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."

Comments

The RIAA sucks

[bossesjoe]

This is really messed up, why would they think they have the rights to abuse people like this. They're trying to scare us.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[tambo]

They're trying to scare us.

That's probably not their goal - well, not their primary goal. Consider this:

I'm increasingly annoyed about the amount of attention that this whole issue is garnering. Notice how little (OK, none) of the public debate is substantive: whether people should be allowed to download music for listening purposes; whether the interests of media providers outweigh the privacy interests of citizens; whether it's fair to allow the RIAA to charge people $15,000 - or even imprison them, or destroy their computers - in defense of fifty-year-old music tracks. It's just assumed that the RIAA has the right to lash out in order to protect its license to Johnny B. Goode.

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. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."

- David Stein

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Dr Tall]

They have these rights because they were given them by you.

Then where do I sign up to take them away?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[capnjack41]

I bet if they had any idea that ~~BrItNeYgUrl91*~ was a 12 year old kid they probably wouldn't have really pursued the case. Would looking like a bunch of shithead monsters, or the whole "we don't let anyone get away with it" display, really be worth it to them?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[MoOsEb0y]

They have these rights because they donated tons of money to the republican and democratic parties. They bought the congressional votes.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[kaltkalt]

That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....

Re:The RIAA sucks

[arth1]

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. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."

I beg to differ. This doesn't endear them in any way. They can't scare people into buying their music, only to not copying it. That doesn't make them any money -- only buying does that.

What the record companies need to do is embrace the new technology, and get rid of the dead meat that can't follow the times (i.e. RIAA). There's multiple ways that the record companies can take advantage of P2P file trading, they just have to blink a few times first and stop holding on to old ways.

How? One such way could be to seed the P2P engines with music files with more than one song in the MPEG-1 container -- the first one being an MP3 (MPEG-1 layer 3) in low quality like 32kbps, allowing people to listen as much as they like, and the second part of the file being a locked high quality version of the same song, requiring unlocking. $0.50 per song per device doesn't sound unreasonable -- that's cheaper than the current $.99 for those who only wants to listen to the song on one device and the same price for those who wants to put it on more than one device.
I am certain that many people would welcome and embrace a system like this, where files can be distributed freely, and you can listen before you buy, but only get bad FM quality unless you pay. People with no money, like kids, would be happy that they could listen to music for FREE, while asking their parents to unlock the songs they want. Others can listen to a great variety of music and find something they like, without spending hours in the record store with headsets.
Good musicians would benefit, as they can find their way to the market without massive advertising. Record companies would get more surprise hits, and broaden their offering without spending fortunes on physical distribution. Releases would be time coordinated across the world. BUT -- it requires new thinking and embracing the new technology instead of fighting it.

Right now, people loathe the scare tactics of RIAA and the record companies behind. CD sales go down, not up. For a very good reason. Like I said before, you can't scare people into BUYING, just into not copying. And that won't make them a dime.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:The RIAA sucks

[tambo]

Ah... how I wish consumers acted as rationally as this.

Do you know what consumers see? They see "Britney Spears CD, $12" and they buy it. They see nothing of the underlying struggle of fair-use rights vs. corporate gluttony, of technology vs. copyright. They will eagerly support a monopoly without care if it keeps feeding them their boy-band fix. Their collective attention span is pitifully short and easily distracted. Just try getting the masses to boycott. The public, in short, is all talk.

Your mother doesn't want to know what copyright is all about; she just wants that new Yanni CD. Your little brother doesn't care that he's feeding a monopoly by buying that 50 Cent CD, and your sister doesn't give a damn that buying the new Justin Timberlake disc is feeding the RIAA's legal-enforcement hit squad. They don't care. They just want their music.

We understand the issues in this struggle, but we are a small minority. You must come to grips with this regrettable fact.

That is why Star Wars is still not on DVD, despite our petition. And that is why the RIAAs don't see the world as we do, and act as we think would be in their best interests. Indeed, if they stopped selling CDs tomorrow and shifted to an online-downloading-per-subscription scheme - even one that's eminently fair and consumer-friendly - you know what the biggest public statement would be? "I don't want to use that Internet thing for music! Where are my CDs?"

(Amazingly, even economists are now coming to grips with the fact that they've overestimated consumer rationalism. The models that they built on such assumptions don't seem to reflect reality... and the hot new trend in economics research is consumer irrationalism. This is not a troll comment - it's an observation by my stepfather, who is a macroeconomist at a local university. This, by the way is good news: I'm hoping that it's the start of a revolution in economic thinking - that consumers can't protect themselves from market consolidation and monopoly abuse... which is why America now has. like, two competitors in every profitable market.)

- David Stein

Re:The RIAA sucks

[acidrain69]

Bad idea. What if you get a new CD Player? Does that mean you have to buy your whole music collection over at $.50? If it doesn't, then that means there is some way to transfer the ID to another device. Enter device ID piracy. Modded CD-player.

Personally I loathe protected devices like that. Macrovision, CSS, software hacks. All of it shit. My girlfriend actually bought Max Payne, but because of the copy protection, it REFUSED to work on either her DVD Drive or burner. Worked find on my computer. She is scarred. She refuses to buy another PC game because of the experience.

Also, why should I have to pay to play it on other devices? I have a walkman, a CD head unit, a stereo, several computers, and a DVD player. That's some pricey, and not to mention MADDENINGLY complex amount of units to keep track of.

Now you see the problem the RIAA has in "embracing" the digital world. They are stuck believing they have to protect everything, when in reality that protection does absolutely nothing. They really have their work cut out for them. But they can rot. I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Sj0]

I dunno. I was thinking about this. I asked myself why it was right that I didn't care that people were downloading music, but computers getting hacked and people being sued for millions of dollars(settling for thousands) is so hard for me. I realized that the truth is, the RIAA is ruining peoples lives. Like something out of a nightmare best left in Soviet Russia, the RIAA is indiscriminately cutting people down for a crime most sane people would put on par with jay walking. These lives don't deserve to be ruined for personal non-commerical infringement.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Cpt_Kirks]

If there were any real journalists left

It wouldn't matter if there were. For the most part, big media is one way or another connected with RIAA members.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Ying Hu]

Give ME a fucking break. Most people think getting slapped with a law-suit ruins their life for at least a little while.

What IT do YOU wish to protect, because that sounds like a motivation for your position. Who are you defending with this statement? The RIAA, who have been convicted of price-fixing (definitely against the law), who are famous for gouging their artists, who are buying our congresspeople and suing 12-year olds, and yes, college geeks?

The core of your comment is dead-wrong on two, albeit to some eyes, subtle, counts. The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers. Since when do you defend salesmen? Second, no one, not even those admired artists, creates in a vacuum. They live in the same social milieu, the same web of relationships, the same ocean of memes of all sorts, as every other human member of our social species. Your statement is not really wrong, but it is entirely incomplete, and this issue is not black and white. Even property, under the law, even in America, is not sacrosanct, though it may seem sometimes like it is. Government and society have the legal power to override the rights of property owners for a variety of reasons. Copyright was never meant to be even that strong. It was supposed to promote an incentive to create, not stifle it, and now there is an equally important reason - while you're busy defending the 'rights' of any copyright owner to do anything he or she wants in order to 'protect' that "copy"right, what happens to civil liberties, freedoms, privacies, ability to resist coercion in a number of open and subtle ways, adherence to ideals of honest day's work for honest dollar (instead of the older definition of piracy, or highway robbery), and on and on? I happen to think quite a few of those are more important than absolute copy"right", especially for a bunch of parasites like the RIAA.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[0111 1110]

but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.

You mean civil behavior don't you? After all, none of these people are being accused of even as much as shoplifting. It's more along the lines of making unauthorized copies of a library book and leaving them on your front steps on a busy city street where anyone can pick up a copy. It's just copyright infringement. The point is, illegal or not, the punishments are absurdly out of proportion to the acts (at least to anyone not on the RIAA payroll).

Wow.

[tambo]

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.

Re:Wow.

[eclectro]

Actually what you need to do is buy used CDs -- the RIAA doesn't see a dime from those sales. That way you can have your music and stick your tongue out at the RIAA at the same time.

I only buy about 1 new CD a year this route -- and that's usually with a cuopon of some sort. I used to be a much bigger spender on new CDs.

Heh. I'm part of the reason they have seen a decline in new music sales. And I don't pirate music either.

Re:Wow.

[Dun Malg]

despite what some people here might like to think, it is stealing.

Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING. "Stealing" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was laefully 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.

Re:Wow.

[Baki]

Until now I have been avoiding it, but after this indeed I will never buy another CD again that is linked to these criminals. It is a scandal, settling for $2000 and, even worse, using this girl now in their propaganda war by forcing her to admit her wrongdoings and regret for the "poor artists" she hurt. It makes me sick.

Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[alen]

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

[digitalsushi]

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.

Re:something doesnt add up

[NickFortune]

As long as we're being paranoid, did anyone else think that "I'm really scared. My tummy is all turny" =was just a bit too cutesy-pie for this day and age?

As a set up, this would be a work of genius. I mean something like this was going to happen sooner or later anyway, right? So - wy not get it out of the way early and under controlled circumstances.

Now, the very worst case has happened and lo! They paid up. Paid up without a gumble, but full of contrition and remorse to boot.

So when a genuine little girl gets targeted by they can well hell - the last one paid up no bother - what's your problem?

As for the rest of us, what possible excuse can we have for not stumping up your protection money when hard pressed single mums pay up without a murmur?

The scenario is a little too paranoid even for my tastes. On the other hand, real life is turning into a bad SF parody day by day.

I took action today...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Bad press

[BWJones]

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!!!"

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[Comsn]

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.

We need the list of songs to embarass the artists

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[Mononoke]

Wouldn't they have been able to challenge this lawsuit with a great deal of ease by pointing out that the RIAA illegally collected information about the online habits of someone under 13?

Yes, but that would have cost much more than $2000 in lawyer fees.

That's why RIAA will continue to "win" these. They carry the big stick.

RIAA Marketing 101

[Empiric]

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.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[softspokenrevolution]

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.

The Best RIAA Quote

[asv108]

Probably the most shocking quote to come out of Cary Sherman's mouth was this:

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.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

I think there's a strong correlation between the way somebody acts, and the way they think others will act. For instance, I know somebody who is more or less a compulsive liar, and I know people who are honest to a fault. The liar is constantly accusing others of fibbing, whereas the more honest people only do so when there's good reason to. The same applies to a broad spectrum of human behaviour.

Anyway, I guess the point I am trying to make is that a comment like that isn't so surprising when it comes from an organisation that sneaks in "works for hire" alterations to the law, goes after children, sues college kids for billions of dollars, and generally acts in appalling ways. People who are of a low human nature expect others to be as well. There's no honour among thieves and all that.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[zakezuke]

I guess I can respond to this being a human, though it's not directly related to shoplifting.

I've found a number of lost wallets and misc items. My knee jerk responce is to find the owner as it sucks loosing money, credit cards, and misc bits of paper that are required to operate in today's world. Costco is the most common place I find abandoned purses and things, fortunatly these days they have mobile phones in them.

Later on I think, d'oh could have gotten free cash, perhaps a tank of gas, but the moral responce wins. This isn't a fear of getting caught, it's just doing the cool thing.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Overly Critical Guy]

Why is this +5 Insightful? It's common sense. Why is Sherman's quote so "shocking?"

Why do you think so many people download music? They know it's not "technically right." They do it because it's easy, convenient, and they won't be caught.

Re:$29.99

[demon]

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.

Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[enjo13]

Not to mention that this kid is living in public housing.. The RIA is not only extorting 2,000.. it's $2000 they probably desperately need.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[HidingMyName]

Where was the EFF in this case?

They should have offered to go to bat for this family, did they do it? This was their high profile opportunity to challenge the RIAA and challenge them for gathering data on a minor.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Zarkonnen]

Actually, I think it would make sense to make fines proportional to income. A fine ought to deter everybody the same, but a $500 fine is surely a greater deterrent to somebody living on social security than somebody who makes $200k a year. (Hereby I conclude this episode of tangential leftism. Good night.)

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[arth1]

If this case had come up before a judge. There would have been hell to pay.

These are opening moves in a long chess game.

I don't know. Seems to me that in a game of chess, no-one cares about the pawns. You even gambit them given a chance. All that matters is the kings, and not losing more games than you win. In this case, I think we should change the rules and give power to the pawns. Without them, there would not BE a music industry.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Computer!]

The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12?

Anyone with a bit of common sense or compassion.

Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.

So was slavery. Law != ethics.

The "Think of the children!" sobbing gets zero sympathy from me.

Way to be a heartless bastard.

To the 12 year old girl...

[Jerk City Troll]

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!

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Spectra72]

Then why do the artists continue to sign up with the RIAA labels? Are you telling me there is a person on this planet that doesn't know that record companies screw artists? So are they stupid, or what? Even if we grant that new/unknown artists may need (and I'll get into that in a sec.) the RIAA backed labels for exposure, what's the excuse for acts with a successful record or two under their belt? It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently. Do you think a band like U2 needs their RIAA label to promote themselves now? Why is Phish signed up with Electra? None of these guys have figured out that by dealing directly with their fans, they might do better? Artists are in it for the love of the music right? At least the one's *you* listen to I'm sure.

And about that exposure thing I mentioned earlier...why do bands need the exposure that the siren-song of the Big Record Label offers? What's wrong with staying small, playing the local clubs, printing a few CDs and Tshirts and basically staying in control? Touching thousands with your music isn't enough, you just have to be on MTv's TRL with Carson Daley? What? It's a Bling Bling world I guess.

But, if that's what they want...go for it. I don't begrudge them one bit. It's a free country and they can do what they want with their music, even if that includes selling out all control to the Labels. But I won't feel sorry for them when the machine eats them up and spits them out not owning the shirt on their back. Not one bit. There's a lot of people getting screwed in this whole mess, the artists are the last ones I'll shed a tear for. THEY perpetuate this whole thing. Fuck them.

You don't think she really paid, do you?

[pgrote]

$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.

What sort of legal precedence does this set?

[Dukeofshadows]

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...

Simple Solution

[Chromodromic]

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.

261 top downloaders?

[YrWrstNtmr]

And a 12 year old girl is one of those?

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 /., she would not even in the top 2/3.

More likely some backroom fool just shotgunned at random.

Re:261 top downloaders?

[BrynM]

Of course it's due to that extra 100GB hard disk she installed. The motherboard she had was only the dual IDE variety, so she grabbed one of those with the Promise IDE RAID chips on it and set herself up for maximum throughput with the duplicate drive. Saturate that DSL line little girl!

Seriously, I think you just struck on what will now be my leading comment when telling people about this. I personally think the RIAA is just going for the first ones they could find. It's still a really wild internet out there and the actual users within their grasp is probably a lot smaller than they are letting on. Thanks for that spark of deduction.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[MunchMunch]

And the filthiest fact about this fiasco is that the RIAA was in such a position of power, I have very little doubt little Brianna's soundbitable quote about "not hurting the artists I love" was a term of the 'generously' reduced $2,000 settlement (which is of course probably all they could pay anyways).

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think

[DumbSwede]

A few of thoughts here:

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?

Sharing vs downloading

[axxackall]

I think there is a serious misconception of treating downloading vs sharing. I thought that RIAA is supposed to go after people who copy their bought CDs and share them publicly. In general RIAA must leave downloaders alone unless there is a solid evidence of the fact of downloading the illegally shared music knowing that it is illegal.

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.

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[BrynM]

Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.

In most states here in the US, this only really applies to adults in practice. A judge can throw out most juvinile cases if he/she thinks the child learning the lesson that an action was a crime is enough punishment. This is one of the reasons that juvinile courts are seperate from adult courts and is the theory behind being "tried as an adult".

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[Dun Malg]

Ignorace of the law has never been a defense. It is the responsibility of each citizen (in pretty much any country) to determine whether a course of action is legal or not.

Re-read the parent post. He's not arguing the "ignorance of the law" angle. He's arguing "ignorance of the status of the MP3". Say I download a song titled "MC Chuck-A-Luck-gimme dat baby.mp3" under the assumption that it's been released for free download by MC ChuckALuck, the copyright owner, because he's released a lot of songs that way. But, uh-oh! "gimme dat baby" is the first track off his new album, and somebody else ripped it from CD. Am I to be expected to somehow know this? Or am I not supposed to download anything without a signed permission slip from the copyright holder, my mother, and a priest/rabbi? Passing counterfeit money is a crime too, but no one who does it unknowingly is ever punished, because they didn't know it was counterfeit. Claiming "ignorance of the law" would be saying "I thought passing counterfeit money was legal". Same with MP3's, yes?

RIAA View Of Humanity

[mboedick]

Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

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.

Re:$29.99

[Fizzlewhiff]

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.

Please, let's do this...

[Powercntrl]

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.

question -- mod me up so we can get an answer

[the-build-chicken]

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

They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[dolo666]

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.

RIAA & SCO - Amazing Parallels

[Londovir]

This matter of the RIAA lawsuit against the 12 year old girl is disturbingly similar the the same strong-arm tactics being employed by SCO in their ongoing beef with Linux.

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:

The RIAA said this week it already had negotiated $3,000 settlements with fewer than 10 Internet users who learned they might be sued after the RIAA sent copyright subpoenas to their Internet providers. But lawyers negotiated those settlements before the latest round of lawsuits, and the RIAA had said any further settlements would cost defendants more than $3,000.

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

This smells like a cover up of sorts....

[mobiux]

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!!!

60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[poptones]

That show with the weekly MUSIC INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHST?

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.

Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[Ubergrendle]

PBS Frontline continually impresses me. Don't give up all hope.

In Canada our news is not quite to corporate-whorey. We also get BBC feeds as well. Those BBC interviewers go right for the throat.

BBC Interviewer: "So Mr Prime Minister, with (can't remember name)'s death, would you say you have blood on your hands?" Blair: "Uh..."

Re:$29.99

[Anonvmous Coward]

"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?

No Precendent, just Encouragement: Liberty Lament

[RafeDawg]

The settlement was reached before the case went to court. Since it was negotiated between two private parties without the involvement of a court, the settlement sets no legal precedent. Our legal system could be easily abused if this were not the case :-J

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.

I Will Never Ever Buy Another CD!

[SammysIsland]

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!

Part of the real agenda

[YrWrstNtmr]

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."

Re:Better late than never: emusic = RIAA and blows

[Wordplay]

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.

Re:Oh please.

[rob_benson]

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.

Re:The fight of the century!

[arth1]

Nope. No matter what they say they knew it was wrong. If we give to them because "they wern't the wiser", then it instantly becomes the excuse for the other 260 people. Are you going to give to them as well? Will you give to me when the RIAA breaks down my door and I use the excuse "I thought it came with my DSL account..."

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