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."
They could've fought, won the case and led the RIAA to more bad publicity... it's a shame. Although, they did just dig their hole that much deeper.
webpage
If Brianna set up a PayPal account to take donations I'd gladly throw her and her mom a few bucks to help cover the cost of RIAA's shakedown.
She might even make a few bucks over the top to buy blank CDRs with.
Trolling is a art,
A 12 year old kid?? Are you kidding me? The real targets of the RIAA should be the wholesale pirates: the ones who buy 20-cd burning towers and crank out cheap cds. Or maybe the people who rip millions of songs from pirated cds and post them on Kazaa. Prosecuting the downloaders is stupid because it fails to get rid of the source.
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? If I'm correct the Child Online Protection Act prohibits collection of information about online behavior for those under 13 without parental consent.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
I don't believe the RIAA have proven yet that sharing music files is truly "illegal". Such a great court case could have been in the making here, yet the family was completely scared into handing over $2000 (which I highly doubt was even the price of the music in "CD-form").
What a force-fed statement from the girl's mother. Makes me sick.
"My days are less enjoyable because of people." ~ Johnny the Homicidal Maniac
'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'
Did they throw in a free brainwashing session? Or was that quote a pre-fab'd one they told her to say?
I find it unacceptable that a minor has been bullied into paying $2000 by the RIAA.
Leaving the analyses to others, I would like to say concisely that in retribution for this behavior, I from this day forward will never again purchase another compact disc. Ever.
If you would like to demonstrate your disapproval of their harassment and extortion, reply to this message and show your solidarity.
Michael.
Linux : Mac
Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.
This actually isn't such a bad idea. I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative? See, I don't want to just stop listening to music. But I want to listen to music by artists that aren't under the RIAA. Anyone know of such a site, or have any plans to put one together?
http://mediagoblin.org/
It's not age. It's money and PR. They'll hurt people absolutely as much as they can get away with. If they don't get beaten down by a David and soon, I honestly expect them to be destroying computers with baseball bats and professional hackers by Christmas 2005. They're behaviour is getting closer and closer to organised crime.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
A single mom and a daughter living in public
housing has:
a) a computer
b) $$ for some kind of internet access
c) $29.99 to give to Kazaa
d) $2,000 to settle
This sounds like RIAA paid for propaganda to me. The daughter's response:
"I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
A little canned, non?
This is the prototypical case the RIAA must pursue - teenagers whose parents are oblivious. I do not think the above mentioned case is legitimate, but is being fabricated to show the RIAA means business. A scare tactic, if you will. I'm not overestimating the bad press a story like this will cause the RIAA, because I do not think it will cause any bad press to the RIAA.
Someone might want to do a little Internet research on the Brianna LaHara and Sylvia Torres and see if anything turns up. I'll bet dollars to donuts "TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer" did not do any homework on this.
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. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere is it written in any constitution nor holy book that every citizen is entitled to music. In the Middle Ages, bards would be sponsored by royalty, or they'd travel the land and get food and shelter in exchange for the bard's lore and song. Anyone who tried to get a bard to sing for nothing would most likely be laughed at. Times have changed, but basic concepts have not.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
There are so many different ways to look at this. One would say "the law is the law," and I can't argue with that. But come on...don't they have better things to do? However, I think this does give some proof to the theory that they're only looking for people with top 40 hits...I mean, not to make assumptions or stereotype, but I doubt she has any *real* taste in music! I'm wondering what is the actual retail value of the music she pirated. I highly doubt it's anywhere near that. $2000 is bad, but it could have been much worse, judging by the other lawsuits.
On a slightly related note about parents picking up the tab when their kids do wrong...Here's one for you: what do you get when you cross a 12 year old computer addict + summer + no knowledge of how long distance charges work + an ISP with an area code that, while different from my phone's area code, is only a block away? A $1500 phone bill. Yes, I had been using an ISP over the summer with an area code that was different from mine, but only a half mile away. I didn't get it! My parents weren't too happy.
There are far more interesting RIAA suits than this one.
1. In Boston, MA, the RIAA sued a 29 yr old man for $250,000 in damages. The man apparently had an unprotected wifi network that broadcast a share containing over 150 albums. The case is still pending.
2. In Rosedale, PA, the RIAA sued a 16 yr old teenager for $20,000 in damages. He apparently responded to a spam and attached an MP3 file. One of the other recipients of the spam contacted the RIAA, who proceeded to sue. A criminal investigation is still "under consideration"
The RIAA is so full of lies and shit.
their support of big media now. Think of all the parents who will be calling Washington tonight to complain to their senators. Let's see the congresspeople scurry now that the full light of public wrath is turned on them to put a stop to these jackasses.
I live in New York, and on the subway in the morning it is the New York Post and the Daily News that are read by most people. This story made the front page of both, and both painted the RIAA as the bad guys. When that happens, you've lost the man on the street and it's game over. It's been my personal mission to do what I can to bring the RIAA down for three years, and this morning I could feel the invisible presence of millions of other Americans lining up next to me.
Methinks, my friends, that today marks the beginning of the end of the recording industry as we know it. I say that the day the last of them declares bankruptcy, we gather in Central Park with our MP3 players and party.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I work in the food retail industry where there are two ways to compete against others. One, is to compete with price. An example of this is Winco or Walmart where you will probably get a super-low price but maybe not the best customer service.
The other way to compete is through customer service. I work in one of these stores. The trick, is to make sure that the customers are able to easily find what they want, guarantee the product against failure and bad quality. This approach will attract more long-term customers as you build a positive relationship with the customer. They will gain confidence in your abilities to make sure that they get what they need, even if it isn't the cheapest around.
The point of that whole last paragraph, is to illustrate that the RIAA needs competition because its products are both expensive and they have terrible customer service. They are turning their customers into the enemy and getting away with it because you can't get away from them and buy from another store. There needs to be competitors for the RIAA. You may say "oh, there's indie labels!" hah. Indie music is shit. They can't afford to pay their artists well and the only people who will go with them won't be good ones.
In short, if there were two competing recording industry associations, we would not have the problems we face now.
Anyone else feel like pitching in a buck or two for this family? With any surplus amount over $2k going to EFF?
Regards,
--
*Art
> $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.
All the more reason to send her money. Think of the karma obtainable by embarrassing them over a non-existent situation!
I don't care if I send her ten bucks she doesn't deserve, if the media picks up on it and runs a heart-warming story about how a bunch of geeks came to the aid of a poor kid being abused by a big bully trade organization. If anyone pipes up and blows the true story, all the better.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
WOW, less that a day from when the public noticed that RIAA was sueing a 12 year-old to the settlement. I'd say it almost looks like they didn't like being seen as the heartless [insert favorite four letter word]s they are. I like their peer2porn push more, it's true and not quite as heartless on the outside.
:D
When they come knocking at my door I'll go down guns blazing. Then I'll pay the fines by selling the music that I've just been fined for having, which I will of course have to download because I don't actually have it. And if they come back we can keep playing the game untill someone accidentally deletes my case.
-Tim Louden
Behold! Justice in action!
Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.
Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.
Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.
And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.
This suddenly has me thinking. Maybe not entirely on-topic, but close...
A minor can not be legally held to a contract. I started college at 17, and my parents had to go with me and sign everything right under my name. Needless, to say, it was a little embarrasing. But that aside, they had to do that because, at 17, I could not legally enter into any contracts.
What is the difference between a software license, a contract, and the license regarding music CDs? Should not these all be considered invalid for anyone under 18? (yeah, yeah, US-centric, but that's where the lawsuits are...) I know most licenses contain the clause that if the license is invalid or unenforceable, you can not use the softwate/whatever. But if it is invalid/unenforceable, how can they legally stop you from using it, copying it, whatever?
IANAL, so I could be way the hell off-base. And I am sure someone has probably tried that before, right? And I assume lost? Or we would have heard all about it?
Anyone out there have any answers?
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
I don't know about that, I could see CNN or Fox news running little taglines..."Corporation sues 12 yr old and her single mother, details at 11" might keep a few people on the channel to watch their commercials. That's how news channels make their money.
If there were any real journalists left this would make an excellent introduction into abuses by large corporations...I hope 60 minutes picks this up, that's one of the few shows left that seem to have any integrity.
Regarding downloading freely-available music:
A while ago, I got into Pearl Jam when I discovered the Pearl Jam 2003 Tour Bit Torrent page. Once I got BT working properly (what with NAT and all), it's really nice. Pearl Jam actually record their own concerts and release them on CDs you can buy on their site. They also allow free trading between fans. So, people get these CDs, and then share the SHorteN files using BitTorrent.
More recently, I've been listening to Howie Day after someone played a bit of his stuff for me. After some searching online, I found that he's in the etree stuff at archive.org (here). So, I've been downloading those as well. Quite an amazing artist. [*]
I've not yet purchased an actual, "real" Howie Day CD, but I did stop by a local used records store (Used Kids on High for those in Columbus) and picked up a couple live PJ sets from Australia and Japan. So, while it was used, and so PJ saw nothing from my purchase, their free trading policy did make someone some money.
So, don't just take what you're given. Also, always look for a band's taping policy -- it may just exist and allow free trading. Sometimes, artists actually sound better in the live format. Howie Day and Pearl Jam(sometimes) in particular.
[*] The really interesting thing about Howie Day is the way he plays. His instrument is just an acoustic guitar. However, he also has these "pedals" or buttons that he can control with his feet. When he presses on one of them, it will loop a bit of what he just played. So, by doing this enough, he can actually jam and harmonize with himself. It's a really nice melding of a classic instrument and some technology that may just interest some Slashdot'ters.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
I am amazed at the Slashdot crowd.
She stole something (copyrighted material from the Net), got caught (by the RIAA) and was forced to pay for it. I bet next time she or her friends (or anyone that watched CNN today) thinks about downloading an mp3 file from Kazaa they will think of the consequences, and maybe decide that downloading might cost them more then the $19.99 they would pay on the store for the whole CD.
That's how I see it.
If you truly feel sorry for her, go ahead pay her bill.
I'm actively boycotting all music and refusing to purchase anymore of it. Period. I can listen to my radio and enjoy the NON-Clear Channel stations. Thanks to the RIAA and its peons, that poor (not meant literally) girl will be traumatized for life. She'll be thinking about everything she does and how it could cost her and her family financially. Fucking over 12-year old girls for thousands of dollars for some no-talent washup (Cher?) so our buddies in the RIAA can have another joint after dinner is NOT my idea of the true American market. Those bastards need to realize that since file-sharing occured, their sales have increased because the music was better publicized. I stand behind that girl as if she were my own daughter. I'm saddened by this issue of a 'Big Brother' corporation crushing school children and their families. America - "Give us your tired, your weak, your haggard, so we can sue them." God Bless the almight dollar. Right?
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
This seems too revolting to be true. It also seams unlikey that our neighbourhood recording industry association would prey on a little girl.
Maybe it's just propaganda to encourage others to settle quickly.[/conspiracy]
'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'
(Any more news about the RIAA and I'm cutting off my ears.) [INSET VAN GOUGH JOKE HERE]
Even worse, popular media never brings up the idea that copyright protection extending 70 years past the creator's death just might be a little more than needed to fulfill the original purpose of copyright -- encouraging creators to share their work.
I'd love to see Tom Brokaw discussing the idea that copyright in this country was permitted only because it was feared that the public domain might never benefit from somebody's efforts.
That's the story you never see in popular media. People assume that because something is illegal, it should not be legal. I'd love to see a large consumer group form with the goal of copyright reform -- that would be an organization to which I'd gladly donate money which is currently not being spent on overpriced CDs, and I'd encourage others to do the same.
I'd like to see a website provide a mechanism for meeting and discussing issues with an easy method of donation. Hell, it'd even be a great way for Slashdot to convince more people to join -- perhaps they should donate 50% of membership fees to one or more OSS or consumer-advocacy group which you could select from a list. It'd be a great way to encourage membership ("Pay for Slashdot, support a worthy cause!"), and it would provide exposure to groups which could do great things with a little more funding.
Mmmkay, time for bed.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
The ability to monopolize a planet is insignificant next to the power of the source.
I committed to not buying music
I used to buy a lot of CDs but, gradually, came to resent both the inflated prices here in Europe and the attitude of the music industry to their customers. So, I stopped buying CDs for myself.
I continued, however, buying CDs as gifts for others; it's so easy to order them online and have them sent to a friend/relative/the girl of the moment with a nice message. Everyone likes music whereas if you send a book it probably won't, with the best intentions in the world, actually get read.
But no more. I am now on an official boycott, the RIAA is getting no more money from me.
I am sickened by the way they singled out a family living in a project was singled out(and I'm aware of how much tougher it is to be poor in America).
I am appalled the obvious way in which, as soon as they saw it turning into a PR nightmare, they quickly arranged some sort of deal and concocted these statements from the mother. The whole thing stinks.
Pity the kid who's about to become the only teenager in her neighborhood who's ability to explore new music is stunted by specific legal agreement.
And pity my friends too: they'll be getting books from now on.
The information in question was gathered with the authority of a writ issued by a court clerk. No judge was involved. THIS is the most illegal, unconstitutional part of the DMCA. The Constitution quite clearly says that only THE JUDICIARY (ie: JUDGES) can issue these kinds of orders. Congress has knowingly bastarized the Constitution. They do it all the time by using a loophole which allows laws to be enforced UNTIL they are proven unconstitutional. See, members of Congress are indemnified from their acions. For example, let's say that Congress passes a law allowing summary executions. 100 people are killed this way before the law is thrown out in court. Members of Congress can not be charged with murder EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW what they were doing was unconstitutional. Until this loophole is closed, laws like the DMCA will begin to become the RULE as opposed to the exception. Finally, guess who would have to actually close the looophole?
Yep, Congress would, just like it's up to Congress to pass federal term limits....another thing that will never happen!
Actually I've refused to buy RIAA music for over a year now. This isn't the first of it's kind, it's just an upgrade of the speed they are dishing out lawsuits.
I actually try to make people stop buying RIAA albums when I see that someone has a new CD in their car/house. I've broken a few of my friends of the habbit of Buying music CD's. Mainly we can find non-P2P ways to 'share backup copies' of music that is non-risk, while still screwing the RIAA out of money. I hate to hurt the artists I like, but if it means that the RIAA goes down with them, then so be it.
The model with freely distributable music as outlined in my post would handle that just fine -- record shops (or the music industry themselves) could burn as many CDs as they want with the dual-format files on them. Pay a buck or two for the CD, and listen to it in low quality -- that would be good enough for many people. If you want higher quality, go to a burning booth in the record shop, enter the ID of your CD player(s), pay the price, and get a full quality CD, freshly burnt just for you. The time for burning a CD these days isn't much longer than you have to wait in line to pay for a CD, so a system like that makes sense.
Of course, by the time the record companies get around to do something like this, and use DRM in a meaningful and profitable way, blue laser DVDs are probably on the way out, replaced by faster and cheaper solutions...
Warner, BMG, Sony and others, wake up! File sharing is here to stay, and you might as well embrace it, and think a little bit further than yesterday's technology and old-fashioned 1:1 distribution, like MusicNet really is. USE the net, USE file sharing, offer more, and SELL more.
Regards,
--
*Art
So let's see... What is our goal? Show the RIAA that they can sue anyone for as much as they want and the general public will pitch in and pay their fines?
Anyway, time to set up a fund for her and her mom, and maybe even get serious on a threat to boycott the RIAA companies, for once...
--Amazingly, even economists are now coming to grips with the fact that they've overestimated consumer rationalism.
I was twelve when I realized people were, by and large, idiots.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public - H. L. Mencken
KFG
What irks me, and I think subliminally the entire planet, is the implied value of the crime (oops in some parallel universe it's a civil issue, damn those details). Now, here's an object lesson, conveniently provided by the American Association of Composers, Authors and Publishers (aka ASCAP), you know the guys that actually do the licensing?
Go ahead, play with it.
http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/license.html
If you put in the assumptions:
User revenue: $1
User sessions >= 60 minutes: 100,000
Total user sessions: 100,000
Total performances from ASCAP catalog: 100,000
The result is (under all rate schedules):
Total annual license fee: $264
Even if you pulled in $100,000 in revenue, your license fee with the above assumptions would be between $1,600 and $4,440 per year.
Hey, if I could play every freakin' song ASCAP distributes royalties on and rake in $100 large doing it and only have to shell out a maximum of 400 bucks a month... well, where the hell do they come up with $15 GRAND?!?!?
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.
It's hilarious the paradox of the various arguments that come up in these debates. Now firstly let's observe the fact that many Slashdotters are pseudo-communists: They love the idea of "the man" giving things away for free, and everything being just about goodwill and sharing. Now consider the fact that as an example, Slashdotters berate the RIAA because they find out that Madonna or Britney Spears only made $3 or whatever/CD. The travesty! The outrage!
The paradox is that the _reason_ why big, successful artists make only a small portions of the proceeds is because the consortium of music companies pump a lot of money into "music development": Little bands that'll never go anywhere. That's the vast majority, btw. These little bands often see the label money as the "one chance", and happily sign contracts that say that if they beat all of the odds and make it big, they'll let the music industry keep some of it in an almost communist sharing type arrangement, where it supports the next batch of music development.
Maybe I've just become cynical, but whenever I see one of these RIAA articles all I perceive are a bunch of unreasonably idealistic, have-you-cake-and-eat-it-too unrealists berating big business while standing up for the little guy. Oooh, the poor little girl, who had an internet connection and a computer and was apparently among one of the top file sharers (with a 1000+ songs purportedly) is being bugged by the big bad music industry. Don't they realize that she has a God given right to rip off Justin Timberlake's new CD?
Wait no longer! A quote from this article (emphasis mine):
-- Kircle
Fan sponsored music does work.
One of my all time favourite bands Einstuerzende Neubauten recently (well in the last year) launched a project asking for funding for a new album (its production costs and so forth.).
The project Neubauten offered fans the option of sponsoring them. In turn you got access to video feeds of production and other performances. An exclusive CD, sponsor discounts in upcoming tours (yay!) and access to old and rare material as well as a double CD live album free to download.
They got over twice as much sponsorship as they expected. And as a result are doing phase two (another album and a DVD upon sponsorship).
It can work. New means of artistic creation does work. One doesnt need to be tied to the old systems.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie...."
Nimheil
As a recording musician, I'm interested in your opinion as to the culpability of the people who *sign* these contracts in this whole sordid mess.
Let's take a poll and see how many people don't know that signing a record contract is basically signing a deal with the devil. Sooner or later, he's coming to collect. Given that, at what point do the artists themselves begin to share some blame in their own predicament?
Obviously, no one *needs* the RIAA labels right? If you can do it yourself why can't, U2 for example? And even when we find a name musician who has "gone it alone", Prince is a good example, why don't we find them offering their works for substantially less money? For that matter, why don't more artists at least take the first step and go independent after any contracts they may have initially signed ,"to get noticed", are up?
Sincerely interested in your, or any other musician's reply.
17 USC Sec. 1101 - Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term ''traffic in'' means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
So according to my (admittedly limited) understanding of this section, unless you're exchanging the infringing material for something of value, then you're not doing anything wrong. Placing MP3s in a shared directory doesn't get you anything of value. You don't get faster downloads if you share, in fact they're slightly slower. Actively sharing files actually costs you, rather than helping you.
17 USC Sec. 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users. -
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware offacts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
A clever lawyer would have said that the girl's mom is a service provider. She pays for the service, right? And unless she was notified by the RIAA of her daughter's infringment she wasn't obligated to do anything.
What's also interesting is further down:
To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
So unless there is a signature, th
I've just come up with a way to really create havoc for the RIAA. This is something they'd sh*t themselves over, and its so easy you could do it right now.
[Step One]
Pay for, and download a legal MP3 file from iMusic or Emusic or any of the other legal commercial MP3 download sites.
[Step Two]
Now that you've legally downloaded those MP3 files, you are also allowed to burn those to a CD-R (as stands to reason, but the Emusic site also says you're allowed to -- after all you're intending to listen to it on your stereo).
[Step Three]
DON'T LISTEN TO IT.
Instead, sell your newly burned CD-R (as "new") on eBay or Half.com.
[Step Four]
Congratulations, you've just created a legitimate marketplace for CD-R recordings. No one will be able to tell what's legitimate from illegitimate anymore. Your CD-R is perfectly legal to sell online, but so might anyone else's. In essence you've just creasted a legal loophole for the sales of home-burned CD-R's packed with music.
[Step Five]
Mod this up and lets start a revolution!
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Everyone is saying that we should set up a fund for this little girl and her family. Even if the RIAA paid them the money under the table already, if eveyone on the internet donates it will make a great story for sappy evening news. Look in the articled that the slashdot story is linked to, it has the name of the mother of the girl. It also says that they live in New York. Put two and two together at http://www.whitepages.com Now some geek out there that will actually do something and knows about these things, call the family and tell them to set up a special fund at their local bank for this purpose, get the account number, and then send a chain e-mail out with this information. This email will go like wildfire! The normal idiots will forward it and maybe donate money, and geeks that are fed up with forwards will actually like it and resend it too. Send off a press release or two to the local news media and bam! WE EMBARASS THE RIAA. True this is slashdot and we talk and talk but never actually do much so I don't think that this will happen. Maybe the EFF could help in some way.
Is her attorney incompetent or does she even have one? If what she did was criminal, she would be in juvenile detention. If it is civil, as we're told, then she hasn't reached her age of majority. She cannot enter into an implied contract, or has contract law changed to include minors? Why didn't her attorney argue this?
Furthermore, since she hasn't reached her age of majority, why can't her agreement to pay the RIAA be declared non-binding? If her Mom entered into a contractual agreement to pay the RIAA as a result of intimidation, why can't her attorney get that set aside or whatever?
Did RIAA enter the dwelling with or without a search warrant, and stand there and watch her download the files? If not, then what is the evidence or how is the evidence substiantiated? Why didn't her attorney argue this point? Oh, are RIAA employees duly sworn and deputized to perform law enforcement? If so, then why the lawsuit in lieu of handcuffs?
If the downloaded files are to be used under the provision of the Fair Use Clause of the copyright law, then why doesn't her attorney let it go to trial and (after arguing age of majority) argue fair use? Given her age, would such a civil case even go to trial?
They can't scare people into buying their music, only to not copying it. That doesn't make them any
$2,000 for what? Getting someone to call up the girl's mother and say, "Give us 2 grand and we won't press charges."
Seems like they're getting more money than you give them credit for, they're certainly getting more from this girl than they've gotten in my entire lifetime, I won't pay 20 bucks for a CD with an hour of music when I can pay 15 for a 2 hour DVD with special features.
Learn something new.
=) Yes, most electronic music is produced overseas where the riaa has lesser control over the situation. It's pedantic in the sense the only reason that the RIAA does not control these labels yet is dance music took the low road out of the limelight in america. Should the "music industry" decide that EDM is the "next big thing" status in america then you can rest assured that things will change in EDM circles aswell. Which is unfortunate of course, it's unbelievable how much innovation and spirit there is within electronica.
Gone are all the constraints of money and promotion. You can start producing electronica music with a 500 dollar software suite and a little bit of creativity (and patience). There is many people who are only 19, 20, maybe 21 that get their records signed. Granted they don't make a living doing it, but it's a start...
It just brings the whole thing down to earth really. Music was never meant to be shackled by a media industry which seeks to undermine all which it stood for. (profit instead of content)
There is not a more moving experience on the planet for me than watching a tear roll down somebodies cheek when the DJ spinning drops a divine track (not to say this is a common thing). Unbelievable? you take a listen, and then get back to me =)...
Speaking for myself, I'd like to know what that $29.99 was paid for, and to whom. Last I heard, Kazaa and Kazaa-Lite were free downloads.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
You can't set a precedent without a court proceeding , but you can set a dangerous trend and swap public opinion (not to the point where people won't hate the RIAA, just that they'll fear the fines).
Really, I see the similarities between this and SCO. Neither wants to go to court, they both just want people to pay up, sell out, or stop using a competing product. And yes, online audio is a competing product in that it is in opposition to the fist-around-balls (TM) methods used by the RIAA and other corps in the past...
What on earth makes you think you can't be convicted of something based only on circumstantial evidence? Happens all the time. For that matter, circumstantial evidence is in many cases thought to be better evidence than even eyewitness testimony according to various legal experts.
Oh give me a fucking break. Ruining lives? They're not gouging children on school lunch, it's entertainment.
It comes down to one simple thing: they made the songs, they get to decide what you pay. Don't like it? Then don't buy it, and definately don't steal it, unless you're comfortable with your principled stand being "I want it so I take it."
Find some real principles. Minimize your reliance on corporate music. Listen to local music and bands on independent labels that understand modern distribution. Don't know where to find them? Tune in to your local college station, find interesting stations on the internet, go to local shows. If after that you still feel this is ruining your life then write your represenative or take it to the streets or something but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.
All the more reason to send her money.
I say instead of just forking over money (which would be a nice thing to do anyways), donate music to her. In the articles, she said she just really loved to listen to music. So I say give her the gift of whatever music we could spare. Send her old cd's your don't listen to. Send her old LPs. Have a Paypal account set up to buy her a music instrument of her choice so she can learn music (which is a wonderful life skill with so many benefits).
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
"Or how about: Shoplift $2000 worth of CDs and burn them on the Capitol's steps. I think that would send a message, and garner huge media time."
Um no.
Problem #1: Everybody's being accused of commiting theft as it is. Stealing CD's and burning them, no matter how 'amusing' it'd be, would not do anything but land you in jail. The media would be there to laugh at you.
Problem #2: You'd be hurting the retailer, not the RIAA. Frankly, I still have sympathy for those guys. I'd be disgusted if they became the victim instead of the RIAA.
That's the reason I suggested what I did. If the CD is returned unopened, they can still turn around and sell it. But somewhere they'll have a record that says "on this particular day, we had $n returns." If one day a million dollars of music CD's was purchased and then returned, believe me it'd show up on the radar of each of these retailers. Suddenly some recognition can happen. "Here is one million dollars you could have earned."
This is far more effective than a boycott. If you boycott the RIAA, then they'll claim they lost those sales to piracy.
"Derp de derp."
I don't understand the overwhelming sympathy for those who steal, 12yr old or otherwise. If you were mugged by 50,000,000 mostly teenagers, would you say "aw, stop picking on the kids" ?
Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me? If I choose to release an open source project for anybody to use, that's fine. But if I make my living writing code -- or performing music -- then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?
Does theft suddenly become acceptable when it's done on a massive scale? Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?
The other argument of "RIAA is evil, therefore committing crimes against them is okay" doesn't wash either. These aren't victimless offenses, the money has to be coming out of somebody's pocket. If CDs are too expensive, then don't buy them. I don't claim the right to steal an SVT Cobra just because the $35k list price is too expensive.
IMHO, RIAA and other music associations should enforce their rights and are obligated to do so for their stockholders. Dunno of any practical way for them to ensure they pursue only unsympathetic defendants. Seems to make sense for them to ease into it, have a little consideration when negotiating with naive downloaders, gather as much publicity as possible so that music listeners in the future will understand that stealing music is wrong.
BTW, I have an adult friend who insists it's perfectly legal to make copies of her CDs as long as she only gives them to friends. The only way such attitudes will change is when people are prosecuted for it.
"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 know it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating: by purchasing used music, you are increasing the demand for used music. This makes it easier for people who buy new music from the RIAA to resell their music when they are done with it, thus indirectly increasing their new music consumption.
If you wish to annoy the RIAA and listen to music, either pirate it (which will get you sued and is illegal), or properly boycott it by spending your money on a more beneficial industry such as video gaming.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Hi,
;-) (this should be embarassing
you could write a letter to
Recording Industry Association of America
Frank Creighton
1020 19th St., NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 775-0101
Fax: (202) 775-7523
Fax: (202) 775-7253
(he's the contact person for prosecution of
violations of intellectual property rights).
If he's not willing to give you the name and
address of the girl, ask him to forward your
donation to her
enough).
Where is the online-petition to cash up the $2000? Is it just me, or is it just absurd that a single mother should pay up $2000 to RIAA?
I have heard a few mention a market blackout of all purchases of cds/movies for one month. If this could be acomplished let me sugest the perfect dates for this, It will be probably the most difficult blackout in history to pull off though, if we did we would definately send a message to the music industry, RIAA and everyone else who is listening. December 1 - December 31
Now lets show the RIAA what a
______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
Ok, why haven't I seen this mentioned yet? Or am I blind?
IANAL, but if I were, this whole story would make for the most beautiful closing argument I could ever hope for. It would be worth all this negative hype when it paid off in court.
Because when it's all said and done, Joe Jury Duty can understand the phrase "It's so simple, even a 12yr old child can understand it."
Let's face it, the RIAA couldn't buy this kind of opportunity. Well, ok. Not for less than $2,000 anyway. And no, I don't think they 'arranged' for it to happen. But everyone is acting like they screwed up. If I can spin this to the benefit of the Devil's Advocate, be sure they can.
best web host ever
There is a difference.
First, let's suppose I think Britney Spears' music is crap and I would never pay for it.
If I go to a record store and steal a Britney Spears CD (I just want to really see if it's crap), they have lost a potential sale because I've taken the CD and they cannot sell it now. The store has suffered a loss.
Now, if I go online and download the same CD, nobody has been harmed. Nobody has lost a product, and nobody has lost the ability to make a sale.
I'm not saying it's right, but by downloading a CD that I would never have paid for, nobody has been harmed. They have not lost the sale to me, and they have not lost the potential of selling the product to someone else.
Every time I feel like buying a CD I instead listen to the free mp3's I have downloaded that are non-copyrighted, and send a donation to the EFF.
The RIAA and their cohorts of evil around the world have lost me as a customer - forever.
I have a lot of CD's purchased pre-boycott but post-napster, but they are the last.
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
Where was the EFF in this case?
The EFF did not have time in this case to do anything.
This was brought to wordwide attention and settled in one day.
This is light-speed in the halls of justice.
What you are seeing is a mini kangaroo court floating out there run by the **AAs' legal departments. (With the Government rubber stamping subpoenas right and left expect a lot more.)
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.
Settle down, Junior.
Try this one
"Criminal Corperation threatens destitute 12yr old and mother."
OR
Convicted corperation extorts 12yr old and her single mother for $2000.
Sometimes the truth really hurts....
How many people get the feeling that the whole thing was orchestrated by the RIAA and this little girl is going to get a very big check a few months down the road when this all dies off?
Think about it. Public outrage aside, the way this thing ended was very calculated. If they had in fact "Accidentally" sued her, they would have simply dropped the charges, as would be the PR thing to do to quickly clean up a mess
But instead, this girl whose family is living in the projects is instead going to pony up $2000 and still say good things about the RIAA?
Plus, with the way this ended, it gives the RIAA and additional "Fear Factor" where it will get folks who don't have a clue in them to say to themselves "If they will even stoop to squeezing out 2 grand of a lil' ol' girl, what chance do I stand?"
I smell a Rat.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Oh, and to avoid lawsuits I would like to point out that here in Sweden it is perfectly legal to download music, though not for much longer as the Swedish EUCD implementation is on its way.
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
I've suggested this several times and gotten shot down or ignored on more than one occasion for not being realistic. Despite that, I totally agree - the boycott is an effective method of hitting RIAA where it lives.
However, I would add the following - go into your major chain with a flyer stating WHY you are boycotting their music and video selections. Hand it to the manager - if they get enough of them, then someone at the corporate level will be notified.
Second, boycott MTV/VH1 and your local Clearchannel station for obvious reasons. Again, they have to know that a boycott is in effect, so make with the flyers (but mail them, I suppose).
Third (and far less realistic), I would suggest extending the boycott in perpetuity until RIAA has a more reasonable stance and a less irritating manner. It would take a while, but losing sales during the Xmas rush and the post-Xmas sales period would definitely put them on notice that something was up.
Last, for maximum moral standing - don't download. That would only give them more ammunition. Remember, if you're going to take a moral stance, you can't half-ass it and try to slip something in the back door.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Actually, in some countries the fines are related to how much money you actually make. This makes sense for things like speeding, a $100 ticket to someone who makes a million in a year is not nearly as impactful as it is to someone who make $20,000
The whole situation with the RIAA and these lawsuits is way out of hand. Is it illegal to download music? Probably so. Should people be drug through the court system for it? Probably not. I know I personally am so disgusted with the situation that I will never again buy another CD, or download any music. If it isn't on the radio then I simply won't hear it. This may be extreme, but it is what I feel comfortable with.
The only way I would purchase or download any music now would be directly from the artist whether that is a homegrown cd ad a concert, or via an artists website. And the artist would have to clearly state that he/she is not in any way affiliated with the RIAA. Maybe this would prompt some real creativity in music rather than the cookie-cutter knockoffs we have today.
Back in the 50's through arount the mid 80's there was good reason for musicians to have record deals with major studios. Recording at that time was so expensive that noone could manage it decently without that support. Today almost any musician can manage to cut some pretty good sounding tracks at home on a relatively limited budget. They can also market their music via the net on a relatively limited budget. Granted they probably won't reach the multi-million sales totals that the big distribution channels provide today, but they shouldn't need to since the distributors would not be snatching most of the profits.
Anyway, until this happens - if this happens - I'll just say no to the whole thing..
I posted this yesterday but I don't think many people saw it. An umbrella insurance policy would cover you if your kid was in a similar situation. I work for an insurance company and I did some checking. We would have to cover any legal costs in such a situation. If enough people with umbrella policies decide to fight, you can bet the insurance companies will try to make sure they win in court.
Copy right infringement is not theft. See U.S. Supreme Court, DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
Let's keep our terms straight. It's copy right infringement. It's unauthorised duplication. That's actionable in a civil suit. But it's not theft, and it's not stealing, and it's not criminally actionable (unless you fall foul of the DMCA, but that's a seperate issue).
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Why not get the kid's mom to set up a paypal account and then people can send donations? At the same time /.'ers can send a standardized letter to their local newspapers alerting them to the fact that the geek community is supporting this poor girl and why (ie. you don't sue poor 12 year olds that were trying to do the legal thing!)
G.
"This technology stuff is just plum crazy!"
I stand corrected. I will definately check the RIAA radar out. I also like the idea of an organized boycott. Who wants to setup a site? I have some web space, but I dont think it can handle much traffic. Let me know. -NEXT TOPIC- I regularly download music from buymusic.com. It has some weaknesses (I had a bad CDR drive and wasted my burn limit on a couple of songs trying to burn them) but at least it is a step in the right direction. I am willing to pay a buck a song, but I really have a bad feeling giving any money to the RIAA vultures. Maybe I should go buy a cassette deck. :P
OK, hypothetical question:
As far as I know, making mp3's of music you own is legal, yes?
One buys used cd's from the local used cd shop(s) with cash. This person then copies mp3's for private use. Later, they sell the cd's back to the store (also for cash).
Is this person supposed to delete the mp3's for music they no longer own?
If they don't, I don't suppose that's precisely the same crime as illegal downloading/filesharing?
I just thought this was an interesting formulation of the situation.
-Styopa
.. (or anyone for that matter), to monitor the on-line activities of someone who is underage? My two cents.