living in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion with 2 butlers, a cook, and a 26 year old supermodel wife.

Leave me out of this, OK? I value my privacy and don't like being used in examples.

Re:Click bang !!

[los furtive]

Downloading copyrighted material IS illegal, and I doubt you'll catch any higher ups doing it

I know someone who's father is the president for a very very very large IT corporation, and he's got 30gigs of mp3s available for anyone to sift through at all hours of the day. Although his father might care about this, he certainly doesn't.

Higher ups tend to have more money to spend.

Yes, but they can be just as lazy as those who aren't as rich, and it's a hell of a lot easier downloading the latest single off Kazaa than it is to walk into the store and buy the album. And did it ever occure to you that rich people might be rich because they don't like to throw money away, are thrifty, or know a good deal when they see one?

Higher ups probably don't have the knowledge to get on a P2P network, or don't care enough,

Only a fool would think someone richer is either dumber or more ignorant than they are. <sarcasm>Yeah, they probably don't even know what the internet is and still send birthday wishes via telegram.</sarcasm>

Re:Click bang !!

[MegaHamsterX]

Rich people are cheap, if they weren't cheap, they wouldn't be rich. This is more likely how it would go.

To Mr. Billionaire,

We sincerely appreciate your continued investments in our MegaMultiNational Record Company. As an expression of our thanks we are sending you a copy of every album in our vault, once again, enjoy the music and please don't sell our stock as it will trade at $2.00 tomarrow if you do.

Sincerely,

Greedy Record Company Bastards

Re:Click bang !!

[zakezuke]

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

Actually, they do!

My newphew is part of the video production class at school. Using older PowerPCs they produce the morning announcements, which include music clips. He is encouraged, and required to download music to add to the schools's archive of music. Not doing do would greatly affect his grade.

It goes without saying the teacher involved is doing something that could get the kids sued... it didn't change the credits reflecting that napster was responcible for providing the music, since changed to kazza.

Re:Click bang !!

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'll have you know that she has retired from modeling, and is now a full time aerobics instructor.

I also prefer to spin around in my Ford Focus. It's easier to park, the kid usually beats me to the Porsche anyway, and it gives the folks I lay off less ammunition to call me a money grubbing SOB.

And for the record I don't use Kazaa, I use the Darwin port of Gnuetella on my Ti-Book. Just for the hard to get titles I can't find on Amazon. Hell, some Grateful dead dubs are ONLY available on the net.

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" ;)

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.

[BWJones]

Social engineering is right. The BBC is also reporting that the RIAA is suing a 71 year old man. Apparently his grandchildren were coming over to his house and downloading music.

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.

[bear_phillips]

A few years back ASCAP threated to sue the girl scouts for singing campfire songs without a license.

"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." I don't think the RIAA will care that they are going after children.

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.

[Rogerborg]

I bet he's Brianna's grandfather. She's the criminal mastermind behind it all. She probably tortures puppies and shorts SCO stock as well.

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.

[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?

gotta get at 'em young...

[TechnoVooDooDaddy]

see, downloading files is just a gateway crime... by the time this girl is 17, she'll be knocking off liquor stores, and in her early 20's she'll be doing banks!

nip it in the bud!

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:gotta get at 'em young...

[MacFury]

and in her early 20's she'll be doing banks!

I hope so!

-John Banks

girlie mp3 warez shutdown

[x0n]

Damn! and I'd nearly completed the whole Barney catalogue in mp3. Anyone got a copy of barney_and_the_squirrel.mp3?

Re:girlie mp3 warez shutdown

[ndogg]

If you give me some photo identification, your SSN, home phone number, and home address, I can help you get it.

Cary Sherman,
RIAA President

Hehe, spoke

[mao che minh]

From the article:

"When reporters visited teh apartment last night, Brianna..."

WILDCAT?!? Is that yuo?!?

Says a lot

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

You can tell a lot about the RIAA based on the fact that they are willing to pick on a 12 year old girl!

At least pick a fight with someone CLOSE to your own size.

That's just one more would-have-been future customer that how hates the RIAA and won't be buying their CDs when she has money.

Re:Says a lot

[ulbador]

The sizes may be different, but I think the mentalities of the RIAA and the 12 year old girl are probably pretty close

Re:Says a lot

[x0n]

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. 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. 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.

- Oisin

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.

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: Says a lot

[Black Parrot]

> 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. 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. 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.

Thing is, as someone else has pointe out, the whole thing is a social engineering battle. But that's true on both sides. So now one side has exposed a gap in its armor and the other side took a stab at it.

While I don't espouse copyright violations, I think the above is the level we need to view this whole thing on until society works it out. Zooming in on the fine-grained legal level will make you miss the history being made. The legal details now may or may not be the same in five years, and it's the social engineering battle that will determine that. Don't let the footnotes keep you from noticing the plot.

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.

Exactly.

[darkov]

She's stealing music. She deserves everyting she gets. She should be tried as an adult and the death penalty shuld not be ruled out.

If the piracy continues the recording industry may we wiped out, then would would all those poor executives do? The can't all join SCO.

Never sue poor people

[Zachary Kessin]

I am wondering why they are suing a kid living in city housing. It not like she has any money. Her parents might have some, but she doesn't.

Maybe the can take a cut of the income from her paper-route.

Good direction for discourse....

[casio282]

The New York City papers are all over this -- it's on the cover of both the Post and the Daily News. They skew really sympathetically towards the girl and her family, who apparently were paying $29.95 a month for Kazaa "service", and apparently thought there were thereby legit.

This is really going to help the cause against the RIAA's draconian retributive lawsuits, as it will appeal to the hearts of the populace at large. Bad PR, RIAA, baaaaad PR.

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?

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...

Good Lord

[ArmenTanzarian]

This would be laugh out loud hilarious if it weren't so horribly tragic...
And in further news, the RIAA and SCO have teamed up to kick a 6 year old's puppy. Film at 11!

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.

Fox being one of the four

[yerricde]

Your grain of salt for the article:

Fox is one of the four motion picture studios in the MPAA that do not share revenue with a major U.S. record label. (The others are Disney, MGM, and Paramount.) Anything that makes the RIAA look like the bad guy benefits Fox indirectly, as every dollar spent on recorded music is a dollar not spent on a Fox movie.

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.

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.

Re:Telling Quote - Public Perception

[reimero]

They paid a $30 service fee, leading them to believe it was ok. This isn't about not knowing the law, this is about Kazaa leading them to believe that by sending them money, they'd be legal. That's the real travesty here.

The family paid the money, they just paid the wrong people.

Monsters Inc

[GillBates0]

Now kids will be scared of RIAA reps under their beds.

12 year old kid: Mommmmeeee come quick! There's a big bad slobbering RIAA-man under my bed! *sob*

Mommy: Don't worry sweetheart, we will make the big nasty RIAA-man go away. Take that *biff* *bash*. There you go honey, go to sleep now, he's dead.

Set up?

[Cap'n Canuck]

Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses.

It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.

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.

Re: Set up?

[Black Parrot]

> It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.

The only thing missing is that it was on FOX instead of The Onion.

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?

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?

[Rogerborg]

I know her! I bought a box of Camp Girl Cookies from her! She was trying to raise enough money to buy a flag, as all they can afford is a piece of sackcloth, but they salute that raggedy old thing and sing the Star Spangled Banner at the top of their little tuberculosis ravaged voices like the bravest little patriots you've ever seen.

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: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?

[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: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?

[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."

Re: Set up?

[Thomas Miconi]

The only thing missing is that it was on FOX instead of The Onion.

I agree. This would have made the thing much more credible.

Thomas Miconi
=============

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.

Re:Set up?

[allism]

The Audio Home Recording Act only allows first-generation recordings - not making copies of copies of copies of copies. Look here.

The DMCA didn't outlaw making copies - it still allows fair use copies - see page 4 of this PDF.

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".

-

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: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.

Re:Set up?

[ichimunki]

So if I photocopy a book in its entirety and start giving out copies, does that make it OK?

Yes. Provided that book was published in the U.S. prior to 1923. In that case you are in the clear, both legally and ethically. Why is the ethics of this dependent on the age of the work in question? Your answer to that question is the basis for the answer to your next question.

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?

There is no such thing as a right to make a living. There is also a big difference between producing a good for sale and controlling the right of others to make similar goods (even when similar means to the point of the goods being indistinguishable). The clause in the U.S. Constitution from which copyright derives is not there to promote any right to make a living or any sort of inherent property right that attaches to the realm of the intellect, the stated purpose is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". The question really ought to be: is the law achieving its stated goal?

Re:Set up?

[JayBlalock]

There's a difference in the bill between its intent and its wording. The intent, very obviously, was an agreement between the RIAA and the People, arbitrated by the government - we'll pay you a few cents for every blank tape or CD we buy, and in return, you won't try to sue private users for the occasional act of piracy. (since the amount you're making off the CD surcharge is FAR more than what you'd lose in sales to non-professional pirates) This is a perfectly fair, reasonable, and all around good solution to the problem. The surcharge doesn't financially inconvenience anyone directly, but collectively it adds up to millions going to the RIAA. Win-win. Unfortunately, the bill does not SAY this. The literal wording ONLY gives you the right to make a single "fair use" personal copy of a work. Which makes it a complete ripoff since we de facto had those rights ANYWAY thanks to the Betamax decision and a couple other related SCOTUS precedents in the early 80s. All it did was codify what was already an established Supreme Court judgement. (which, if you're not up on your civics, carries force of law) And further, the DMCA, by extension, destroys even that "right." Technically, if the album is encrypted in some fashion, all your Fair Use rights go out the window - you're paying that surcharge to the RIAA and getting nothing in return. I personally think one could build a strong case based around this. If we no longer have legal Fair Use rights to make a personal copy of albums\movies we buy, then that surcharge is accordingly illegal - it amounts to a criminal punishment on people convicted of no crime. Or, in reverse, it could be said you cannot be sued for copying an encrypted CD (as per the DMCA) precisely because you've paid the RIAA their piracy surcharge. (note: This applies only to the US version of the bill, I've heard the Canadian one has subtlely different wording and can actually support the theory that all personal copying is legal)

Re:Media Nonsense

[supersmike]

If they're suing the person responsible for the internet connection, how did they come up with the girl's name?

"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'

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.

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: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.

RIAA doesn't mind bad PR

[InterruptDescriptorT]

The RIAA fully realize that they are the 'bad guy' and that they are seen as such by the eyes of the world. They have one goal in mind, and one goal only--protect their way of business and revenue stream at any cost.

I agree this looks really bad on the RIAA (I don't remember minors being targetted before), but those who think this spate of publicity is going to stop them are dead wrong. They've already shown that they're willing to go to any length to kill the file-sharing phenomenon.

I can see the outcome of this case right now: The RIAA will probably have to respond to the negative publicity and probably drop the suit against the twelve-year-old girl. The rest of the cases will go on as planned. One poor target isn't going to be the downfall of their enforcement operations.

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...)

Bad for RIAA, good for the rest of us

[szquirrel]

This is like an early Christmas present for RIAA detractors. Their lawsuit-by-scattergun approach has caught the worst target possible: A 12-year-old honor student who had no idea she was doing anything wrong ("But we were paying for it!"). What a PR nightmare.

Too bad it won't last. This particular case will get resolved as quickly and quietly as possible. You'll be able to feel the breeze from the RIAA quickly brushing it under the rug. Or, worse, if they're smart they will dismiss all charges (and give little Brianna lots of free music) in exchange for her too-cute 200-word essay on "Why Filesharing Is Wrong".

The EFF and other RIAA opponents could get heavy mileage out of this case if they tried, but I fear they just aren't coordinated enough to counter the RIAA's spin.

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.

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.....

According to the article..

[$exyNerdie]

According to the article:
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.

In that case RIAA should be suing Kazaa for providing service and content which they have no authorization to OR the family should be suing RIAA for misleading them OR maybe the family didnt read the License agreement...

But this makes me wonder as to what RIAA is doing about the websites that charge users fee and tell them they can download any number of unlicensed MP3s from their P2P application ??

An example is this site that I found by clicking on 'Search' hyperlink in article text:
Site offering unlicensed music for $0.97 a month

In case the site gets slashdotted, I am copying and pasting the content of the site (without any HTML formatting):

MP3U Club Access:

UNLIMITED Downloads
Full Length Movies
New Feature DVD's
Full MP3 Albums
New MP3 Hits
Exercise Beats
Hiphop, Top 40, R&B
Dance, Classic Rock
Unreleased Songs
XXX Movies (filter available)
TV Shows
Music Videos
JPG'S...
and MORE!!!

Get Instant Access!

Unlimited Downloads

We stand behind our commitment to quality.
If you don't find the mp3s
you are looking for, you may
cancel your membership and
keep the programs free!
- 100% RISK FREE! -

Total Users Online Now: 1835954
Total MP3's Available: 92315078
Total Movies Available: 130457202

Why Join the MP3U.com club?

Millions of Internet users have joined the exclusive club that allows them to find and immediately download ALL the latest Movies, songs, and mp3s FOR FREE -- Just as Napster did!
MP3U.com is your Gateway to the Hottest Online content from around the world. Just search, select and Download -- It's that easy.
Join the over 30,000,000 people who are downloading their favorite MP3's, MPEG Movies, hot unreleased DVD titles Right now!

Features:

UNLIMITED MOVIES, MP3's & DVD's
24/7 DOWNLOADING
LIGHTNING QUICK DOWNLOADS
NO INTRUSTIVE SPYWARE
POP-UP & ADVERTISING FREE
Multiple MP3 formats and bitrates supported
24/7 SUPPORT from our Knowledgable Tech Team

Only $0.97/Month!

You can download unlimited music files, MP3s, songs, music videos, software programs, TV shows, videos and movies. The best part is that you can start downloading now!
If it's Rock, Jazz, Hip Hop, Alternative, Rap, Classical, Country, Christian, Pop, Techno or Trance that you are looking for, MP3U has it all! You can also learn how to trade thousands of software titles, songs and videos with millions of people worldwide. Unrestricted access to as much music as you want, or until you fill up your hard drive!
Start Downloading As many Mp3's, Movies and DVD's as you can handle. You can learn all the in and outs of finding music through our tutorials, so you can get started right away!
That's right, we will give you the inside scoop on where to find any song you are looking for just like you could on Napster(TM). So check us out and give it a shot - for just a small monthly fee, what do you have to lose? Trust us, you won't regret it!

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.

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.

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.

[luzrek]

Here is a more important legal question. Can non-emancipated minors assume debt? I don't think so, this is why banks won't issue credit cards or loans to minors without an additional signature from an adult. Even if RIA successfully sues this girl, she won't have to and cannot be made to pay. The lawsuit against her is completely stupid.

Re:No kidding.

[IM6100]

Her parent(s) are responsible and will assume the debt, if a lawsuit is successful.

Re:No kidding.

[JCMay]

Can non-emancipated minors assume debt? I don't think so, this is why banks won't issue credit cards or loans to minors without an additional signature from an adult

It's not that minors can't asssume debt, it's that they can't enter into legally binding contracts. That's why the cosigns are required. Credit card agreements and loans require written legal contracts.

Re:No kidding.

[dknj]

In this case, the mother paid $30 to allow her daughter to download music on kazaa. Sounds like her mother is going to take the brunt of the punishment.

-dk

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:No kidding.

[tuckerclerico]

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?

Her mom shoulda signed up with the ISP, no? So her mom is the one paying the ISP bill.

And her mom is probably the one that registered Kazaa.

And if the RIAA claims they don't know any personal details about the people they're suing -- then how did they get the name of the girl?

Unless her mom did something weird like register a bunch of credit cards in her daughter's name in order to get credit. But, nah, no one would do that ...

(Just curious ...)

Re:No kidding.

[Courageous]

Another important legal question (and IANAL) but it is something I have been wondering throughout. If the RIAA sues people, don't they have to prove that they have suffered damages and losses?

No. The relevant statutes provide for assumed damages.

C//

Why Boycotts aren't going to do anything

[teamhasnoi]

Until Cindy-Lou and her 12 San Diemas High School Football players, her 45 year old Mom and Ted down at the local bar stop buying CDs, every CD that *you* 'fail' to purchase will be counted as piracy.

The real need here is education. I have a coworker who buys CDs every week; I let her know that the people making and selling them them would sue her, have already called her a liar and a thief, and that she is supporting an industry that treats its artists in a similar manner to her working for a year and getting paid $100 dollars.

Sadly, our conversation was not preserved for posterity, but the end result was disappointing (not that I expected a different outcome).

Her CD purchases are continuing unabated because she, like most other Americans, *don't care* about things outside their paycheck every two weeks, what's going to happen on Big Brother 12, and how to protect their children from the 'evil world' without leaving the comfort of their reclining fat-cradles.

I don't buy CDs, and haven't for almost 10 years. I can't even give price as a reason, as I could get a wide variety for $5 (due to where my wife works - a subsidiary of the Big 5). I don't trade RIAA music, because I make my own.

Read my Journal and buy my non-RIAA CD you pirating whores. Put your money where your mouth is. Or go and tell someone why they shouldn't buy CDs. Educate the mouth-breathers, because in the end, when they are forced to struggle out from their comfy chairs, cheese-fed Americans can still fight for you.

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.

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:In case of /.'ing

[gerbache]

Sensationalistic reporting from Fox News? Never! That wouldn't be Fair and Balanced!

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.

In oher news

[JamesP]

RIAA suas a 3 month old baby and his mother, who sang lullabies w/o paying the license
A RIAA representative said "SInce this kid is not going to forget this lullaby ever again, were thinking of lobotomizing it so we get back our intellectual property"

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.

Jury Nulliffication

[sirbone]

This would be a good time for the People invoke jury nullification, assuming any of these go to trial. (Note that the Bill of Rights grants any RIAA victim a right to jury for lawsuits worth over $20 if they decide to take this to trial.)

So what is jury nullification? It is the principle that jury's may find a defendent "not guilty" if the law is unjust. This harkens back to British colonial days and is the primary reason we have juries in the Bill of Rights: both the defendent AND the law are judged. It is the Peoples' last check against unjust law when the three branches of government fail.

A prominent case of this was when William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was charged with assembling Quakers for worship when only the Church of England was permitted to assemble. (Again, pre-Revolution colonial days.) Though the jury found that he did indeed do just that, they gave a "not guilty" verdict on the grounds that the law was unjust. The judge held the jury without food and water for a couple of days and imposed fines, demanding that they give a "guilty" verdict, but they refused to budge. Events like this are what inspired our nation's founders to recognize the right of juries over the judge and the law. Jury nullifications also played an important role in overturning Prohibition. Juries often ruled against the law even when finding that the law had been broken, thus making Prohibition unenforceable, and I believe some regions of the nation still regularly have non-violent marijuana prosecutions lost due to jury nullification.

Jury's are unfortunately not informed of this right when they go to trial. I believe during the slave days the government realized that it was near impossible to get a conviction for violating the Fugitive Slave Act since people in the northern state juries, which was the only place the law really had any use, would rule "not guilty" on the grounds that the law was unjust. And so the government sadly decided to stop telling juries of their right to jury nullification.

So how does this apply to the RIAA? Well if enough 12 year olds, or any one else for that matter, being sued millions of dollars for downloading music take it to court then the People (ie-the juries) could toss out the cases as being unjust. Given enough of these rulings, the law could be forced to change to reflect what the People consider just or the RIAA could be forced to change tactics. Though this will remain unlikely if we do not go back to informing juries of their rights. (Plus stacking the jury by having the prosecution quiz them instead of making it truly random also undermines things...) So write to your state and federal legislative representatives today and demand that they pass laws requiring judges to inform juries of their "jury nullification" rights!

Excellent!

[Greedo]

I'm gonna go out and get me a 12-year-old and have them do all my file sharing.

Re:Excellent!

[carpe_noctem]

So is THAT what they call it these days? You sicko!

Re:Excellent!

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Oh, that's going to go well....

Greedo: Hey little girl, would you like to come home with me and share some files?
Little Girl: Eeeek! Help help help!
Ghost of Charles Bronson: Time to die little man
*bang* *bang* *bang*
Greedo: Gurgle gurgle

/me is gonna rent Death Wish this weekend :)

Re:In case of /.'ing

[RazzleFrog]

We can blame Fox all we want but they are really the only ones who could do an article like this. Who else:

CNN - Owned by AOL Time Warner (Warner Music, etc.).
MSNBC - Joint Venture with Microsoft (not about to attacked RIAA).
ABC News - Owned by Disney (we know how they feel about Copyrights).
CBS News - Owned by Viacom (also owns MTV)

Fox, as far as I can tell, is the only one not totally in bed with the RIAA and if there is anybody who can piss them off and get away with it it is Rupert Murdoch.

Civil tort system is a weapon of the moneyed class

[programmeratarms]

Today's civil tort system serves the role that the machine gun-toting Pinkerton guards served during the Gilded Age - crushing profit-threatening dissent . I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. If suing someone who is not particularly wealthy is guaranteed to bankrupt them, I simply cannot understand how anyone has any respect remaining for the civil tort system. One thing that an honorable person can do to fight this practice is, if serving on a jury in a tort case, simply refuse to vote in favor of any corporate plaintiff, no matter what the evidence, i.e. nullify. On the scientific side of the question, contribute to research on anonymous/encrypted communications that could make electronic censorship irrelevant, no matter how fanatical or well-funded the censors are.

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.

what if she were a script kiddie?

[sluke]

Many of the posts so far seem to be saying that someone so young should not be responsible for these actions. I wonder what we would say if she were responsible for Blaster?

Re:Why so much per song?

[saddino]

That's the amount specified by the laws governing copyright infringement -- $150K per instance.

For example, if you make a copy of a book, sell 100 copies, and get caught, you can be sued for 15 million dollars by the publisher.

The Moral Is...

[cyranoVR]

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a 12 year old girl...

Time for EFF to do a "reverse-sting" - have 12-year old girls pose as 35 year-old male file-sharers with the goal of drawing more RIAA lawsuits.

(The reciprocal of how law-enforcement snags pedophiles in chat rooms - they have 35 year-old men posing as 12 year-old girls).

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.

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.

Irony

[QEDog]

The funny things is that RIAA is trying to fsck this 12yo girl, while preaching that p2p is for child porn and is evil

Re:Poor? Oh really?

[HungWeiLo]

You forget you're on Slashdot? WiFi and water cooling comes before food, shelter, and medicine.

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.

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.

Life imitates Art

[frankie]

From last week's BBSpot: Law and Order: RIAA

Lars Ulrich will star as a gritty New York detective and John Amos will play the chief RIAA lawyer. "Since most file sharing cases are civil and only consist of serving subpoenas, we had to take some liberties much like the RIAA," said creator Dick Wolf.

RIAA and the face of evil - $39 billion ain't bad

[aacool]

Here is another, funnier look at the RIAA story.

Also, the BBC has a look at other 'victims' of the court cases

Let's see now - 261 people, assuming each shared 1000 songs (which I believe was the cap at which RIAA selected their litigants) - @$150000 a song - they expect $39,150,000,000($39 Billion smackeroos!!!). Assuming each case settles at $50000, the RIAA still stands to make $13,050,000 just from this 'spook & awe' campaign

Not bad for a 'sunset industry'

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?

[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.

The Defense Arguments will be Interesting

[syntap]

The article quotes the girl's mother as saying "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go"

The defense arguments will be interesting when they undoubtably say the clients didn't have the technical knowledge to understand that "download and listen" really means "download and provide." It's possible that users deleting the file transfer log line in Kaaza (erm, not that I know what that is or have ever seen it before) may have assumed the file was gone too. But lo, the hundreds of songs they "just listened to" were saved and now available for mass download from their machine by the whole world.

Sheesh this is going to be fun!

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.

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:Wasn't 55mph set to conserve fuel?

[John Miles]

Back during the Oil Embargo to conserve fuel?
Not for reasons of public safety?

Yes, that was how the NMSL was sold to the American public in 1973. It was made permanent in 1975 by Congress on the basis of the drop in traffic fatalities that occurred at the same time. Of course, the Arab oil embargo might have had a minor role to play in reducing traffic-related deaths too, but hey, all that extra revenue was too much for the states to let go of when the embargo ended.

Twenty years later, it became (literally) painfully obvious that unreasonably-low highway speed limits were costing more lives than they saved, and the NMSL was repealed. If you look at a graph of fatalities per hundred-million vehicle miles travelled (which is the only meaningful statistic in the traffic safety business, not the death rate per capita used to justify the NMSL in the first place), you'll see a slow and almost monotonic decline beginning in the early Seventies and continuing to the present day. The correlation between posted highway speed limits and the death rate is much more often negative than positive. The reasons are probably twofold: (1) nobody pays that much attention to highway speed limits anyway; and (2) higher limits on the Interstates encourage the diversion of traffic from slower but far-more-dangerous secondary roads.

ADSL Contract?

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

I don't know about there, but here (in Canada), having ADSL doesn't require a contract. It doesn't require that the person be of majority either. They'll merrily disconnect your service if you stop paying, but otherwise, the money of a minor is as good as anyone's.

In fact, I got my first ADSL in my own name when I was 17 (the age of majority here is 19).

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

Multimedia Conglomerate News Coverage

[spiderbarker]

Note that CNN.com (RIAA member Time Warner) ran the story about the 261 lawsuits in the top spot _all_ day long yesterday, despite a fairly busy news day with Dubyuh's speech and the Palestine situation.

Today, no mention of the targeted 12 year old girl on either CNN.com or ABCnews.com (RIAA member Disney).

CBSnews.com (now expanding their holdings to include Universal) is running the 12 year old girl story in the number two position today.

Freedom of the press!! Yay!!!

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).

Here's one

[kscd]

Well, there's at least one artist whose done filesharing. In the April 26, 2001 issue of Rolling Stone Joe Perry (guitarist for Aerosmith) says something along the lines of:
I really hope they don't shut Napster down. I've been using it to introduct my kids to rare old stuff that you can't find anywhere else.
I looked up the story online (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cs867main.as p?cf=18) but they only give you an excerpt, not the full story.

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?

=========

It's about time...

[mog007]

I've been waiting for something like this to happen. Now the parents can go after no only the RIAA, but also their ISP. The internet privacy act protects children under 13 from just this sort of thing. When the RIAA sopneaed the girl's ISP, they were not allowed to give her information up.

Looks like we finally have a case that'll make this circus stop.

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."

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: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.

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.

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.

Too bad the family caved in...

[Londovir]

In case you haven't seen the news yet, the mother and daughter have already caved in to the RIAA.

They rapidly announced today that they've agreed to a $2000 settlement, and went so far as to make a nice little public apology and promise to never do it again.

AP Excite News Story

It's just a shame that the family couldn't get help from a high powered lawyer who wanted to make a name for himself in this case. The publicity alone would have been phenomenal. Oh well. The RIAA has won yet another round on their campaign to step all over people.

Londovir