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,
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 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/
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
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.
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.
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?!?!?
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.