Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader
Murdock037 writes "It looks like the RIAA has rushed to settle with 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, after serving her with a lawsuit on Monday. It looks like her single mother will be paying a $2,000 fine to the RIAA for her daughter's song-swapping, which they had thought was legal. Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.' What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones."
The article is laden with sickly quotes about how "we're so sorry we never knew it was bad" but I want to respond to this in particular:
they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services
I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?" Please just consider this:
For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account , and in the first 30 minutes downloaded this $230 CD boxed set in MP3 format - free of DRM and ready to play wherever I want. I also snagged all the George Carlin CDs just because they were top downloads, but I'm also having fun perusing their classical music selections.
While I am hopelessly out of touch with the popular music scene, having not purchased a CD in over three years, I will admit that the stuff on emusic is not the kind of thing I would otherwise have picked up in a CD store. But I am VERY satisfied with what they have.. whatever latent urge I once had to go out and buy a CD has been completely erased.
So give the girl a break. She may come off as an idiot, but let's not pretend that $29.99 is a lot to pay for a few gigs of zeroes and ones.
<plug>PS If you have an emusic account please check out my product for a great way to listen to your songs!</plug>
remember the flap about microsoft auditing that oregon school district(sorry, no link). talk about shortsighted. now they got open source bills on the docket in the legislature and microsoft had to do a huge about face. this will hurt the riaa because it will show what a bunch of thugs they really are. this will turn the public against them. if they were hitting real pirates, i.e., those burning and selling bootleg cd's, i'd say more power to them, but hammering a twelve year old girl. any sympathy they would have gotten is shot out the window now.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I think this adds up just fine.
I got the impression that they really didn't know it was wrong, and now Mom, in order to protect her kid is somehow going to come up with the cash. And no, she probably doesn't have it sitting around.
In order to protect your children, you'd find that you'd do anything. Even coming up with a corny 'sorry story' to help make the big bad company go away.
wbs.
Huh?
If the music files are copyrighted by somebody else and you don't have permission from the copyright holder to share them, yeah, it's illegal. See Title 17 of the US code for details.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You need credit and money for a checking account. Most people I've ever known in the hood use money orders and cash, unless they were attempting check fraud. They can't afford a bank or banking fees. She will be paying this off for a long time and the RIAA just made it harder for a 12 year old girl to eat and keep from being evicted. Bastards.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Umm yeah, lets start with www.cdbaby.com all independednt artists, lets not forget they've signed up with ITMS as well.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
Site that I learned about recently, but have yet to buy anything from em cd baby. Looks to be pretty nice, I listened to some of the samples, but I've been so busy with other junk that I haven't actually decided on what to buy. :)
You do realize that not all CDs are produced by RIAA labels, right? You can still buy independent music (just make absolutely sure it's really independent, since big labels have bought a lot of them out).
Listen to more NPR and watch less FOX/CNN/ETC. NPR has had balanced coverage and entire shows dedicated to this very subject over the last four years.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
... is also a good way to find new music as well. It's a protected right ... for now.
Buying and selling music second hand allows you to listen to all kinds of great stuff and even subsidise the costs with cds you no longer listen to or want to own. And the RIAA won't see a penny.
Second hand music - it's what's for dinner.
YLFI
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Excellent point. For that matter purchasing online music as opposed to CDs from RIAA labels is equally bad.
Here are some of my independent sources:
A Different Drum
Emusic
Where do you go?
Michael.
Linux : Mac
I don't know about you others, but I'm upper middle class, and the only time I see $2k in my checking account is the day I get my paycheque. I seriously doubt that a housing project family would ever have that much.
Regards,
--
*Art
The "settles" part in the title sounds like it didn't make it to court. That means it doesn't set a legal precedent at all.
Slashdot wouldn't let me post the list (too few characters per line, apparently), but if you check here there's a listing of indie music sites. A couple on the list are indie band resources, but I think nearly every site on that list has free music to download. Any reference to "Free" Or "Not Free" on that list is in regards to artist signups.
Enjoy!
Who doesn't like free music?
You should buy music, just not RIAA. Metropolis Records, who carries Electronic Body Music, Industrial Dance Music, and other amazing types of music, aren't members of the RIAA.
They have the kind of music you hear in "good" clubs, and on movies. It's a billion times better than top 40 crap.
A Different Drum Records (http://www.adifferentdrum.com/) for synthpop, Niliaihah Records (http://www.nilaihah.com/) for some other EBM/darkwave...
There's a ton of other non-RIAA music out there. Go listen to Covenant's song "We Stand Alone" off of "Northern Lights". The Azonic's "Progression" (oh my god can she sing). DeVision "Dinner Without Grace". Some of those are a bit old, but will give you a good taste of what is out there. I haven't listened to the "radio" for music for nearly three years now.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
You are quite right that the underclass cannot evidently enter into binding contracts in the US. However, there is no license on a music CD. There is just copyright law.
Not exactly the same, but you can use the RIAA radar to check and make sure the CD you're interested in is "RIAA-safe" (ie. not from a label that's a RIAA member). Site's kinda slow, but I've found it very useful.
Personally, I've made the decision to avoid RIAA records for life, but so far that's just meant that I haven't bought the new Radiohead. It's not much of a sacrifice since most of the music I like is on independent labels anyway. I don't know what I'd do if Warp or Ipecac were RIAA members.
Yes. Tell your friends. Tell them to tell their friends.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
That said I want things to change in the record industry so we should fight this the correct way, a true boycott. In order to do that not only must we not buy cd's, we must not download the music either. As long as people are getting the music through illegal means the record industry and the government has someone to blame other than the people who have kept the price of cd's artificially high even after telling us that cd's would be cheaper than cassettes because they cost less to manufacture.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Some guy called Michael Crawford has written am article for Kuro5hin called Links to Thousand of Legal Music Downloads.
Interesting article - also talks about an interesting player concept called irate. It downloads the free tunes for you....
Why don't you go get an anti-RIAA bumper sticker instead?
And for the RIAA droids, no, I'm not affiliated with the site, just making a suggestion >:)
There is terabytes of music out there that the RIAA has no claim on, support it!
I love attending live music events. A few years ago I took up the hobby of taping these events.
There are *TONS* of artists out there, many 'famous', who would love for you to (1) come see them (2) tape their performance (3) give them a copy and (4) give your friends copies.
They want you to spread their music for FREE.
Who are they? Here's the most comprehensive list I know of:
http://btat.wagnerone.com/
But that's only the tip of the iceburg. For every artist that the record industry has chosen to support there are another hundred that are just as good who are out there gigging every night. My experience is that, even if they're not on the list, they're open to taping.
Better yet, a lot of them would be happy to sit down for a beer or shoot the shit between sets.
These are the real artists people. If you're upset about this RIAA crap then they've already won because they've succeeded in making you believe that they hold the leashes of all musicians everywhere and that art and music is a commodity.
So, instead of going to Borders to pump another $17.99 into the pockets of these RIAA diamond merchants, take a turn towards a local bar or other music venue. Have a drink, say hi to the artist... that's whats real.
-J
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
The RIAA can find sharers by just using Kazaa, etc., as a client and searching for things to download. When they find a something they download it and note the IP address of the server. With the IP address and the time, they can get the users name from their ISP.
If the RIAA wants to prepare a possible court case, and not just fire-and forget some cease-and-desist letters, they would want to actually download some songs and compare them to the real CD versions. They only need to download and check a handful for each user, not all that a user is sharing. It would not cost a lot to use some low paid assistants to check songs using a fast forward playback.
I do not think it is possible to hide the address of a server from a client when they are connected by TCP. Only the packet header information is needed, not the packet body. Encrypting a link does not had its IP address.
If they wanted to go after downloaders, the obvious solution is to setup their own servers and see who downloads. There may be some legal issues doing this.
Alright, then lets do this. With this on the news and papers today the RIAA should have dropped this imediatly. Because of their neglect for common decency, we should show them what this Slashdot community can do once we work together.
I saw several people saying "Yes we should do this" and I will offer the responsiblilty of doing this.
My email address is pompeli2@tcnj.edi
I would not give this out if I was not serious.
Let do it
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT THEFT. "Theft" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was lawfully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal. You can argue that it's "as bad as theft" all day if you want and I won't care, but claiming copyright infringement is the same as theft is moronic. This stuff is all defined by law, and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. What don't you understand about that?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account
Um, no. Vivendi Universal, owner of emusic, also owns Universal Records, an RIAA member. In fact, the first label I recognized on that RIAA membership roster, 4AD, also appears on emusic. For that matter, the label for the box set you mention downloading is also an RIAA member. You may not be landing as much cash in their pockets, but it's not "RIAA-free" by any means.
To add my own rant, I should mention that emusic is the only company that has ever flatly stolen my money. (Partial details here if you're interested.) As much as I liked the service for 3 days, I'd say you should be wary of these guys. The Better Business Bureau record on emusic pretty well supports this point, but (to my mind) it doesn't really emphasize the point enough.
There is a thin line between civil and criminal. The big difference is burden of proof... it's easier to be found liable (the civil word for guilty) in a civil trial. A $150,000 civil fine looks the same on your bank account as a $150,000 criminal fine. Of course, there is no jail in civil cases, but that can come after the civil case in the latter criminal case (and it is not 'double jeopardy').
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
If you don't like the buggy proprietary download managers (and they'll try and insist you use one)... simply use a perl script instead... much easier.
Arizona Republic Contact Page
AP contact address
That's silly. The legal justification of these fines isn't to deter people, it's to compensate the RIAA for the monetary damage they've supposedly suffered through these illegal activities. The intrinsic value the RIAA attaches to those 50 tracks should be exactly the same regardless if the person breaking the law a 12 year old girl in public housing or Milton M. Gotrocks, Esq. downloading songs from his penthouse apartment.
If the value they choose to fine people is some random number based then I'd say that would substantially weaken their case.