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."
This is really messed up, why would they think they have the rights to abuse people like this. They're trying to scare us.
There is no replacement for displacement.
is that from the quote, it seems like their scare tactics worked against her... of course, being 12 maybe she doesn't realize the big picture (so I'll give her that much) ... still, disturbing.
fp?
Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.
It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?
Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again. (Since I normally buy about 50 a year, this should even the score on this despicable incident by 2008.)
David Stein, Esq.
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
While I'm against downloading and sharing of music I think that this will really screw the music companies in the long run. One of the first rules of business is not to make your cusotmers your enemy. There is a percentage that only steals and never buys, but a lot of people who download end buying the CD. This may piss them off enough that they may look to other forms of entertainment or look at used CD's.
Something doesnt add up reading that article. Hey single mom your daughter steals music. Oh, ok. Gee, thought it was ok cause we paid a service fee that let us. Hell, here's two thousand bucks I had kicking around. Hey, my daughter even feels bad about it even.
I dunno, I just felt like they arent real people after reading this article.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
I donated to www.boycottriaa.com
I renewed my membership to eff.org
I committed to not buying music
And I wrote my representatives
What did you do today?
I can't imagine that many artists the RIAA represents are happy with some of the RIAA's behavior. I am sure they are having some of the same reactions that many folks have with Clippy......"Stop trying to help me!!!"
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Evil fucktards. They'll keep threatening and settling, threatening and settling, until everyone is scared to listen to music they've legally bought.
These people paid for a service that they believed to be a legal and appropriate way of getting music online. Like oh, cable TV, maybe? There is NO EVIDENCE one way or another that these people have legally done anything wrong, but they can't afford to not settle.
Again, Fucktards. That's not nearly nasty enough, but it's all I can come up with right now.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
"I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
I think she meant to say, I'm sorry that you (the RIAA) won't be able to buy a new Benz this year because of falling sales.
This $2000 slap on the wrist, while barely an inconvenience for the family,
yes, $2000 for a single mom with two children living in the projects. more like this is all they had in the checking account.
I'd love to get the list of songs and publish
which artist 'profited' by suing a 12 year
kid.
I bet that would play big with the public.
Agh!
:)
Where can we donate money to help this girl and her mom out?!
I'm unable to find any contact information for them, or any place to donate. Does anybody have a way to contact them or know of fund?
Surely between all of us we can match a measly $2,000.
I think it's high time we make an example out the RIAA.
That's why RIAA will continue to "win" these. They carry the big stick.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Don't studies suggest that using abusive tactics with children only works for a short time, and then they just hate the abuser, permanently?
It looks like the RIAA has completely forgotten the value of a young, enthusiastic fan base can have on an artist's popularity. I'd think as cynical businessmen, they'd recognize that metric right off.
Even if Brianna and her single mother couldn't afford a single one of Britney's (or Artist X's) CD's, Britney and the RIAA are better off having Brianna talk to her friends about how great she is and the like, and sustaining the culture of interest around her. Which for music artists, is the primary thing generating their revenue, and it's something that works best for younger people. The Japanese comics industry knows this well.
For me as a 30-something, well, I can afford one of Britney's CD's, but I'd be adding no further value to her market mystique. I wouldn't be effectively an unpaid volunteer for Britney, as Brianna would probably be happy to be, were the RIAA not stomping on her.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Apparently you don't understand the following words...
The family lives in a city housing project
Housing projects are typically not the domain of people who can afford $2000 fines. In many cases that amount of money could pay the bills for a few months, or maybe a month, either way it is an awful lot of money. To say that it is a slap on the wrist and that it is barely an inconvinience for them is to really be sitting up in some sort of ivory tower wholly unaware that there are people in this country where $2,000 is a big deal.
If they where mis-lead into believing they did not commit a crime or they where in the right when they paid the 29.99 fee to kazaa. Then Hell they should sue kazaa.
Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.
Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong, not because they will get caught. It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.
I was one of the few that believed that partaking in copyright infringement against the RIAA was immoral, out of general principle, and made you no better then them. I now understand that hindering their revenues streams by any means possible is a just action - a righteous act against a truly oppressive and immoral beast.
Fuck em. I can't believe that they did this.
As I see it, the RIAA is losing money and they are placing the blame squarely on file sharing. Even assuming that is true, how many people will look at a company suing a 12 year old girl or elderly man and say, "I want to buy their product?" No one I know.
The problem with their sales may very well be pirates, but while suing may deter people from pirating, common sense just tells me it won't get more people buying their product.
This has been said before I believe but, I download a lot more porn than I ever have music (no, not child porn like the RIAA claims is rampent), yet online porn sites are some of the most profitable out there.
People want music online, but for the last couple years there was no legal way to get it online legally. Porn was immediately available online. Sure, you could rip a CD, but that is not the easiest thing to do for the computer newb. If I were to ask my parents to rip me their Yanni CD, there would be zero chance of it getting done.
The RIAA missed the ball. Back when p2p networks (mainly Napster) were starting up and getting popular, THAT was when they needed online music services. Not years down the road after suing everyone and their 12 year old kids.
Let's take a closer look at what they have done here:
/. afterall.
1-They settled at an incredible speed, thus turning the story into an over and done with non-story and closing a very ackward chapter in their litigious history.
2-They imposed a fine big enough to financially harm the [poor] family and act as an efficient deterrent for the girl and her mother but small enough not to outrage the public.
3-They showed consistency in their current policy. If they hadn't fined the mother, other people could have claimed unfair treatment. Not that it would have changed anything for them legally but it always sits well with the media.
4-RIAA is evil. I know it's irrelevant to my post but this *is*
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?"
Honestly, I don't think they really gave it too much thought. I mean, I doubt most non-geek types who do use peer-to-peer file sharing systems give the whole subject more than a passing thought. Though as others have mentioned, I'd be interested to know exactly what kind of volume of music the RIAA claims this 12-year-old girl shared to garner herself one of 200-some-odd lawsuits, supposedly aimed at "top" file-sharers.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I think he was being sarcastic. Re-read the post.
> Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures.
Several people have suggested setting up a donation fund for her. If we could get her name and do that, and convince non-Slashdotting music downloaders to do the same, even very modest sums of money would quickly add up to a very large sum, attracting the media's attention: "Geeks Help Poor 12yo Pay RIAA Fine".
Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Rest assured, you weren't hurting artists. You were hurting some rich RIAA execuative who likely has billions of dollars to his or her name.
Imagine if the richest man in the world ordered a poor man to pay him a month's salary because the rich man felt his wealth was in jeopardy. Now, imagine this rich man had an army of slaves doing his bidding, who all work to make him money. Doesn't that sound silly? Well, that's what the RIAA.
The RIAA effectively takes music from artists and gives them slave wages for their music. When the RIAA takes music from artists, the artists no longer own it.
Since the RIAA owns the music, there's no way you can hurt the artist by downloading music. Only the RIAA hurts artists. Hopefully, people will keep downloading songs so the RIAA will go away!
Join Tor today!
If this story was on the level, there'd be an army of lawyers beating down their door to represent them pro bono, if only to get their names in the paper.
I call shenanigans on this whole "saga".
The whole thing just reeks of publicity stunt. It's on the same intelligence insulting level as the "look what will happen to you if you smoke marijuana, kids!" tripe.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
$2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.
Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?
What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.
This is too nice and neat. Think about it for a minute and consider the chance of this actually happening. Notice there hasn't been any press releases about other settlements.
The RIAA is going too far in trying to protect and aging and useless distribution method.
I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?
Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Of course they would, had they known it.
This is one of the most outstanding examples of Corporate America's anti-social behaviour I have yet to see. They have stood over an essentially defenceless pair of unfortunates and demanded Two Grand out of them. Is extortion a legal activity in the US now? Just what do they think they are doing? It is this kind of behaviour which justifies in so many peoples minds the murderous actions which took place in New York just on two years ago. Note: Both acts are wrong and two wrongs never make a right. I am outraged by this. It's totally over the top. In just two words It's evil.
Could /. have quick whip-round and collect the money to pay off the extortionists? Perhaps not, that will only encourage them.
I'm never buying another RIAA-backed CD again. Period. That simple.
I'm a musician. I gig, I play music every day, I record music and I already own a large collection of CDs. Quite honestly, I haven't heard anything in pop music come out in the last five years, besides a very precious few artists, that I've thought was worth the $18 anyway. So it's no big loss to me.
If a new musician comes along whose music I feel I must have, I'll either purchase a CD with a friend and share ownership or I'll employ any of a number of methods available to me to get the music on my hard drive. But since most new music has been utter crap, and it's so rare that I ever hear anything that makes me feel I absolutely must have it at my fingertips, I don't expect this is going to be a big problem for me.
But I do have a big problem with giving another single dime to an industry that fines 12-year-olds in housing projects $2,000 for gay-for-display Britney Spears and nursery rhymes. It's comical, but it's also bullshit, and having been involved with the music industry before I can honestly say it's right in line with their standard operating procedure.
The normal recording contract is roughly 40-60 pages long. By contrast, a typical book publishing contract is 4-12 pages. Typical recording contracts tie up artists for advances, deny artists royalties on new technology media, and itemize costs well into the future of the artists career. The record industry operates like the mafia. So as far as I'm concerned, they can go straight to hell.
Yeah, I'll bet they settled in a day. Because the Brianna story was like the world walking in on the Devil raping a kid, so the RIAA tried to turn it into a finger wagging story.
They suck. I wish them all, to the last of them, the absolutely very worst things in life. Fuck 'em.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Use the same sites that've been used to generate Flash Mobs to organize some small groups of people around the nation to stake out some CD outlets. It doesn't have to be some full blown "protest", we could walk around in front of the stores for just enough time to get the attention of CNN, or the local 10 O'Clock news, but in many different cities across the nation, and at the same time...Make sure that someone has a sign showing a RIAA dragging a 12 year-old girl by the scruff of the neck....
And a 12 year old girl is one of those?
/., she would not even in the top 2/3.
Granted, 12 year olds, especially girls, may listen to a lot of music. But I find it quite improbable that she could be among the top 0.0006%, once you look at all the college kids and 20 somethings, with far more free time on their hands, and far more varied music interests.
I'll bet even among the small community of
More likely some backroom fool just shotgunned at random.
Obviously they've tried to turn their own prosecution of a little girl into a morality story, where she learns the wrong of her actions, and the victorious and righteous RIAA benevolently show mercy to the poor wayward lamb by reducing billions in punitive damages (losses that they've already theoretically suffered!) to a scanty $2,000. Punishing her is bad enough, but the fact that they are punishing her and making her advocate their zealous position is the most disgusting fact of all.
Don't feel sorry for this 12 year old. I'm sure people will be sending money to this family on the margins soon, probably much more than $2000. Don't get me wrong, I think they should, and I'll be sending a check for a few bucks when I know an address to send it to. DO feel sorry the six or seventh child they do this to, because they won't have the celebrity of being first that will lead to being bailed out.
I moonlight at a club that plays a lot of live music. Musicians can make a fine living playing live music (or for those who can only make good music in a studio, autograph signings or TV appearances Lip Syncing their hits (ala Britney Spears)). What is the great good done for society having its citizens to spend a huge percentage of their income on music and movies, making a few artists, and more importantly Mega-Media houses, obscenely wealthy? How much better could that money be spent on average? Life without art would be impoverished, but giving recorded music away for free would not end music, nor leave our lives impoverished, nor would all artists starve.
How about sponsoring music you like? How about shareware music? Same for movies. If Spielberg had a list of projects he might produce, given the financial incentive, I would donate to see the project I like produced, then distributed to patrons first who have sponsored it, then offered cheap to non-patrons. Maybe even getting some money back, if the project does really well outside the original patronage. How about $1 HDTV movies over the internet, with a suggested $1-$5 donation per viewer, if they feel they liked what they see? Only quality (OK popular) movies make money past production cost.
I'm all for compensating people fairly for their intellectual property, but I would hardly call most music "intellectual." Granted that's a judgement call, but think of all the scientists and engineers who produce the technology that keeps the 6 billion people on this planet alive, and yet stringing 4 minutes of words together, is what possibly earns somebody millions. Granted not many win that 4 minute lottery, but it does happen, and far more often than the engineer or medical researcher who works his whole life on life saving project gets well compensated. You spoiled-whinny-self-important artists Grow Up, and see what's really important in life. Quit robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
BTW,. Where do I send the check?
Letter To Iran
You won't find this story. Strangely, it will have been replaced with a speech commemorating a fallen soldier named comrade Ogilvy.
(translation for those who haven't read 1984: Prove the RIAA actually sued a 12-year old girl, and that this story isn't a careful fabrication designed to spark fear amongst those who are downloading)
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
To get a glimpse into user's conception of the state of affairs, check out this NYT article (reg, blah, blah). See the picture of the poor mother after she "was informed of the lawsuit by a reporter," (Times-speak for injecting the correspondent as actor) and read in horror as she opines through apparent tears, "'Why don't they sue KaZaA?' Ms. Bassett added. 'Why are they suing the people? That's the part I don't understand.'"
No one is addressing this glaring disconnect between the conceptions of regular users and the situation as seen by both techies and the RIAA. Her son might have understood what he was doing, but he is a minor, and she is legally (and monetarily) obligated to cover the civil damages. She didn't even know it was wrong. Did she miss the full-page ads in National newspapers? Doesn't she read Slashdot? It doesn't matter (except for her). This is a case of miscommunication, and the reprocussions in popular media will only make the RIAA look like crass bullies. That is a good thing. This was a major misstep on their part.
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
There is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk if there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample. Or even a piece of a free music, I don't know. Again, unless the only way to download it was to press "Agree" button on a "Terms" page. But if I found a direct link to MP3 than there is no way I am informed that it is illigal to download this particular file - there are tons of legally free music on internet, how should I know which one is legal for downloading and which one is not?
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content has some legal warning and I am forced to agree as the only way to get the content and I break the agreement - than I did something illegal. Otherwise - EVERYTHING I download is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.
IMHO, I am not supposed to do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings that I have to agree in order to get the content. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me. Of course, the content provider is the person published the content, not the author of web-site software and not a hosting company.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if I did not know any legal nature of the file from the first place? Thus, the only person should be charged for illegal publishing and sharing and downloading must be the person who's leased the content (from RIAA) by signing EULA, viloated that EULA by ripping off the content and publishing it at first time WITHOUT providing a proper legal disclaimer in a way that I cannot get the content without reading AND agreeing that disclaimer.
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if such defence is failed - change the constitution which would be failed to protect us from RIAA abuse.
Less is more !
The RIAA views the average person (customer) as a morally bankrupt thief who will steal at every opportunity, unless they are constantly subjected to campaigns of fear and shame.
Offensive. Not that the RIAA hasn't already earned my lifetime contempt and made it my mission to make sure no one in their cartel ever sees another dime of my money. Then again what is a few dollars in lost music sales when you can shake down single moms and 12-year-olds for thousands.
People just don't seem to get it. Whatever you may think, people are not entitled to music. Never have been. You are entitled to life, liberty, housing, food, water, and clothes, and right to legally acquire property
You're right. But at the same time, people should only be punished "an eye for an eye". It's ludicrous to think that downloading a song is so heinous a crime that a person should be fined thousands. At most it's a misdemeanor, a slap on the wrist.
What use is a "free" country if large corporations and/or organizations can extort large damages just "to send a message"?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
In the collection of evidence, usernames, etc. in order to track down these users. Could it be possible that the RIAA ran afoul of COPA (Child Online Protection Act)?
My understanding is that COPA is supposed to protect the personal information of a child under the age of 13. Infact, isn't it illegal to keep any identifying information on a user under the age of 13?
When the ISP turned over the name on the account, did they turn over the parents name and the girl was fingered because the mother didn't use Kazaa, or did they specifically release this girls name?
I think this should be investigated further..
~~~
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?
We're talking a 12 year old girl who is book smart. That doesn't mean she has common sense. Common sense might make you go "hmmm" but when you can get 12 CD's for just a penny, Kazaa could easily confuse a 12 year old into thinking that she could have unlimited downloads for $29.95.
I don't think she's stupid. In fact I think most people are unaware that this is an illegal activity, especially if they are paying for a service.
'Same speed C but faster'
Nowhere is it written in any constitution nor holy book that every citizen is entitled to music.
But you get to listen to the radio don't you? And you get to listen to it for FREE (heaven forbid!). How is downloading music, which RIAA has equated with "theft," different from taping music off the radio?
-- Kircle
Who wants to bet that quote from the girl was also part of the settlement? Sounds a bit too well put-together for a 12 year old...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I haven't donated to the EFF or to any other cause... But this whole thing has me so steamed I'd gladly toss a few bucks to help this unfortunate child and single mother out. Let's make their day and give the RIAA the finger in one fell swoop.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
How is the RIAA getting the information...I mean technically.
I read about how they release a subpoena on 'x' who downloaded 'y' songs. Now, what I want to know, is, apart from having a packet sniffer in sharman networks, how can they know what you download. Sure, they can interrogate your ports, if they've reverse engineered the fasttrack protocol then they can maybe list your songs...but how do they know how much your downloading, and how do they know that those songs are even music...they could be someone just f$#@ing with them. And finally, I thought the fasttrack network operated on a PKI set up, with the heads of the network holding the keys. If so, how the hell are they even interrogating your system unless their also liscencing the keys...in which case, they would have to get them from the same guys that give you kazaa.
If anyone can shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated
Fining a poor single mother $2000 USD, sets a pretty good example for the rest of us heathens, right? Wrong. It just makes me angry.
What a terrible thing for such a big company to do!
I think we should all boycott any band affiliated with the RIAA until the RIAA agrees to pay the child's way through the college of her choice. A nice set of CDs from her favourite artists would be an added touch, too.
She's poor and they're picking on her!
The RIAA is just a nasty group of miscreants that I would love to see vanish from history as a failed example of another misuse of economic power.
The law doesn't accept ignorance as an excuse.
Yeah, but the 10 O' clock news does.
It's image. If the RIAA looks like a bully with a select few of these lawsuits, that's the image they'll get. The power of the media is surprising and all it takes is a few buttons pushed to give the RIAA bad press with the press.
I usually hate stories like this but I have to eat my own words here.
Umm yeah, lets start with www.cdbaby.com all independednt artists
What happens when the independent recording artists whose recordings are made available through cd baby, vitaminic, etc. get sued by major music publishing companies for writing songs that are "substantially similar" to popular songs? Even if it's an accident, it can be a six- to seven-figure accident; just look at what happened to George Harrison.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Throw all your CDs into Boston Harbor...yeah!!
The parent post is the correct answer to all of this mess, but unfortunately, it is just plain infeasible. Perhaps it will be feasible when more people get sued for sharing music.
More than enough BS
Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
bullshit. sony/universal/emi/the riaa put those words in her mouth. so check it out:
this corrupt association of record companies bought a law called the DMCA. that happened largely due to the efficient functioning of democratic forms in the united states (something like 57 million people download files, right)? that is, because we live in a democracy, these corporations were able to buy a law. corporate lobbying undermines the possibility of a functioning democracy. what a beautiful politcal system to force on the rest of the world with guns and other fabulous killing technology like smart bombs and the joint air-to-surface standoff missile. but back to the main point...
so next, in our democracy, these corporate entities filed lawsuits based on information they subpeoned from internet service providers. keep in mind they didn't have to get a court order for the subpeonas. this is because in the united states, corporate entities have the same rights as human entities. one of the lawsuits is aimed at a 12 year old girl. her mom wanted to get rid of all the extra stress and attention that the lawsuit would bring, so she settled for $2000.
the next development: the superpower formed by corporate entities adding all their money together (RIAA) used their influence over other corporate entities--which, collectivley, can be called the american media. the corporations fed the corporations this STUPID statement that a 12 year old girl said. this is probably what the phone call sounded like:
collection of corporations #1: uuh, yeah? collection of coporations #2? yeah, hi, this is Mr. Reject over at collection of corporations #1. we settled a multi-corporation lawsuit for $2000. you see, the 12 year old owed about $600,000 to Sony, $1.2 million dollars to EMI, and about $6 million dollars to universal records. we settled all those lawsuits for $2000. then, upon reflection of our corporate aims and, of course, what is Good (tm) and Just (tm), the 12 year old girl said "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
collection of corporations #2: oh, wow collection of corporations #1. that is a tremendously insightful and quotable statement that 12 year old girl said. we'll go ahead and uncritically pass it on to the entire american population, representing it as her words.
i am troubled deeply by what sony/emi/universal/the riaa is doing in your country. incidentally, i live here, but i do not feel allegiance to this corrupt hell hole. that makes it your country, not mine. but i digress. a bigger problem underscores and makes possible what the record companies are doing: our corporate media. these monkey fucks are bought and sold, and we digest their feces as truth and objective reporting. its a lot like how we morons digest the idea of our government as free and democractic. why are we so stupid? the media is being used in this entire shennanigan to pass on the riaa's threats. a bunch of corporations(the recording companies) are abusing our legal system, and then paying a bunch of other corporations (the media) to distribute fear and and propaganda to our populace. 261 targets is nothing out of 57 million. if i lived in a country of 57 million people and 261 of them were murdered, i wouldn't feel threatened. there is no reason for file sharers to feel threatened. the reason we take this seriously is because the riaa and the media are cooperating to brainwash the people of the united states.
i see a lot of cries for boycott on this issue, but its always directed against the recording companies. "get cds from indie labels, etc." that's all well and good, and i support that. i would rather stick a fucking knife in my mouth than by a stream of bits organized with artistic integrity by britney/christina/metallica. i cry for a boycott of corporate media. why do we listen to these fucking idiots? why do we accept their agenda uncritically? the media is bought
By charging a fee Kazaa has given the impression that their service is legit when it is not. I think poor innocent people should try to get their money back by suing Kazaa for giving this false impression.
In both their cases, they have used intimidation to practically extort large sums of money, not necessarily from those who are in the wrong, but from those who cannot [afford to] defend themselves. Once again, our country's established legal system, which purports that you are innocent until proven guilty, has displayed itself as a system that is unavailable to those without sufficient funds to protect oneself under those same laws.
The parallels are amazing, when one thinks about it. In each case, we have a large entity that is more concerned with using scare tactics and intimidation than with the pursuit of honest, open discourse. In the case of the RIAA, they happen to have the law on their side, although their means are reprehensible and beyond contempt. In the case of SCO, they are in a gray area as to whether their claims are legitimate, but again, if they are, they are using essentially the same copyright laws to lean on those who use Linux to try and generate cashflow by forcing them into paying licensing fees.
Ironically, in neither case have we really seen the large entity step forward with a definitive example or proof of the guilt of those they are suing. Has the RIAA produced a lengthy list of filenames, dates, IP addresses, and so forth for any of the 261 people they've sued? To my knowledge they haven't, and they aren't even obligated to do so at this point since no one they've "chosen" to sue has the resources to force such a disclosure in a courtroom.
And for anyone who continues to live under the false pretention that the RIAA's sole consideration in pursuing these lawsuits is the trueness of their cause, consider what the most recent AP update about the 12 year old has noted:
In other words, now that they see that they are winning their extortion war, they are raising the prices. If I recall, I believe the low end limit on copyright infringement penalty was $150 per case -- if so, why did they feel the need to punish a 12 year old and her mother by laying down a $2000 settlement? They clearly already had their press exposure, and could have turned a potentially damaging PR nightmare to their side by dropping the fine to the minimum allowed by law. The fact that they didn't points to their true motivation.Londovir
Londovir
The message is, "We don't care how big or how small you are, or how insignificant you think you are or how bad a place you think you live, or what you think you are entitled too, We're going to come get you and make you pay what you don't have."
It's going to backfire. Threatening a 12 year old girl goes down wrong everywhere. The days of those idiots packaging and selling people their own culture are over. People are going to make and package their stuff without the middle men.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let's remember something here... the RIAA has spent very little so far. This is a *scare tactic* people.
The cost of suing everyone in the filesharing community would exceed the GNP of the United States. They are hoping that a small handful of suits (Only 261 shows how expensive it actually is) will have a widespread impact on filesharing activity.
But if you ignore them, the *will* and MUST go away because there is no financially viable alternative for them. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive, and the plaintiffs in these cases are college students with NO MONEY.
Therefore this is a money losing proposition for the RIAA. If you want to beat them, CALL THEIR BLUFF.
-- Keep on trading in the free world.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
My thought is that at first this was a screwup. The 12 year old was just the downloader. I am sure that her mother was the actual person named as the account holder. You have to sue the person paying the bill, not britneylover@kazaa.
Then the marketing assholes at the RIAA had an idea to try to scare little kids and parents into turning off and uninstalling kazaa.
How many people heard about this from the publicity and did just that. Alot more than you probably think.
It just brings it closer to home for alot of people.
And $2000 isn't chump change for the majority of people, although I doubt they actually paid anything.
Once again they managed to make it seem like they saved someone millions by letting them off with a $2000 fine.
Senator writing time!!!
Yes, but if a company is finally embracing downloadable music technology without DRM, then I'm all for supporting them. The flipside to boycotting companies that behave in ways you don't like is supporting them when they start to behave in ways you do like. The problem with most activists movements is they don't seem to know when to stop and keep pressing the point even after the opposition concedes. In this case, $10 or $15 a month for unlimited downloads seems like a perfectly fair compromise and much like what we've been asking for. We should reward these first steps towards reform.
Okay, what she did was illegal. Anyone that tries to spin it another way is blinded by their disgust of the RIAA. I, like the vast majority of you, hate them too. However, ignorance of the law is not a defense. This is how our legal system, as antiquated as it can be in situations like copyright law, is designed.
:-)
:-)
On the other hand, just because it was legal to persue this girl doesn't mean it's moral. It's wrong. Anyone that has a heart should be able to see mitigating cirumstances were potentially at play. While I do not know the details I think it's safe to say that the mother had no idea what he daughter was doing was wrong. Most children of that age, unless they are techno-geeks, do not know that it's illegal. To COMPOUND THIS PROBLEM, Kazaa got paid $30 by these people, which they erroneously misinterpreted as being payment for unlimited commecial downloads. So what are we left with here? My bullet-point list:
1) The RIAA has their head so far up their a$$ they haven't seen the sunshine of humanity in 3 years.
2) What the 12 year old did was, in fact, illegal.
3) Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
4) The letter of the law and the practical application are, unfortunately, up to bastard lawyers. I'm not condeming all lawyers, only the 80% that are rat bastards.
5) The RIAA will lose their battle because they are defending an antiquated business model. They will go the way of the dinosaur or evolve. My guess is this is the first chapter in their PR laden death.
6) Charging someone $2k for damages when it's obvious it's bad PR does NOTHING for your image or your cause. It actually damages it. They spend much more than $2k hunting this person down.
7) All they had to do was say they had legal ground to do this and SCARE THEM. They didn't have to take it that extra step and actually sue. Not in this case. Use judgement. It's that little voice you hear called your concious and the less you listen to it the more you chuck your karma out the door.
8) What the hell role does Kazaa play in all of this? Is it possible to seek damages on them? It's obvious people are getting the wrong impression from Kazaa.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
I grew up watching 60 minutes. Even when I was a young teen and didn't care about politics it was fun to watch the people squirm. Now we're as likely to get a twenty minute fluff piece on Tricia Yearwood, or Chicks with Dixie, or Nicole Kidman, or Sheryl fucking Crow.
Even they despise themselves.
Morely summed it up himself: "Thank God for the ratings," Safer added. "If it wasn't for the ratings, we wouldn't all be millionaires."
There is no respectable television news anymore.
None.
"I don't think she's stupid. In fact I think most people are unaware that this is an illegal activity, especially if they are paying for a service."
One of the arguments I've made all along is that the RIAA has completely failed to educate people on this topic. You're supposed to know what copyright is and how it works to know you can't do that. Is a 12 year old supposed to know that? Is the average Joe even supposed to know? Maybe. But consider this:
- Radio is free. Buy a set, or build your own, and you get music.
- Radio makes money from ad revenue. So radio's not exactly begging you to go buy CDs.
- A logical conclusion can be drawn that the purpose of buying a CD is the convenience of playing a song whenever you want. Nobody ever though of buying a CD as a license to hear the song!
- When you rent a movie, it's spelled out for you in that FBI warning what you can and cannot do with a movie. You can't show it publically, for example. (I remember noticing that in grade school on a rainy day when they decided to show us Star Wars.) CD's have no such warning.
- Computers come with CD-Roms, which are perfect for putting CDs into.
- Blank Audio CD's are sold as audio CDs.
One has to ask, how's the general populace supposed to know what's happening here? How're they supposed to know it's 'wrong'? Why did the RIAA wait until it had blown out of proportion to start all this shit?
If they want my sympathy, they can forget it. At this point, even if they come out with a great MP3 service, I really don't think I can drag myself to get my credit card out. Taking $2,000 from a 12 year old girl who couldn't possibly have known better? And the protestors think Nike is bad?
'Cept in this case Goliath said, "shit you know, this isn't working quite as I planned and now I've got a huge fricking headache... cut it out with the rocks and I'll settle for a small cut of your land and then go invade your neighbours instead."
And David just goes home, chugs a beer, and thinks about how he's sure lucky he got off on this one.
I would like to see these bastards go up against something religious... it's one of the few things that might give people backbone. Confidence in our legal/government systems backing 'em certainly won't.
The effects of this settlement will be to simultaneously make the RIAA more bold and to weaken the resolve of its victims. The RIAA will be encouraged by this case because it escaped the potential public relations disaster of having to press a lawsuit against a 12-year-old from the projects. It not only got the story to go away, it also got the family to repent, thereby encouraging others who have strayed from the path of Righteous Consumerism to return to the flock. Today has made the RIAA more confident of its ability to bully its own customers, and it will be more aggressive with its litigation campaign as a result.
This is a significant defeat for the opponents of the RIAA. They allowed the RIAA to turn a public relations disaster into a minor victory, and it happened simply because RIAA lawyers got the family to settle before EFF lawyers got her to fight. This war over electronic property rights is primarily a war of public opinion. The RIAA does not hope to stop file-sharing by directly suing every file-sharer. The purpose of these lawsuits is to marginalize file-sharing in the cultural consciousness as "piracy," to make it a fad just like M.C. Hammer or the Boy Band du jour. Had the EFF gotten the family to aggressively contest the case, they could have inflicted heaps of public relations damage on the RIAA. Their failure to take advantage of this opportunity is a considerable setback.
------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to
What is the great good done for society having its citizens to spend a huge percentage of their income on music and movies, making a few artists, and more importantly Mega-Media houses, obscenely wealthy?
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this issue. Why is it that we(society) pile heaps of money on people with natural talents?
Why do people that can "just do something" get paid so much more than the poor schmuck that actually busts his hump digging the drainage ditch on the side of the road?
Why do we reward someone for being born with the gift of being able to carry a tune or run really fast versus the person that has overcome a learning disability (minor or severe, doesn't matter) to become a teacher? How can you put a price on what value a teacher adds to society? Why are cops and teachers and firefighters and ambulance drivers paid such paltry salaries?
The best example of this lop-sided economic situation that I can think of is professional athletes vs. police officers (note I am not a cop or a professional athlete, heh). Think of what a cop does, ok, think of what Shaq does. A Senior police officer in Houston Texas tops out at US$44,500.04 (must have 12+ years experience), in Houston, home of the 5th Ward. Shaq made US$19,285,715 from 2000 to 2001 that's nineteen million dollars, basically because he was born with "tall and strong" genes. Who offers society more value? The cop that you expect to save your life in the face of any danger? Or Shaq who can dunk a basketball? Loaded question I know, but that's what it boils down to.
The sums of money that RIAA artists and pro athletes make is patently obscene.
If you have the time and/or inclination one day, flip to MTV and watch Cribs. It will make you sick to your goddamn stomach. That program is an inside view of the actual Decline of Western Civilization.
You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
We all know, when we buy a CD, it is not the artist we are paying for the music. We are really paying everyone else in between. If it was the music we were paying for then a CD would cost the same amount as its corresponding cassette, but of course this is not the case. A blank CD is actually cheaper than a blank tape, but the CD is more expensive when there is music on it than a tape with the same music on it. Music is property that can be copied at little or no expense. Copies should be worth nothing, but the companies charge more for the CD because more people want the CD. It is a matter of charging more for the product that has more demand. Well, why should demand raise the price when supply is truly infinite? It shouldn't.
The government didn't outlaw e-mail when they found it was hurting the postal service. Now just like e-mail, we have found a less resistant more convenient path around an already established system. Of course we still need the postal service to send physical packages and such, just like it is nice to actually buy the CD to get all the artwork and actual documentation that comes with it. It is natural that things will change over time, and there is no reason to punish or thwart new systems because they undermine old ones. This is going to continue forever as long as technology gets better and things naturally evolve.
I can support my favorite artists when I buy concert tickets. Screw the RIAA!!! You hear me RIAA??? Screw YOU!
Hurting other, legit, online services
From the Kazaa website:
"Download and buy"
Search, download, share
24 hour customer support
Only $29.95
From emusic.
Unlimited mp3's - One low monthly price
Download Play Burn
Get 50 free mp3's
From ITunes:
Instantly buy and download music
Share music within the same household
Search using more options
Quite similar, eh? You pay money to (someone), and in return, you can search for, and download music to your PC. How is the casual user/parent supposed to know that only one of these 3 services is not quite legal? And by using it, you are liable to be sued into financial ruin by some nameless 'association' you've never heard of.
The only mention of "copyrights", and not violating such, is 2 or 3 mouseclicks away, couched in dense legalese. Nowhere does it say on the Kazaa site that use of their service does not constitute a legal transaction. And even then, you paid money. Kazaa appears to be as completely legit as the other two.
The real upshot of this might be to drive people away from the legit services.
Downloading music = lawsuit. Guess I'd better not download music from anywhere, cause it's too damn hard to tell what is legit.
Again....
emusic - $10/month
iTunes - $0.99 per song
KazaaPlus - $29.95
You pay money to (someone), your modem connects, you download music from (somewhere), you listen.
You and I know the diff, but put yourself in Brianna's mom's place.
"We're not downloading any music online, from anywhere, ever again."
It'll be a long battle, but they really can't win. All this strong arming is dependent on users identities. Well we are the ones with the nerds in our camp. Come on, how long before there's a P2P system that effectively hides their users identity? Not long. This is only round 2. Smarter peeps are coding away as we speak.
Download the music you like without getting caught, and then cut a $12 check made out to the band. Send it to their "fan club" address. Enclose a note saying you appreciate their work and would rather they get the whole 12$ rather than the meager pennies left over by the "man"
If you're against the killing, could I get your support in something more of a "van Gogh" retribution? That is, take their ear off as a symbol of who these people are. Nothing quite like a reminder in the mirror every morning that pushing poor children around over music isn't the right thing to do.
Ooooh, I've got a better one! We gotta give them fair warning first, right? So we could leave a severed horse's head on their doorstep and scrawl "CEASE AND DESIST" on the door in blood. It's more due process than they'd give us.
Even better, we could use the severed head of one of those hideous pop idols they're always trying to cram down our throats--it's not like it's murder or anything, pop idols aren't really people anyway.
On a more serious note, though, it's not just the RIAA pushing people around, it's all the giant companies, who all seem to be in the same business: fucking everybody out of as much money as they possibly can. While I personally abhorr violence (outside of video games and message boards anyway), it doesn't look like anyone's being left with many other options. Who has the money to countersue these bastards? I certainly don't, and neither do any of their targets (extortion doesn't work nearly as well when your victim can fight back). The corporations, and the RIAA in particular, have forgotten a few very important things:
1) Americans are damn near the most violent and brutal people on the planet.
2) Bullets are much, much cheaper than lawsuits (they're cheaper than CDs, too).
3) Judge Lynch's court is *always* in session.
Kudos for such bold and controversial posts. America might not be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave anymore, but it's nice to see there's still a couple of them left.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Do I get to tape the radio? Can I then listen to that song as much as I want? How about my friends? Do they have to cover their ears? What happens if I used my computer to tape the radio?
-- No sig for you!
Here's my latest million dollar idea. Copyleft 2003. Patent not pending.
;o)
If there were software that would make it relatively easy to set up an online music store you could turn a "bunch of pirates" into a legion of online merchants selling music. Such software would not be trivial, I know, but we're talking about changing the world.
It seems to me that the vast majority of musicians would prefer a market where the "cream rises to the top" rather than the promoter-driven, sexy-packaging market that exists today.
With the proper software, thousands of online music merchants could specialize in specific genres, artists, eras, whatever. Imagine online music utopia. It would be great for everybody but the RIAA, the dishonest, disliked, obsolete, greedy middle man. What fun!
No one likes to get gouged. The artists are ready, the consumers are ready, the RIAA sees the handwriting on the wall.
All we need are a few good coders to give P2P users, a.k.a. music fans, the tools they need to change from music pirate to music merchant. I'm not a coder, but someone did a pretty good job creating MP3.COM. What if that web template were available to anyone for $500 a pop?
Revolution, bay-bee!
--
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side and it binds the universe together.
Not a chance. They settled. It was the perfect battle to fight out in courts to raise public awareness of how evil the RIAA are.
I for one wont support them when they chicken out to get a settlement. OTOH if they had fought and been fined, and would be glad to help by even a large amount.
...Now they have to live in it. In a musical era where we have 7 year olds mimicking 'gangstas' and baring belly-buttons ala Brittney Spears, is it any wonder that the music industry's distain for morality has finally caught up to them?
The music industry has always liked to push the envelope encouraging the kids to be rebellious and not to 'take it' from their parents. So now they want to be the heavy? Heh. Doesn't that beat all?
Ever see what happens when a kid hasn't been disciplined through life? When the kid hits 14 and the parents start flipping out because little Zack is doing drugs and ripping off cars? Ever see them try to wrest back control of the kid's life? It's almost impossible by then.
When you've been raised under a certain set of rules - that's the reality you understand. When you build, condone, or at least promote a culture that shows how cool it is to be a gangsta, don't be surprised when those same trained kids rip that gangsta's music; after all, he be in that '64 yo - he don't need the bling.
It's too late to stop what they started already. The rebellion is visiting them now for a change and not just from the kids. Two years ago, very few outside the industry even knew what the RIAA was. I assure you that today, a lot more do now.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
My thoughts exactly... I would much rather donate to someone who was actually fighting back. Even if donations would help the girl and her mother it would, essentially, be like donating to the RIAA.
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
If you wish to continue to believe that what they sell is art, I won't try to stop you. Though I have to ask if you have ever encountered a true work of art?
I'd like to make some corrections to your statements. Theft and copyright violation are two different crimes. Violating a copyright does not constitute a theft. The girl received and distributed relativly low quality copies of copyrighted materials. This does not make her a theif.
A trade, as you say, is for one item of value for another item of equal value. A disc of plastic does not cost $15. The record producer charges more than the mere cost of production in order to PROFIT. A fair value for a CD would account for production costs, and give a fair salary to those who worked on the recording. And that value would decrease with every copy that was sold. But that's not what happens. This is what I like to call, unfair.
I stand by my statement that art is priceless, and that is not absurd. Truly benevolent works of art carry no value, cannot be posessions, and are made for many, many reasons, none of which are profit.
I do not believe that I ever implied that the RIAA did not have the right to demand compensation (I don't think copyright violation is a prosecutable offense, because it's not criminal, rather litigeous, though I may be wrong) through litegation. Just that it is a despicable and childish act to do so.
Sorry, but has anybody ever thought of getting rid of the RIAA? I mean, just stop buying CDs now and forever. I did two years ago. All Im saying is musicians WILL continue to make music, wether they have their giant publishing network or not. Spend your money on your local bands, join their concerts, buy their vinyl because its beautiful, wear their T-Shirts and promote them to your friends. And they will be happy with you downloading their free music from their homepage. If you stop buying commercial music now we might get rid of one of the worst witchhunts in modern history. If you are what I call a sane person you dont share via the internet anyways. Your friends might fit your taste of music much better, share among them, its legal btw. ;-)
just my opinion,
Lispy
Carey Sherman's statement that people do not shoplift because they are afraid of being prosecuted is a perfect example of how the RIAA does not understand things.
Laws are meant to reflect society's values and the rules we want to live by. Prosecution and punishment for violating laws serves two primary purposes: 1) as a deterrent against people who would engage in the behavior and 2) as a punishment for people who engage in the behavior.
The act of shoplifting (which is actually the general crime of larceny) is illegal because there is a general consensus that the behavior is wrong.
But I would argue that the purpose of this law is almost entirely to serve the punishment purpose of laws and not the deterrence.
Most people do not shoplift because they feel it is wrong to take someone else's property. This is our shared value. We don't refrain from doing it because we are scared to go to jail.
The problem for the RIAA is that they have a legal protection through copyright but they do not have the consensus anymore regarding the behavior. They are at serious risk of society eventually desiring a change in the law. I think the RIAA knows this and why they want to "change the attitude" of people.
Currently, the behavior is clearly illegal. But many people in society now feel that the property right over copyrighted music should not be so absolute. The RIAA, however, insists on keeping the status quo and therefore will not change its business model.
I suspect what will happen is that in 10-15 years, the current music industry will be radically changed. Maybe songs will be licensed. Currently, you buy the physical media which contains the music. Many people want more flexibility in what they can do with the underlying content. The RIAA does not want more flexibility. One side has to change, and I think the RIAA will be on the short side of the stick...eventually.
Suing your consumers will speed up the process. I am actually glad the RIAA is doing it. I feel sorry for the people being sued, as most probably do not have the resources to defend themselves or even pay a settlement. But the overall effect will be to alienate its customer base and further the process of people demanded changes.
Jesus Christ, man. You took a feedbag to the all-you-can-eat buffet, and pitched a fit when they decided to only let you take one plate of food at a time. 1800 files in how many days? You had to have been running an automatic downloader.
I mean, I sympathize to an extent, but if the contract doesn't mention the method of download, you're not covered one way or the other. Your ad absurdum argument re: spyware, etc., on the download service doesn't really apply. If you'd made an argument about the service being Windows-dependent (if the DM's ActiveX or a Windows executable), that may have had some wings. However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.
"she doesnt want to hurt the artists"
12year olds download JLO,Eminem,...-kinda music,
what else would you expect from them after showing them off your big mansions in MTV Cribs?
I am dazzled by the lack of knowledge by "Jerry" (1) The child did not know she was stealing. A website fooled her into thinking she was downloading these songs legally. This is akin to someone setting up a fake checkout in a store. Who would be prosecuted in that case? I would imagine in any court in the land would prosecute the person who put up the fake checkout. She had no intent to break the law, and the website in question had intent to mislead her. (2) In Jerry's opinion appearently there should be an income limit for owning computers. Tell me, how musch should one make before they are "allowed" a computer? How much did this computer cost? Thrift shops regularly sell 300mhz machines for around $100.00 in my area. Is it O.K. for a poor person to spend $100.00 on something that her child will need to gain job skills in the future? Or should poor kids just play with sticks and Boxes? (3)This I find in particularly poor taste: The assumtion that public housing families are all on crack. Sorry buddy, not every poor person is on crack, just like not every rich person is a thief. (4) Finally, how do you know the mother doesn't have a job? The vast majority of assistance recipients do work. (5) Corporate welfare costs American taxpayers 8-10 times more than poor person welfare. Whos robbing us taxpayers? Poor people who NEED the money, or Rich people who use it to eek out another few million? Maybe Jerry should spend some time in the real world instead of in his insulated lifestyle. The American public should be outraged by what the RIAA has done to this family, and I for one willk not buy one more CD until they give this family back their money and issue an apology. I agree that musicians have a right to protect their creative properties, and that companies have the right to make money from products they produce. But the fact is that the record industry is a Dinosaur wallowing in a mud pit. They need to make a product that the public wants to buy instead of using litigation to attempt to make income.
You're right. I bet they even have radio, perhaps a TV too, they sure have money to spend.
What's great about the evolution in the computer industry is that you can use an old PC and still get the work done. You don't need a 3GHz Pentium to download music. You can get older computers for a very low price. Perhaps the computer was even given to them by a family member. If an average MP3 is 5 MB, you only need 5GB for a thousand songs.
$2000 is a lot of money for someone in their situation. Chances are that the girl didn't even know this could happen, and the punishment is far greater than the crime in this case.
I'm not talking about aiding the family because "they weren't any wiser", but because the punishment doesn't fit the crime NOR the payment ability of the accused. While $2000 may be a "slap" to lawyers and other people who do well, if it means losing several months or years of paychecks after rent is paid for a poor family, it's a major punishment -- much harsher than if someone with more money had to pay the same.
Regards,
--
*Art
... that there was some kind of "-1 Self Righteous/Redundant/Pedantic" hybrid mod.
It seems that whenever someone says "stealing mp3's," someone else jumps out and says "It's not 'stealing!'"
Notice they don't deny that it's wrong, or that it's taking something without paying for it, or acquiring something they didn't earn and don't deserve - they just want some props for picking up on a ridiculously trivial legal technicality.
It just gets a little tired, seeing the same stupid thing, over and over, you know? You see a few do the same thing with the word "pirate", too. And of course, there's the devoted fanatics over the semantics of the "hacker/cracker" pair. It never ceases to amaze me how every time one of them posts, they seem to sincerely believe they're the first person to ever try to explain the difference.
The bottom line is that these people really have nothing of substance to offer regarding the underlying debate, so they resort to ranting about the language. In my book, they're just one small step above spelling/grammar flames.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Please allow us to introduce ourselves
... whoo whoo ... ... whoo whoo ...
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
We've been around for a long long year
Stole an industry's soul and grace
We were 'round when Brianna L.
Had her moment of fear and shame
Made damn sure the lawyers
Took her money and gave her the blame
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
We hung around on the Internet
When we saw it was a time for a change
Killed Napster and its administrators
Sean Fanning sued in vain
We wrote a hack
Into the Britney tracks
When the downloads raged
Now it's on your Mac
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
We watched with glee
While our attorneys
Fought for a hundred grand
From every music fan
We shouted out,
"Who killed the Dead Kennedys?"
When after all
It was us, you see
Let us please introduce ourselves
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
And we've laid traps for the file swappers
Who get sued before they press Escape
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
Just as every kid is a criminal
And the corporate thieves are saints
As heads is tails
Just settle our lawsuit, sir
Cause you're in need of some restraint
So if you meet us
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Obey all our well-paid politicians
Or we'll lay your life's savings to waste
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
Whoo whoo
Whoo whoo
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Maybe on this topic, but any political commentary definitley has a liberal bias to it. Either in the way it's reported or what is not said. NPR is definitely not balanced as a whole.
It is best to get the news from numerous sources and the facts are usually somewhere in between the views.