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

[Silroquen]

They're trying to scare us. It is particularly obvious that this is the case because of the specific situation: a mother pays so that her daughter can, as they were told, legally download songs, and the RIAA still makes them pay $2000? It absolutely makes me sick.

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

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Their tactics are to hit hard. Thumping a 12yr old in a housing project shows that they are not going to go softly.

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

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

[WhiteKnight07]

At either the voter registration office or your local gun range. Depending on how much patience and faith in the system you have.

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

[BrynM]

Listen to more NPR and watch less FOX/CNN/ETC. NPR has had balanced coverage and entire shows dedicated to this very subject over the last four years.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[ChrisStoy]

Two Words: TERM LIMITS If you can't make a career out of being a politician, you are more likely to do what is good for the people you represent, not do what will get you the most money and keep you in office.

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

[aastanna]

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Unregistered]

No, they have these rights because they bought them

Re:The RIAA sucks

[ThatFreakBob]

The truth is somehow funny now?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[evil-osm]

Yes they do suck, so instead of just complaining about it, do something.

Don't buy RIAA CD's, or goto places like emusic that is RIAA free.

If you can't find the music download it if you have to, however go the extra step, locate the band of the music you downloaded and cut *THEM* a cheque.

Let them see the power of this distribution method.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[hankaholic]

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[xSauronx]

which, i suppose, means that all this fine money goes into a "keep the RIAA in power" fund and not to the artists that music downloaders are "harming" right?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[WhiteKnight07]

I dunno man... I was being totally serious...

Re:The RIAA sucks

[arth1]

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?"

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

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, see, you've got it wrong. Money is free speech, so if you have more money, you get to be heard louder...

</bs>
If it was "Free speech" than everyone should have equal opportunity to get their point across. Who elected them anyway? The corporations, or the people? Or are corporations people too?

I still don't see how those people who say money is free speech can honestly say that giving money to politicians so politicians will "consider" what you have to say, isn't bribery. It'd be like giving $10k to a judge and saying "I'd like you to consider my opinion when ruling in this court case."

Re:The RIAA sucks

[E_elven]

--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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[kfg]

No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public - H. L. Mencken

KFG

Re:The RIAA sucks

[jmt9581]

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.

"50 Cent CD" is a cruel joke, considering the context of the discussion.

:)

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

[flug]

>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.

Or what percentage of the damages they collect will be going to the artists who created the music, as opposed to the giant, insatiable, and irrelevant corporate maw. (Hint: 0%)

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

[arth1]

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.

Sure there should be a way to change the ID of a device. But that doesn't mean it's practical -- people won't be entering a new 32 digit number every time they want to listen to a different song -- they will PAY to not have to do that.

You can't EVER stop piracy or illegal copying. You can, however, make it much more convenient to pay the price and get the rights. Just like you don't copy a book page by page on a copier, because it's darn inconvenient compared to just buying the book.

With each user having his own ID, and the ability to enter that ID into any player, you make it inconvenient to play music you're not entitled to. But you don't make it impossible to switch (or add) players.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:The RIAA sucks

[EmbeddedJanitor]

No, they have these rights because they bought them

They were bought only because you have a system which allows these rights to be sold. In theory, the USA is a democracy - and is controlled by the people. If this is true, then only the people could have given them these rights, or to look at it another way, the rights are for sale only because the people allow this.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[panthro]

This is not a clear cut issue. Where do you draw the line between where an MP3 file 'belongs' to the RIAA and where it is different enough to be public domain or 'owned' by someone else?

What if I had a band that made a recording indistinguishable from, say, track 10 on the new Pearl Jam CD and distributed it? What if I create an MP3 file of a Notorious BIG track with a bitrate so low that it were no longer recognizable?

As for downloading music: what if I claimed to have a band that could play all of Pearl Jam's songs, distributed real Pearl Jam songs labelled as such and someone downloaded them thinking they were just really good covers? Is there really any way to prove that the recipient of an audio file knew that the file was copyrighted, having in most cases only an ID3 tag to go by (and it is not their responsibility to go to all lengths to find out)?

Finally, this may be an exclusive Canadian thing (IANAL), but I was under the impression that if it was evident that the person committing a crime (assuming there is a crime here at all) did not know that what they were doing was illegal, they could not be punished for it in the normal sense. The official record here seems to blatantly state that the girl thought what she was doing was legal.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[afidel]

NO!

Charging per device takes away my right to own that which I purchase. It ruins the first sale doctrine. I do NOT want to give the media companies more rights then they already have, they are already greatly abusing the rights they do have.

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

[Cpt_Kirks]

I call it the 80% rule. 80% of people are morons.

Keep that in mind and a lot of the shit that goes on in the world makes sense.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[AEton]

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

Your lack of capitalization makes an excellent point. The American government, it can be strongly argued, is currently neither entirely democratic (everyone's voice heard) nor fully republican (elected officials ensure that everyone's voice is heard). But at the same time, your representatives understand that they don't stand a Democrat's chance in Texas of getting re-elected unless they at least pretend to be open for input; and, surprisingly, quite a few representatives are receptive to your suggestions.

Instead of complaining about how your representatives are hopelessly in lust with special interests, consider writing a letter or making a phone call. If everyone thinks that one voice won't make a difference, no one will speak. And then we'll end up with nonsense like the DMCA and 140-year copyrights.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[cspring007]

So on download.com's main page today, they had a link to an article that described how to 'rip an mp3 radio' stream to your computer. They even provide a list of programs that you can do this with. Is that legal, if not, is the RIAA going to sue download dot com? or do they only target the elderly and adolecent? I mean, why fight somone your own size, when you can squash ant's with your fingers.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[fenix down]

It was funny because you think you can do something to either the RIAA, any federal, state or local government, or really any group of more than a dozen people with a gun. No matter what crazy shit you got stashed in your garage, a couple /.ers just can't spill enough blood to even slow down something like this.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Cpt_Kirks]

Being true does not keep it from being funny.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[BrynM]

When the other points of view are severely watered down and full of fluff - Yeah, listen. I don't listen to it because it's liberal, I listen to it because it's the most factual available. I listen to a lot of the BBC as well. That doesn't make me British.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Cpt_Kirks]

If you think that's true, you should read this.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[mog007]

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[HidingMyName]

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.

Actually this just triggered a realization that if this law was in effect back in 1940, Disney's Pinocchio might have required licensing of the story. It would be interesting to know if Disney licensed Pinocchio or treated it as public domain work, since Carlo Collodi (the author) died in 1890 and Disney's film was made in 1940.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[arth1]

$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.

$2000 isn't even going to cover RIAA's lawyer's fees for going after the girl, nor the fees for the company that collected all the Kazaa information. RIAA is losing money on this, but they do it to scare people, not to make money.
They have this delusion that when they scare people away from using P2P networks, they scare them into buying CDs.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Kihaji]

>>What if I had a band that made a recording indistinguishable from, say, track 10 on the new Pearl Jam CD and distributed it? Then your band would be in violation of copyright law. Not of the recording but of infringing on Pearl Jam's copyright on their song. >>What if I create an MP3 file of a Notorious BIG track with a bitrate so low that it were no longer recognizable? If you create it and share it, and someone who doesn't, by today's laws, own the right to hear it, then it is illegal. Recognizability has no bearing on copyright law. (Read the original cases on Sampling) >>As for downloading music: what if I claimed to have a band that could play all of Pearl Jam's songs, distributed real Pearl Jam songs labelled as such and someone downloaded them thinking they were just really good covers? If the downloader searched for Pearl Jam, intended to download Pearl Jam, then they had motive to break the law. If they searched for another band or a public domain item and got Pearl Jam, as long as they delete it, if they don't have the rights to it, then they are safe. >>>Finally, this may be an exclusive Canadian thing (IANAL), but I was under the impression that if it was evident that the person committing a crime (assuming there is a crime here at all) did not know that what they were doing was illegal, they could not be punished for it in the normal sense. The official record here seems to blatantly state that the girl thought what she was doing was legal. Ignorance is not exemption, not in the US and not in Canada. The solution to this whole thing is really simple. Either A) Stop fucking stealing songs until the law is changed. or B)Download all you want, and then accept your punishment, IE court time, and use it to change the law. This pussy crap of "Well I don't think the law is right so everyone who likes it is evil" is bullshit. You break the law, whether you agree with it or not, means you still break the law, be a man, take your punishment and use it to get it changed.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[dtrent]

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[GoodNicsTken]

I agree with your post except for this assumption: 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). The RIAA is not an independednt orginization. It's directly controlled by the big five. The board of directors is made up of executives from the record labels. Check www.boycott-riaa.com for details. They are directly approving the RIAA's actions. They are the idiots who can't see the forest from the trees. Copy Protection - One more reason for me to find a fully functional copy on the internet.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[believekevin]

80% of people are not morons and believing that will prevent any kind of serious change. Assuming that people are idiots is fundamentally how much of the world is run. If everyone started to hold each other to higher standards, I'm sure you'd be surprised at the numbers of people who would rise to the challenge.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[saden1]

you are talking about the RIAA here....they have no soul or conscious.

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

[Quothz]

...the RIAA is indiscriminately cutting people down for a crime most sane people would put on par with jay walking.

I s'pose that makes me slightly insane, since I'd put it about on par with shoplifting. Extrapolating from a lot of vague data from the Web, I'd say about a third of us have snagged something off a shelf at some point, and it's when we were a teen or young adult.

One estimate has about 30 million active shoplifters at a time in the U.S.. Since half of 'lifters are between 18 and 30, and a third are from 13-18, I'll pretend that 24 million shoplifters are between these ages, which according to U.S. Census is around a third of folks in this age group.

So, we can unsafely assume about a third of us have shoplifted. Market researchers say about a fourth of us have participated in music filesharing. We'll pretend for a moment that all of these files were copyrighted. So, assuming (yes, another assumption - I like making assumptions, because it saves research) that the financial loss of a CD is about equal to 12 downloaded songs, we're looking at an equivalent of shoplifting a dollar or so worth of merchandise per song.

We'll ignore the fact that shoplifting has greater physical costs, such as the overhead for the merchandise space, shipping, and manufacturing, while copyright-infringing-filesharing only has production costs. We'll also ignore the fact that the author of this post has had a few beers.

For shoplifting a buck's worth of product, I'd expect to see restitution in the form of cost plus a fine, maybe a couple hundred bucks, and a criminal sentence appropriate to the offender's record. For most folks, that'd be a first offense, and prolly a lil' community service. Maybe unsupervised probation. For repeats, probably longer, supervised probation. Time served, if any, either way.

Since the demographics are not highly dissimilar (compared to violent crime, grand theft, and the like), the penalty ought'a be similar. Cost (about a buck per song), a couple-few hundred dollars on top as a slap on the wrist, and some community service or probation. Repeaters (I emphasize that "repeat" means "doing it after being convicted", not "doing it more than once before getting caught".) should probably be hit about as hard as repeat shoplifters, with, like, actual jail time.

It should be clear at this point that I support U.S. copyright law more-or-less in its current form. The musicians had rights, they signed a contract giving them away, they didn't get lobotomized first, so the RIAA owns those rights. I don't much like the RIAA, but I didn't like Sam Walton, either - and I don't think that gives me the right to take his stuff. I disagree with copyright torts of this nature, though - I think it ought'a be criminal, not civil. For one thing, criminal law gives protections to alleged offenders that civil law doesn't, thanks to that Constitution thingee.

I suggest that civil law shouldn't (in a perfect world) apply to corporate actions against private citizens acting privately. They should, in my mind, have to convince law enforcement-types that said citizens did something bad.

This is prolly obvious at this point, but I'm not, like, a lawyer or anything.

It's not exactly relevant, but here's a guy who's written a lot about shoplifting, but doesn't appear to have gotten laid since Jimmy Carter was in office.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Knos]

That's the typical geek line. Guess getting picked on in highschool ended up with you building an elitist shell?

It's more about 80% of people not having the same perspective as you. You're likely to be someone else moron, if that someone else is picking the proper perspective to look at your actions or puts you in the proper setting.

Maybe 80% of people are just being their normal human selves trying just to live their own little happy lives. Who's the moron if the only addition to the issue between you and them is the fact that you bitch and moan?

Maybe 80% don't care about copyright issues they consider as totally irrelevant to their lives. Maybe they see music as a total commodity and don't see any loss in the great scheme of things with the hoarding of works and creativity that the record companies are investing in?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

'Scuse me, but did anyone ever think that maybe intellectual property is, well, property? If people have *voluntarily* paid $12-15+ for a CD -- because it's worth that amount of money to them -- then haven't the recording companies earned every penny they have? By what right does anyone expropriate the property of another simply because he or she feels that other party -- in this case the recording companies -- doesn't need the profit? The recording companies exist for one purpose: to make money. They do this by hiring artists to produce music that they can *sell copies of* to other people. That you feel that you want it gives you no claim on it. For example, if I feel I want to drive your new Lexus -- after all, you have your Mercedes you could be driving -- why can't I just hop in the driver's seat and take it for a spin? Is it perhaps that, horror of horrors, you *own* your Lexus because you *paid* the dealership *money* for it? And if you own your Lexus, then clearly I do not. Therefore, I have no claim on your car. The recording industry makes music instead of Lexuses, and they have every right to charge whatever they like for it. You, on the other hand, have the right to curtail their profits at any time. You may very freely refuse to purchase music that isn't worth the price the retailer wishes to charge. Do I feel sympathy for anyone who has been hit by the RIAA's lawsuit? Not a shred. If you wish to redefine copyright laws to compel recording companies to publish all music for free individual use, then you may count on the quick and painful death of all recording companies. If you revoke a company's right to make a profit, then you simultaneously revoke its motivation to produce. Also, you condemn its employees -- including the recording artists whose work you so cherish, evidently -- to unemployment. Legalizing music theft would spell the end of the recording industry. It's just that simple. Property is property, and stealing, by any other name, is just as wrong.

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).

Re:The RIAA sucks

[infiniphonic]

a man could make alot of money copying lexuses and selling them on ebay.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Grishnakh]

Maybe 80% of people are just being their normal human selves trying just to live their own little happy lives. Who's the moron if the only addition to the issue between you and them is the fact that you bitch and moan?

Maybe 80% don't care about copyright issues they consider as totally irrelevant to their lives. Maybe they see music as a total commodity and don't see any loss in the great scheme of things with the hoarding of works and creativity that the record companies are investing in?

And you don't think that's stupid? So if the majority of people is just content to live out their happy little lives, and don't care about those "freedom" issues, which are totally irrelevant to their lives, and don't mind that their country has become a fascist state and everyone the Fuehrer doesn't like is being dragged off to a death camp, then that's ok?

Sorry, but not looking out for what's going on in society, when you're a part of that society, and just letting things go to pot is STUPID, as well as totally neglecting your role as a citizen.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." - B. Franklin

Re:The RIAA sucks

[kaltkalt]

Yes but "this story" is about a 12 year old getting sued for something illegal (and later settling). The story is not that a 12 year old was being sued under bullshit laws that shouldn't exist. That story would cause the media to lose money in the long run.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[kaltkalt]

There is a thin line between civil and criminal. The big difference is burden of proof... it's easier to be found liable (the civil word for guilty) in a civil trial. A $150,000 civil fine looks the same on your bank account as a $150,000 criminal fine. Of course, there is no jail in civil cases, but that can come after the civil case in the latter criminal case (and it is not 'double jeopardy').

Re:The RIAA sucks

[deke_kun]

What a terribly capitalist viewpoint. I think the real issue here, underlying the copyright issues and the legal issues and the profit issues is one of pure, unbridled capitalism. The current situation with music is, I believe, the first serious example of the increasing struggle between the old world and the new. Between the bloodthirsty quest for increasing profit, and the altruistic quest for freely disseminated information. Unfortunately, people are greedy, so I don't hold out any great hope. But you keep praying to your money God, and I'll keep praying to my God of "freely distributed information".

Re:The RIAA sucks

[smokin_juan]

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.

irrationalism? The monetary system is irrationalism. Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture I'd say that what the public is doing here is rational. Why should the public want to adhere to a system that is inherently unblanced? Yes you're right, the attention span of most is quite short, but don't look at the micro, look at the macro. After all, isn't sanity based on the average behavior? How many millions of people are downloading "illegal" music? You could make the argument that the majority of people (well, ok, americans) are insane concidering their will to let bush continue unimpeded and i'd agree with that, but in the current RIAA case i'd say that the public is just reacting to an inherently fucked up monetary system - you know, the core item that's supposed to instill civil behavior by promoting fair trade. I'd say that this little sorry-assed "revolution" has been brewing for a while and that "the people" have been waiting for an opportunity to have their voices heard through a medium (p2p) that doesn't require alot of energy (i.e. writing congress) and is basicly safe (i.e. not rioting in the streets).

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Knos]

Whose is the idiot in a totalitatian state: The man standing up and rebelling, possibly getting himself killed or the man living his daily life as good as possible? If you don't have the means to fight, you have to be irrational to make society move.

Trying to make the most out of the environment you are in is a form of intelligence.

I wonder if you'd be willing to say that your ancestors were stupid when they let their "freedom" to wander, use and live on any land be restricted by physical property concepts..

I'd say it's more complicated than that.

To stay on topic, I don't see the RIAA taking away any freedom.. widely redistributing copyrighted works has never been authorized under the copyright system. It just now became available to anybody.

And I don't think only stupid people suppport this restriction of freedom.

(For the record, I dislike the copyright and author's right systems)

Re:The RIAA sucks

[smokin_juan]

Kirks, unintended consequenses is listed in the fiction section because the american public hasn't the balls to pull it off. what a fuckin shame.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[guamman]

For the record, Star Wars 4,5,6 is out on DVD. You just have to know where to look.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Daengbo]

You are right that the RIAA is not concious, but what I really think you meant to say was that they have no conscience. Alas, another English nit pick chalked up to me.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[hazem]

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[spamtastic]

Personally I'm curious about what happens next.
Its not clear cut that the RIAA are right (I mean in a legal sense - not what you or I feel about it all) When that eventually gets sorted out, does that mean we see more of this (hey maybe a special rate for minors?) if it goes their way. Or what if it goes against the RIAA, would that then open them to rather a few law suits.
I can see it now "RIAA bankrupted by 12 year old kid!"
I'll drink to that

Re:The RIAA sucks

[ReTay]

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....

Re:The RIAA sucks

[HuguesT]

Not just Pinocchio, consider a huge part of the music in Fantasia, supposedly their masterpiece. Paul Dukas composed `The Sorcerer's Apprentice' in 1895 and he only died in 1935. Did they license his music? Wasn't copyright restricted to 20 years after the work was first published at the time?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Arioch of Chaos]

If only more people would realise this. The RIAA shouts "theft" as loud as they can it seems like far too many people accept that analogy without thinking. I agree completely with the reasoning expressed above. I have downloaded lots of music that I was not prepared to pay for. I have later bought some of it because I found out that it actually was worth paying for.

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[16K Ram Pack]

The difference between a luxury car and a CD is down to the monopoly of copyright.

Sony Music have a right to sell the CDs of certain artists and a monopoly right to sell it. That means that you can't go to another record company and get a George Michael/Oasis CD.

As those companies have a monopoly, there should be certain restrictions to prevent market abuse. Works should be reasonably priced and accessible.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Matrix2110]

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

Sadly, you are indeed correct for the most part.

There are a few exceptions such as Hearst-Argyle. Which has no direct affiliation with the **AAs' And I thank God daily for that fact.

However, the other, darker side of the coin is the fact that TV stations are compelled to seek revenue from any commercial provider around.

What this means to you dear public, is that the media is willing to sell itself to the highest bidder. (Bad Movies, Shows devoted to Pop culture as regulated by the Almighty Neilson Ratings.)

Remember Firefly? That show deserved a chance. They put it on Friday for crissake! I am a professional TV watcher and that is normally the death nell for TV shows and to waste that show on a Friday timeslot was a travesty. That show this year could have been a contender for those morons at FOX for Smallville from WB. Firefly could have gone very far. Some clarafication is in order. Friday nights are usually when people go out or are stuck at work like me. Guess what show was the runaway hit on Fridays last year?

GA take a guess.

Reba.

Thats right! Your worst nightmares have come true!

Reba generated roughly the same Neilson numbers as Firefly and was lauded a hit at WB while Firefly was doomed a faliure at Fox while the core audience kept growing. I really liked Firefly, I know of several authors and producers that felt the same way. I think it was one of saddest days in television when it was pulled. I am very glad that the DVD is coming out and a possible movie deal is being struck.

I will go even farther and say somebody spending his money wisely can influence your thinking for a given issue with a modest outlay. (Car dealers do it all of the time.)

(That ought to bring out the Tin Foil folk even though it is true)

Thanks for listening to my rant.

I mean no harm.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Ziller]

I think you are overestimating the effect of the inconvenience of copying as compared to the simple pleasure of owning, for example, a beautiful professionally printed book or a well-designed digipak CD. I do buy the music I like, even if it was available to me before for free, in CD quality digital audio. Were the prices more reasonable, I'd buy more.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Salgak1]

No, but as I recall, several tens of thousands of individuals with guns took their grievances to war, and founded a new nation.

But I forget, that was 1776, and they were all Dead White Males, and not relevant to today's world (sarcasm intended)

Re:The RIAA sucks

[N Monkey]

....they have no soul or conscious.

...but they do have an exceedingly large amount of money.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[NickFortune]

They don't have these "rights" at all. Let's not confuse corrupt laws serving special interest groups with rights.

The people do not exist to serve the law, the law exists to serve the people.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Lumpy]

and every geek that hasn't shown their kids, parents, friends, etc... www.iuma.org is wasting their time.

Point people at an alternative source and they usually will investigate it. The showcase artists there are usually better than the utter-crap that comes out of RIAA member studios.

If you dont hand the sheep an alternative source for their desires.... all you might as well be saying is "BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA"

Re:The RIAA sucks

[tlianza]

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.

So since "big media" is connected to these RIAA members, and as such should be acting in their own interests, then they shouldn't be reporting all this news about the RIAA going after a 12 year old right? Jeez, where do you think Slashdot got the links from? Yesterday the initial report came from Fox News, and today the follow up came from the AP. It's not like we're heading underground for this news because there's some conspiracy going on with "big media." If you read those articles, and the quotes they extracted, it's pretty clear that they're embarrassing the hell out of the RIAA.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aborchers]

Pretty good post, but for this bit:

The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers.

RIAA are not marketers. The labels do their own marketing. RIAA is a trade group that exists to protect and promote the interests of their member labels, but they do not engage in marketing per se (except, of course, for their recent "marketing" of the concept of copyright infringement == theft in service of their primary mission).

Pedant mode off...

Re:The RIAA sucks

[ddimas]

Sadly, the people who are taking our rights have sewed up access to the political system (Support the two party system...) and are very careful not to provide a flash point (remember the frog boiling experiment?). After all, if the British had been a little less heavy handed about enforcement of the tax laws in the 1770's, we would be citizens of the British Crown today.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[uncoveror]

Yes indeeed! Taking $2000 from a single mother with two children to feed takes food, clothing and shelter from them. Brianna and her little brother will have to go hungry, or possibly cold at night for a while so Cary Sherman can have some fine Columbian snow to snort! Now, more than ever, don't buy CDs.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Richthofen80]

That is why Star Wars is still not on DVD, despite our petition.

This is the best and most telling part of the post. That a creator of a work must, or should, bow to the wishes of those who enjoy the work. Star Wars isn't on DVD because Lucas doesn't want to do what it takes to release it on DVD. For whatever reasons, prior contracts, obligations, sheer will, Lucas doesn't want to do what it takes. (Ie break contracts, buy them off, etc) That pisses you off. Just because you *want* something a certain way doesn't give you the right to demand it. You can ask, you can write a letter, you can bitch on a webboard, but in the end, it was made by someone. that someone can do whatever they want with it, because it's their brainchild. Your the irrational consumer if you think that the creators should bow to your wishes. They do what they damn please, as they should.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Cpt_Kirks]

Fox is the exception that proves the rule. IIRC, they have no ties to the music industry (the MPAA, on the other hand...)

The Register was about the only other source I saw carrying the news.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[fred ugly]

what i glean from "britneygurl91" is that: a) she likes britney spears b) she thinks "gurl" is a cute spelling c) she was born in 1991. all 3 point to the fact that she is indeed a 12 year old girl. the riaa should know better.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[BePatient]

In the latest case...fining a 12 year old kid from the projects $2000...they most certainly ARE gouging a kid of her lunch money.

What I've seen categorically ignored in this "discussion" is the reported purpose of these lawsuits. The RIAA blames piracy for the decline in sales of the music business. They point the finger at children and young adults...who they have been gouging for years with the price of their wares.

What they DON't tell you is that this behavior is historical. What they don't tell you is that this is the exact same argument that they used against cassette recorders. The ame argument they used to kill DAT technology. The same argument they used to attach a vig on sales of blank cds.

That 12 year old girl switched from listening to the radio...with her finger poised on the pause button of her boom box...to record the latest Britney song. Now she has Kazaa. At no other point in history was she prepared to pay for the song...becasue at no time could she afford to pay $19 for a 2 cent piece of plastic containing largely garbage so she could listen to her one favorite song.

The real issue..the one being ignored...is that sharing music has ALWAYS been the case. Somebody on the floor in my college dorm bought a new cd...everyone else bought a cassette and recorded it. So why the sudden downturn in sales? THEIR PRODUCT SUCKS, ITS OVERPRICED and THE ECONOMY IS BAD.

No mention of piracy there, was there?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[ChuyMatt]

and thus, a hell of a lot of power.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[jjoyce]

Read Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy to see why Palast is a real journalist and why 60 Minutes has no integrity.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[capnjack41]

what i glean from "britneygurl91" is that: a) she likes britney spears b) she thinks "gurl" is a cute spelling c) she was born in 1991. all 3 point to the fact that she is indeed a 12 year old girl. the riaa should know better.

note: I just used that as a silly example of what I would imagine a 12-year old girl's screenname would be; don't know what her actual name was -- sorry about that

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Sj0]

Or is it? I should sue you for $150,000 per word and see if you still agree that it's not ruining anyones life.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

But there's only one George Michael! Are we to clone him and let each clone work for a different company? Clearly, when there's only one way to produce a particular type of thing, in this case George Michael or Oasis CDs, then the one who hires those artists is the one who gets the monopoly. And who gets to determine what's reasonably priced? The *reasonable* price, as any economist will tell you, is the one that maximizes both profits and sales. It's all supply and demand.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Sj0]

That and Copyright infringement was, for the longest time, only covered by Civil law. Only recently has it become even possible to be charged criminally.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

This is *exactly* the problem, the belief that there's something wrong with capitalism. This is a *wonderfully* capitalistic viewpoint. Pure, unbridled capitalism is the best way to run any economy. If the record companies were charging too much, their profits would fall, and they would lower their prices. So you, apparently, think that since the music costs too much, you have the right to steal it instead. Freely distributed information? It's not *yours*. You don't *own* it. The record companies do, and they are the only ones who have the right to decide how to sell it and it what capacity. What you are advocating is a terribly communistic viewpoint, and that frightens me.

Your argument hinges on the belief that it is somehow noble to work for free. You would probably even say "for the benefit of one's fellow men." What if I don't wish to work for your benefit for free? The artists are working for their own benefit, as I would imagine you are too. Take away their incentive to work, and they'll stop doing it, or they won't do it well. The man who produces something of value to others is entitled to compensation. Not only that, but he is entitled to as much of it as he can get. I wish the record companies would issue a statement like this: "We are out to skin the public and make as great a profit as we can. That is why we are in business. That is our only reason for being in business, and we won't apologize for being good at it." I'm not praying to any gods, sir. I'm making money. But I'll rest secure in the knowledge that as long as you and people like you think things get accomplished by praying to gods, companies will still be able to do their job: making profit.

I suppose next you'll say money is the root of all evil.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Sj0]

There has been a conspiracy in the works for years now where the RIAA has been actively pursuing the legalization of hacking for the purposes of destroying PCs with copyrighted material. The first anti-terrorism bill after 9/11 had them trying to attach a rider allowing it, and they haven't stopped since. It's a publicly reported conspiracy. If you don't see anything wrong with that, I guess you won't mind me breaking into your house and smashing your posessions -- you know, just in case you have any of my intellectual property?

1000 songs isn't as much as it sounds. Since most people aren't aware that they can delete multiples, failed downloads, fakes, songs they didn't like, and songs they don't like anymore, it's not preposterous to think, after a couple years of trading on a PC belonging to an entire family, 1000 isn't a stretch at all. It certainly isn't enough to warrant a financial death sentence.

I haven't downloaded an illegal MP3 since High School, back when napster still existed. You don't need to be a downloader to understand why destroying peoples lives for something as petty as personal non-commercial copyright infringement is fundamentally wrong.

On the other hand, maybe you're just insane. Tell me, how much to you believe that these terrible pirates need to be punished? How many of the people sued do you think even knew they were sharing anything? How much do you think these people should be sued for? If you find yourself advocating destroying this girls bloodline financially for more than ten generations, I'd recommend you re-check your priorities.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[shark72]

As I said, a little less hyperbole, please. The RIAA suing pirates does not mean that you can break into my house. And, yeah, I'd heard of the bill submitted which would allow hacking into and disabling PCs, but it wasn't passed. Your post reads as if you're trying to make think that the RIAA broke into people's PCs to get this information, but this simply is not so.

In short, we need to address unfair copyright laws in productive, intelligent ways. Self-pity and spreading misinformation isn't the way to do it. I've read too many letters to congress here on the /. boards which start with "Dear Congressperson," and quickly delve into such utter bullshit that I fear that the recipient will simply cast it off as the missive of an idiot rather than a voice of reason.

I don't know how many songs this family was sharing, and neither do you, so I'm not more qualified than you to guess what was "fair." I do know that although they're described as living in government housing, it's in the Upper West Side (this was reported in the media), so the "destroying this girl's bloodline financially for more than ten generations" comment is a bit off the beam. This is another example where intelligent discourse, not hyperbole, is best.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Sj0]

You know, if you stole 100 CDs(2000 songs/20 songs per CD), the punishment for grand larceny would certainly be less, even in at maximum, than what the RIAA are threatening -- $3 000 000 per CD. Sure, the settlement was closer to a dollar per song(this is assuming that it really was 2000 songs, and not just under 1000, where the fine would start adding up), but that settlement was just a PR move, and considering the circumstances, still a poor one.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Dr. Manhattan]

My girlfriend actually bought Max Payne, but because of the copy protection, it REFUSED to work on either her DVD Drive or burner.

I've had similar problems. I actually buy games (not necessarily the instant they come out, but I pay money for them). I have a DVD drive and a CDRW. I have had games that were a massive pain to install, or that just refused to run if the drive was not a plain vanilla CD-ROM drive.

More than that, I've actually damaged game CDs by accident. But the game manufacturers won't let me back them up. A few offer to exchange broken media for fresh ones, but those are limited-time offers usually, and even then it costs more in postage than in blank media.

So now I get a game, and immediately hit www.gamecopyworld.com and hack the games, so that they (a) work, (b) load faster, and (c) let me keep the fragile CD safely in storage.

I'm damn close to springing for a DVD writer and doing the same to my DVDs. I've already lost a couple to my three-year-old, and I've never heard of anyone willing to exchange damaged media for fresh ones. If I can't do that with audio media, I'll resort to the hacks there too.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[DAPence]

Was it illegal? I'd like to point out that a settlement is not the same as an actual adjudication. If a judge or jury had in fact found this child, as well as others, had in fact violated the copyright act, then an act of illegality would have been proven, assuming such a verdict would survive through appeals. No, a settlement is simply an agreement to pay a diminished sum of money in order to avoid going to trial. Actually, the fact that the RIAA is so eager to settle these suits, tells me that they are not certain they would be able to win their claim in court. I think this spate of activity of the RIAA has another motive entirely. I believe it possible that the RIAA is seeking to damage, if not outright destroy a viably alternative route that independent artists could use to release their music, thus sidestepping the RIAA and the 'old school' music industry.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[jdh-22]

You are wrong. The RIAA is not the creator NOR the markerters. They are the people backing up both the creators and marketers. They make sure everyone is getting a "fair deal" (yeah right). They were formed to "business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality." (RIAA About Page) The people we need to fight against are the ones they are backing. Stop supporting these labels, and they will stop fighting us, and start finding a solution to this problem.

One of my favorite bands cd comes out the 16th, but I don't plan on buying it. I plan on either downloading it or copying it from a friend. Sending a letter to the band, with the amount of the CD, and telling them why. I love the music, love the band, hate the record label. If we make enough noise, the bands will hear us. We won't be able to fight the labels or the RIAA directly, and expect to win. Remember the bands are on our side, not theirs.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Rick.C]

If everyone started to hold each other to higher standards, I'm sure you'd be surprised at the numbers of people who would rise to the challenge.

I guess that depends on where you grab 'em and on how hard you squeeze.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[arth1]

yeah how many "opinions" do we need to read about how the RIAA needs to "embrace the new technology"? this isn't new people, you're not clever because you repeat the same damned thing over 14 times in every MP3 related discussion. Fact of the matter is if riaatunes.com opened tomorrow very few of you would support it.

Clearly it needs to be repeated more often, since you still don't get it. riaatunes.com wouldn't be new technology -- that would be the OLD technology with a 1:1 distribution model, fighting against new technology. Using the popular p2p networks to legally distribute their music would be embracing new technology.

--
*Art

Re:The RIAA sucks

[BrynM]

You know, it's amazing how many knee-jerk republicans there are on Slashdot. To answer it for all of you who have responded to my post so far, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Liberatarian. I'm not a Green. I'm not left wing. I'm not a hippie. I'm not affiliated with any political party at all.

I'm an American. I vote with my conscience and my intelligence. I listen to news sources I agree with and even listen to those that I don't agree with in order to form a well rounded opinion. I have an open mind and do not dismiss viewpoints simply because I disagree with them. Intelligent opposition is to be respected and I welcome it.

Speaking of which, what would you Proud Republican Anonymous Cowards suggest as an alternative news source on this subject then? Anyone? Anyone? Is there anyone out there with something to add? That's what I thought. Quit your childish party bashing and try to at least give some supporting data in a discussion please. Blindly discounting something without offering an alternative or citing facts is not a debate or discussion - it's just flippant, childish whining. It's a sad attempt to look superior, which would be marginally alright... If you were superior enough to use your names or user accounts. Otherwise, you can go on spouting without credibility, but don't expect anyone to listen or mod you up.

And please RTFC (read the flippin' comment). I didn't tell the parent to only listen to NPR. I didn't even say to go beyond this single subject (the RIAA, remember?). I merely cited the best mass media news source I had found on the subject and made a suggestion. If you view this as being un-american/communist/liberal then you're only showing how narrow minded and insipid you are. Good luck with that!

Re:The RIAA sucks

[16K Ram Pack]

Who decides what's a reasonable price? I don't know.

But I know that organisations like BT had to work within parameters set by regulators when it had some monopoly services.

When AT&T had a phone monopoly in the USA, they had to meet a number of conditions as part of the monopoly on their product.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[deke_kun]

Firstly, let me inroduce you to my friend, Mr. Metaphor. Whether or not you prostate yourself nightly is unknown to me, your comments make it clear, however, that you place great worth in money, material ownership, and capitalism. This demonstrates that you are "praying to the god of money". By continuing to not only hold your belief in the intrinsic value of money, but by exercising that belief in your life.

Secondly, why does communism scare you? It failed in the USSR because, as I mentioned, people are greedy, and because of numerous flaws with the system. That doesnt mean the Internet is not now in a position to bring to pass a glorious age information-communism. A world where data flows freely, outmoded concepts such as "ownership" are disbanded, and humanity begins to work in harmony for good of fellow man. Instead of in direct competition with one another for a greater profit.

Because clearly, the quest for profit has done such great things for humanity so far.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[tonekids]

And I keep wondering about the people who claim "FM quality" is "bad"...I don't mind it at all.

When am I listening to music? When I'm driving in the car, or when I'm just sitting at home listening to mp3s being broadcast over my home FM radio station.

I've got no problems with "FM Quality"!

Re:The RIAA sucks

[tambo]

Umm, there _is_ no debate. People should not be allowed to download music for listening purposes.

Congratulations. You've adopted the (overreaching, oversimplified) black-and-white view espoused by content owners worldwide. The RIAA welcomes you.

You're also legally incorrect, by the way. Yes, legally, that statement is false. Look up "fair use" in Black's Law Dictionary for a list of uses of copyrighted content that are completely legal, even if the copyright owner doesn't like it and doesn't make any money from it.

- David Stein

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

The consumers, to a large extent, decide on a reasonable price. The record companies understand that if the price goes too low, they lose money. If the price goes to high, they lose money. The trick is to find the "happy medium" that maximizes both the *number* of sales and the *value* of the sales.

That the government feels it has the right to regulate so-called monopolies is ridiculous. What they are saying is that if one company consistently does better than all others, they deserve to be punished. How is that fair? The price of government regulations on those companies has driven up their costs. Microeconomically speaking, there's no such thing as a tax on a business. The tax is shared between the business and the consumer. *We* get to pay extra for those anti-monopoly laws, and so do the "monopolies."

If a company has earned its monopoly status, then it has every right to exploit it. It's legislation like this that makes the U.S. economy not entirely capitalistic, and it throws our economy off balance, all under the banner of altruism.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

Yes, the quest for profit has done great things for humanity. It's brought us the candle, the lightbulb, the car, cheap electrical power, widely available music. It's doubled our lifespans, and improved the quality of life of every human being on the planet. Is this what you attack?

That said, I must tell you that communism is the most immoral system of government men -- I hesitate to call them men -- have ever devised. It is a system designed to give the most to people who deserve the least, and punishes those who can produce. This system, which you embrace as a "human" way to run a government, is to me the most viciously inhuman form of domination a person can imagine. I believe the best word I can use to describe it is slavery.

The People's Republic of China recently amended their constitution to change the place of private enterprise from a "healthy complement" to state industry to a "vital component of" China's economy. Even the communist countries are learning that centrally planned economies are, by their nature, doomed to fail.

Yes, sir, I do understand the concept of the metaphor, and I do not pray to any gods whatever. If I were pray to anyone, it would be to myself, and to my ability. My ability, and my work, is the cause of my money and wealth.

You think money is evil, but have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is the symbol and consequence of production, and I accept it in exchange for my work on the confidence that I may in turn exchange it for the fruits of others' labor. Money by itself is meaningless. Money can take you anywhere you wish to go, but it will not replace you as the driver. Is this what you damn?

The reason communism is immoral is because it attempts to reverse human nature. In a communist country, people are paid *not* to produce -- they are rewarded for their idleness, and those who can and do produce are punished. Would you work your hardest knowing that if you succeed, you will not be rewarded with a warm home and a good meal, but instead that you will be treated like the lowest form of criminal? The lowest imbeciles are exalted as the most ingenious industrialists, not because they can run a factory or produce food to feed their nations, but because they "never had a chance." Is this what you consider good and moral?

Furthermore, do you realize that the products of the mind are as valuable as the products of the hand? If no one had discovered how to make candles, light bulbs, cars or music, do you think any amount of effort could have produced them? Ideas are the legitimate fruits of the labor of the mind, and the men and women who create them have every right to claim them as their property.

I consider greed and selfishness two of the greatest virtues, because they are what drives men and women to succeed and accomplish. I care nothing for your background, your experience, your culture, your religion. Nothing whatever. What I care about is what you can *do*, and that you do it for your benefit, because I know that you will never lack for motivation.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

If a man could make a better car than Lexus does, and if he wanted to sell them on eBay -- why he would I'd never know -- then he would certainly deserve every penny he earns. :-)

Re:The RIAA sucks

[Ying Hu]

Sorry, my pedant mode on:

Sure, the individual labels, not the RIAA, market their individual products, but:

• RIAA is a trade group that exists to protect and promote the interests of their member labels...

What else is that but marketing? Lots of industries have a trade group to market their industry, while of course the companies market their own products.

Your distinction escapes me, sorry.

...Mode off.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[deke_kun]

I do not suggest that we move to china, or hop in the time machine back to the 70s and go live in the USSR.

I acknowledged that there are flaws in the current systems that exist in terms of government, and I in no way advocated that they are any better or worse than any other form of government. What I am talking about is something that quite clearly spawns from the online world, and how real-world governments react to it, I hope, will decide their fate.

I submit for your consideration a few things. Firstly, the nature of the internet itself, which clearly lends itself to a free dissemination of information. You need to know something, you google for it, you have that information. This costs you nothing. The person who made that information available does not charge you for it. In fact, in most cases, they are actually marginally out of pocket for providing you with that information (bandwidth and hosting costs, time to prepare the information, so forth). Secondly, as soon as new methods of online communication spring up, be they IM, forums, or even IRC, you see communities develop which are devoted to assisting and providing information others. Just look at the myriad of 'help' channels that exist on IRC. Here we have people who are often quite skilled in their field, who give up their time and energy to help others. They receive no reward for this beyond the satisfaction of helping others. And perhaps this is the greatest example of what I hope to see.

It doesnt attempt to reverse human nature, it evolves it. In a similar manner that humanity has come from warring tribal savages, to become an (to some extent - in the arguably more civilized societies) accepting, integrated community.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

Those who publish things on the Internet did not do it at the point of a gun, as it has been done in a communist society. The authors, for whatever reason, chose to publish that information, which is their right of ownership. I would imagine these authors do it as a monument to themselves, and to their own greatness. Those who participate in "help" forums do it of their own free will, and most likely for the sheer joy of educating others. Furthermore, they do it because they can afford to do it. They have the time and the means, and they do it for their own enjoyment. I don't do it, and no one should be able to force me to do it. However, your informational communism would enable governments to do just that. It is inhumanity as its worst.

You may not want to suggest one form of government over another, but I do. Capitalism *is* the best form of government for a country, an Internet, or anywhere else. You'll notice I have no web site, as I have nothing I wish to share -- it's of no value to me. If I did have something important to say, I would write and sell a book.

What I take issue with are those who do share the work of others who do not wish to share their work. I contend that it is their right, by virtue of their labor, to own what they produce. Record companies that produce music do not want to share it with others, nor should they be compelled to do so. What would their motivation be to produce?

The civilizations you describe evolved from "warring tribal savages" to the definitively civilized societies they are by recognizing the rights of the individual. They stopped warring when they realized that initiating physical force against another is wrong -- that is, immoral. The best societies are the ones that treat men as ends in themselves, not just means to such ends. America is the best civilization on earth because it is the one that grants the greatest degree of freedom to its citizens. Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit) is not just counterproductive, but anti-productive and uncivilized.

It's great that you want us to work for the good of our fellow men, but who puts the food on the table? Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to? How do I improve my life if I have no means of making money for my ideas which are of value to you?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[deke_kun]

I suggested that informational-communism is the next step of evolution, following the line that I laid out. Let us say that I wanted to buck the trend, so to speak, and decided that I wished to behave like a tribal savage, and went and bashed my neighbours to death. By your logic, I should be allowed to do that, I am simply choosing to resist change, and that is my right, "no-one should be able to force me to do it".

Capitalism is not a form of government, it is an ideology, an economic system based on private ownership of capital. I suggest that the examples you keep drawing from that demonstrate inherent downfalls in communist government are for that very reason, an ideology is being turned into a government, and, perhaps that is not the correct way to approach things.

"Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit)". Profit does not make you a better person. It will not make you happy, it will not make you a nicer person, making a profit does not improve you over any other person on this planet. And further to that, an artist is bettered by their music being heard by people, by performing, creating more music, by expressing themselves better through their music. Since when did art become 'only-for-profit'? By its very nature, art should be about expression, not capital gain.

"Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to?"
More importantly, why do you want a better roof? Do you need a better roof? Is there any reason, apart from pure unbridled consumerism that you wish to have a better roof?

And please, can you try to stay on topic. I am talking about the internet. How you choose to put food on your table is your business, I am talking about the free exchange of information by electronic means, not the complete overthrowing of the world and a united communist rule.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

Please read the words I wrote, and do not take them out of context to distort them to your own end. You'll find that I have stated quite clearly that civilized folks do not initiate physical force against others -- that is in defiance of their existence as human beings. "A man is an end in himself." I said that, didn't I?

If, in the future, I want a better roof over my head it is because I will have earned it. Need has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have produced, and I will take my payment in the form of a better home for myself. Do you suggest that others ought to determine what I need, and that others ought to give it to me, whether I deserve it or not, and that others ought to prohibit me from having more than I need, simply because they don't think I need it?

My job, and my purpose, is to produce ideas. That is what I do, and that is how I earn my living and put a roof over my head and food on my table. If you advocate "sharing" my ideas without my permission, then you have destroyed my means of survival. What I am saying is that an idea is as legitimate a product as a material thing. It costs me as much in time, effort, education, and raw material to produce ideas as it would material things. Therefore, I expect to be paid for them when others benefit from them. If you had it your way, you would be making how I put food on my table your business.

You're talking about using the Internet as a tool for disseminating ideas that I created and that I don't want to you disseminate. I produced them. They are mine. You may not have them unless I sell them to you. A person either owns a thing or he doesn't. There is no "in-between," and you have no claim on that which is not yours. Likewise, I would never break into your house and steal things -- material or otherwise -- if you did not wish to sell them to me.

What you are saying is that I should be *forced* to share my work with you simply because you want it. How am I to survive? Again, how I put food on my table becomes your business.

The truly awful thing is that you consider wanting more for yourself to be "unbridled consumerism". If by "unbridled consumerism," you mean spending the money I have earned on myself in a way that pleases me, then yes. And even more damnably, I'm proud of it, too.

As I've said before, money will take you anywhere you wish to go. My money, which I have earned, takes me to places that make me happy. Yes, money does make a person happy when they use it for that purpose. The people who say that money doesn't buy happiness haven't got any. I'm not competing with anyone but myself. I don't give a damn what you think of my house, my wealth, my things. But I do care what I think about them. Likewise, how you spend your money is your affair. I only hope it makes you happy.

Also, I'd like to point out that capitalism can't exist without a specific form of government to support it. The bloated altruistic government is the reason why capitalism doesn't exist in the U.S. It's a mixed economy, and it's wrong.

In your argument against the selling of art, you state that the art improves its listeners. It does indeed. But how is an artist to create music if you give him no means of producing it? How is he to pay for producing the music, renting the performance venues, buying the computer to share the MP3's on?

But by your argument, why should the listeners even be allowed to listen to music? Why do they need it? I'm quite certain that you wouldn't die if there was no such thing as music. Why should they wish to improve themselves? By what right?

Re:The RIAA sucks

[deke_kun]

"You're talking about using the Internet as a tool for disseminating ideas that I created and that I don't want to you disseminate." I'm talking about the internet being the focal point of a revolution, wherein you WANT to freely give of your information to others.

How can the artist rent a performance venue without paying for it? Well, once again, let me reiterate, I am talking about the internet. Stop bringing up that annoying real world. But nonetheless, I will humour you. In my view, the artist is perfectly able to use public space in which to perform. If no-one OWNS the venues, if there is, somewhere, a concert theater builder who, without regard for profit, is going around building venues for no-one, for nothing. Hence you have a venue which is freely available (on the internet the metaphor for this would be free web-space which of course is still relatively abundant, if you know where to look). And more importantly, both the artist, and the venue-builder have been doing whatever thing they do, not because they have been compelled to, but because they WANT to. They both know that by performing their respective function, something that they have skills in, they are making the world better for others, and so on and so forth.

You state that money will take you anywhere you wish to go. Unfortunately, that is only true because you are not looking outside of your capitalistic bottleneck. Money is great to have in a capitalist society, and the terrible compulsion to gain more of it will own your entire life. You continue to perform your function, whatever that may be, because it provides you with money, which in turn provides you with capitalistic ownership over material items. So woop-de-doo, you've got a bigger car, bigger house, better TV. When you get an infection, I bet you're going to be mighty glad that someone went to the effort to invent penicillin. And now, was penicillin invented because Alexander Flemming was being paid per infection he cured, and wanted to make some more cash? I think not. Did Ben Franklin figure out that electricity thing because he figured it would be a great way to fund his political campaign? I could go on, but it would be laboring the point.

Every day, every single one of us benefits from things done by people who have done amazing things, not for monetary gain, but because of the perceived value it would have to society. But I guess I'm asking too much if I assume that people are ever going to stop being greedy and start giving back to humanity.

I'm out. Reply if you want, but I've said my piece.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aborchers]

The distinction is critical because this discussion, if it is to have any value and not just be another /. moronathon, has to be precise to avoid descending into flame wars and more "+5 Insightful" moderated posts of "copyright infringement != theft". Let's examine your quote again:

The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers.

The direct object implied for the second assertion of the sentence is "the music" as stated in the first half, i.e. they are the marketers of the music. The are not marketers of music any more than IEEE is a marketer of stereos. Saying that trade groups are product marketers is exactly the same kind of slanted abuse of language that RIAA uses when it says that copyright infringement is theft. Had you said they were the marketers of the music industry, I wouldn't have contested it.

Actually, since you called me out I had to go back and look again and I found another misstatement in your post:

The RIAA, who have been convicted of price-fixing ...

RIAA was not convicted of anything. Some of the major labels and retail chains entered into a settlement with a number of states to pay damages for alleged price fixing. I haven't read the settlement word-for-word, but these things usually include language that can be roughly paraphrased "while admitting no wrongdoing, I pay you off to shut you up".

I thought your post showed real insight and deserved to be heard above the babble of nonsense that usually pervades threads on this topic. I just thought I'd step in and try to clarify a point to strengthen your argument.

Re:The RIAA sucks

[aduzik]

Yes, the real world is pesky, because it invalidates the ideas of communism -- informational or otherwise. What if I want to use the communal performance venue, but so do twelve hundred other people? Only one or maybe a couple of us can use it at a time. How do we decide who gets to use it? Yeah, hundreds of people can perform over the Internet simultaneously, but they still need the means to get it on the Internet, and the bandwidth to get it to its destination. It's a limited resource that, no matter how much capacity the Internet will ever be able to handle, won't be enough for everyone who wants to use it.

You misunderstand the purpose of money. Money is the consequence of, not the cause for, production. It is the reward for having ability and using it. If you produce nothing, you deserve nothing, whether you, or anyone else, thinks you need it or not. Money is not a static thing. It must be created. When I create a valuable idea, I have created value. Money is the symbol of value. I exchange something of value to you -- my idea -- for something of value to me -- money. We both win! How simple and wonderful! We're both happier in the end! If, on the other hand, you take something of value to me, but give me nothing in return, I lose. Whether you "win" or not is debatable. You may be happier, but you wouldn't have deserved it.

But without money, the venue-builder can't build anything. Observe: the people who *want* to make bricks can produce only so many -- not enough for everyone who wants them and/or needs them. What is the venue-builder's security on the materials he needs to do his job? Again, how do we decide who gets them? Reality sucks, doesn't it?

Yes! Whoop-de-doo! I have a bigger house, a better car, a nicer T.V.! That makes me happy, not because of the thing itself, but because I have earned it. I deserve it.

Let me give you an example. When I was in high school, my parents let me drive one of their cars. After graduation, they wanted to give it to me. I told them that I would refuse, because they simply couldn't afford it -- it would be a major financial hit. Furthermore, all through high school, while I drove a nice car, it wasn't mine. I didn't earn it, and I didn't deserve it. Other people oohed and aahed about how lucky I was, but I though they, who owned their hoopties and POSes, were far luckier. It was theirs to do with as they pleased. Only a few of them knew what they had, or that they had something I didn't.

So long as we live in the real world, and resources are finite, the competition for them will persist -- no matter how "noble" or "altruistic" the intent.

By the way, Alexander Fleming made his discovery quite by accident. His genius is that he knew what it was sitting on the moldy plate in his kitchen sink. And yes, he did amass quite a personal fortune, and he deserved it. Did it benefit society? Undoubtedly. Did it benefit him? Definitely. Were both parties better off? Absolutely. That is the simple genius of capitalism.

what bothers me...

[Zebaulon]

is that from the quote, it seems like their scare tactics worked against her... of course, being 12 maybe she doesn't realize the big picture (so I'll give her that much) ... still, disturbing.

fp?

Or...

[rasafras]

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.

Re:Or...

[rasafras]

*they digging their hole deeper being the RIAA

Re:Or...

[MCZapf]

I hate to say it, but the RIAA squirmed out of their predicament pretty well. They convinced this poor girl and her mother that a $2000 "fine" was a light punishment. Two thousand dollars!!!! Plus, the RIAA now has quotes from a repentant 12-year-old.

In the end, I think it will make the general public slightly more inclined to think that downloading music is some sort of serious crime, when, in fact, it is about the least serious crime I can imagine - if it is a crime at all!

Two thousand dollars! I don't believe it.

Re:Or...

[WhiteKnight07]

Somehow I don't think a single mother of two living in puplic housing can afford a lawyer and the associated legal fees to fight something like this in court. Free public defenders are only apointed in criminal cases, not civil ones. And winning legal fees wouldn't help either, lawyers tend to ask for payment up front and don't take IOUs or credit.

Re:Or...

[Spad]

Yes, because a single mother living in public housing is going to be able to afford to take on the legal might of the RIAA in court.

The fight of the century!

[Tyrseil]

Ah, yes. The multi-billion dollar company vs. the 12 year old girl who lives in a city housing project. Truly a battle of titans.

Re:The fight of the century!

[KU_Fletch]

Hey, that 12 year old girl had it coming with her holier than thou "I like music" attitude. Good thing the RIAA stepped up and put an end to that rubish.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Ro'que]

She's going to have to do a shitload of babysitting to pay her mom back that two grand. Ouch.

Re:The fight of the century!

[arth1]

Ah, yes. The multi-billion dollar company vs. the 12 year old girl who lives in a city housing project. Truly a battle of titans.

Anyone else feel like pitching in a buck or two for this family? With any surplus amount over $2k going to EFF?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:The fight of the century!

[theedge318]

Man this is the closest I have every come to wanting to make a f***ing troll post ranting on and on about the ridiculousness of the current state of affairs.

Shit I just did it oh well ... I always wondered which would get to me first, the RIAA or SCO ... congratulations RIAA ... you've p***ed me off ... and everyone who has to read my ranting (before I am moderated into oblivion)

Re:The fight of the century!

[outz]

I'm with you..

Re:The fight of the century!

[arkane1234]

Eh, not to worry guy, your in good company.
I think nearly everyone here feels about the same way you do...
It's enough to make you really wonder if your watching some twilight zone episode or something.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Blondie-Wan]

Actually, it's worse than that - it's the [i]industry association of multiple multi-billion dollar companies[/i] vs. the 12 year old girl who lives in a city housing project.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Blondie-Wan]

Gahhh... I know; should have used that "Preview" button! Oh, well.

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...

Re:The fight of the century!

[deaddeng]

I can see the headline now: "12-year-old busted by RIAA turns to crack sales, prostitution to pay fine."

This RIAA thing is seriously fucked up.

Re:The fight of the century!

[a.deity]

Reminds me of the whole "It's comin' right for us" tactic of hunting: exploit the most ridiculous reason to attack and make it look like a defense.

Oh, by the way, love your Invader Zim sig.

Re:The fight of the century!

[gmby]

Mom's prolly on welfair. Gonna have to cash a lots-sa welfair checks too cover this fine. And who's pockets does this come out of?

Maybe I'm wrong. If so then sorry for the implied sterotype.

Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'

Anyway, Bet some of those words she says are written by you know who!

Re:The fight of the century!

[cheekyboy]

I guess she wont afford any music for a while, and probably will still copy of friends any way.

big Finger to the RIAA

Re:The fight of the century!

[sharkey]

It's a great follow-up to Harry Potter's assaults on his young fans!

Re:The fight of the century!

[ehiris]

I wonder how much CNN paid for a picture of her sitting in front of the computer and an interview.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Anonymous Coward]

The court action against sharers is unforgivable. I have lost respect for all my music professors who are anti-mp3 anti-napster RIAA members. I have dropped out of their classes as of this morning. They used their lectures to tout their anti point of view, and always lost the day because all the students were against them. They are so out of touch. Britney Spears is an idiot, and that stuff aint music. They will start to loose on the court cases that actually go trial. Their only hope is to invite govt regulators to impose an e-tax, or educate the public on the inferiority of mp3 "music". They all have ins with Sony, and have the blood of Mr. Napster in their reddened palms. Im sick of this corporate entertainment arrogance. If people were pirating Glenn Gould, I could see the need to protect the artist, but if the music is just mindless crap that people are getting way way overpaid for, I can see its just not worth it. F. U. 2.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Carewolf]

Not a chance. They settled. It was the perfect battle to fight out in courts to raise public awareness of how evil the RIAA are.

I for one wont support them when they chicken out to get a settlement. OTOH if they had fought and been fined, and would be glad to help by even a large amount.

Re:The fight of the century!

[dipipanone]

Mom's prolly on welfair.

A future that you can also look forward to unless you brush up on your spelling.

Re:The fight of the century!

[gmby]

Been there, done that. For three months after getting out of a Texas Prison.

By the way. Are you a patient, or due you just enjoy drugs.

Ya'll ever en to Texas, ave ya?

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

Re:The fight of the century!

[gad_zuki!]

>>Truly a battle of titans.

RIAA meeting:

Person1: Christ man, she lives in a housing project.

Person2: Hmm that may be a problem.

Person1: You bet your ass it is!

Person2: Well we can always reintroduce child labor prisons, tattoo the names of our newest manufactured stars on her forehead, have her clean up the mess Aguilara leaves. Heck, the possibilities are endless. And she can't afford a lawyer, this is awesome.

Person1: I like what I'm hearing... give me more...

Re:The fight of the century!

[MindStalker]

Dude, it comes with the housing package didn't you know! Anyways I'm being silly, but in some places its really cheap. I know in Thomasville, GA (where my sister lives) She gets one bill that covers electric, cable, and internet over the cable. For around $150/month. Not bad at all.

Re:The fight of the century!

[droid_rage]

Actually, it's pretty clear that they didn't know it was wrong, since her mom paid Sharman Networks a service fee that they thought was going toward royalties for music they downloaded.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Rude Turnip]

"OTOH if they had fought and been fined,"

Not everyone can afford to be a sacrificial lamb, especially single parents trying to feed and take care of their kids.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Broodje]

A little offtopic, but "the punishment doesn't fit the crime" card doesn't apply here, since they violated laws created as deterrents, not punishment. I just sent a few demand letters to some local mass-faxers, and one called me back with "you want $1000 for one lousy fax?". No, I want $1000 because you will lose in small claims, and owe me $1500. The law is a deterrent in that case, nothing to do with fitting the crime. Don't get me wrong, RIAA sucks yadda yadda - just don't think that the law needs to fit the crime. Its all about how much can you get in the settlement.

Re:The fight of the century!

[pmz]

Anyone else feel like pitching in a buck or two for this family?

No. They settled and they settled fast. Pretty spineless.

Also, you don't want this to turn into something like the Jessica Lynch slime-fest, where the attention and "charity" is so imbalanced among victims that it is sickening and disgusting.

It would be better to give directly to the EFF to gather the resources to provide counseling to future RIAA victims to postpone settlement until a no-holds-barred lawsuit is fully considered.

One thing that is encouraging in the article: "The top lawyer for Verizon Communications Inc. charged earlier Tuesday during a Senate hearing that music lawyers had resorted to a 'campaign against 12-year-old girls' rather than trying to help consumers turn to legal sources for songs online."

Even though Verizon is a Microsoft whore (cheap jab, I know), at least they helped expose more widely the problems with the RIAA and the need for more alternative outlets for music.

Re:The fight of the century!

[Fishstick]

*sigh*

I realize it's too much to hope ppl will RTFA, but in this case her mom is employed:

Brianna's mother, Sylvia, 40, director of a nurse placement agency,

Re:The fight of the century!

[quintessencesluglord]

Actually, I was thinking of the RIAA position that P2P promotes kiddie porn...

Well, it would be one way to pay the fine. Just not the connection between the two I thought the RIAA was making.

Lessor Demon: "We got $2000 from a 12 year old girl in public housing, and got her to sell herself to pay the $2000."

Satan: "Excellent."

Re:The fight of the century!

[jd]

The main reason the company was able to settle was that she was allowed to keep the downloaded poster of Britney Spears she printed out. If they'd tried to remove that, they'd have had their eyes ripped out.

Seriously, though, $2000? From a kid?? Sure, it's "better publicity" than they'd have got by pushing this through the courts, but I don't know many teens with that kind of allowance.

About the only way she can pay the debt off, before going to college is to download more music, burn it to CD-ROMs and sell it cheap to kids who can't afford high-enough speed internet access.

Remember, getting student loans, when already in debt, can be difficult, and these days the only jobs with livable wages ask for degrees as a minimum.

Also remember that it's going to murder her credit report. The first day banks recognise her as an individual, she'll still have a debt from hell, and so will automatically get marked as a bad risk for a minimum of 5 years. In practice, though, bad marks never get removed, as personal information gets traded & retained in the US.

Finally, as there's no way she can pay it in one go (a single mother is usually not a multi-millionaire, and the kid certainly isn't), the RIAA'll likely make "easy-payment" arrangements, with 30% interest.

So, this 12 yo kid gets black-marked and stigmatized for the rest of her life, and with any interest the fine accumulates, may remain in extreme debt, also for the rest of her life.

All this, for the crime of being a kid.

(And for those who cry "but what she did was a crime!", I'm not so sure. She had good reason to believe it was legal - which is a valid excuse. You cannot profit from the proceeds of a crime in the US, and by fining the kid, that's really what they're doing. It's not the crime that concerns the RIAA, as the profit they can make. Which is why no artist is making a dime from this - or any other - payment.)

Re:The fight of the century!

[Sri Lumpa]

Yeah, and the 12 year old girl managed to coerce the mighty RIAA into settling for only $2000 dollars.

Re:The fight of the century!

[gmby]

You know it is posible to be on welfair and still have a job? Here in texas it's required to get a job within three years to stay on welfair.

$29.99

[seanadams.com]

The article is laden with sickly quotes about how "we're so sorry we never knew it was bad" but I want to respond to this in particular:

they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services

I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?" Please just consider this:

For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account , and in the first 30 minutes downloaded this $230 CD boxed set in MP3 format - free of DRM and ready to play wherever I want. I also snagged all the George Carlin CDs just because they were top downloads, but I'm also having fun perusing their classical music selections.

While I am hopelessly out of touch with the popular music scene, having not purchased a CD in over three years, I will admit that the stuff on emusic is not the kind of thing I would otherwise have picked up in a CD store. But I am VERY satisfied with what they have.. whatever latent urge I once had to go out and buy a CD has been completely erased.

So give the girl a break. She may come off as an idiot, but let's not pretend that $29.99 is a lot to pay for a few gigs of zeroes and ones.

<plug>PS If you have an emusic account please check out my product for a great way to listen to your songs!</plug>

Re:$29.99

[digitalsushi]

PS If you have an emusic account please check out my product for a great way to listen to your songs!

gahhhhh i am ready for my spam moderation option, taco.

Re:$29.99

[Molina the Bofh]

I got a greater deal. For $9.99 a month I subscribed to a Usenet server, and I am able to download any kind of warez, p0rn, mp3's, DivX's, you name it.

Re:$29.99

[seanadams.com]

Hey, just configure your browser to ignore the standard tag. That's why I used it. :)

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.

Re:$29.99

[jridley]

Hey, I'm glad he put that there. It was unobtrusive, and that's a damn cool thing; I might buy one next paycheck!

Re:$29.99

[13Echo]

What bitrate were the MP3s? I'd join a subscription service, but I'm afraid of poor quality.

Re:$29.99

[seanadams.com]

What bitrate were the MP3s? I'd join a subscription service, but I'm afraid of poor quality.

It's not bad... the stuff they've had on there for a long time is 128 CBR, but the newer stuff is higher bit-rate VBR (160+). Anything beyond a 128-190 average VBR bitrate, and you're beginning to approach the ability to capture an insect fart. For some that may be important - personally, I listen to the music and not so much the codec. :)

Re:$29.99

[ryanvm]

Wow, that SLIMP3 looks damn cool. Too bad it costs $239. If I could get one for $100 I'd be all over it.

Damn, I was all set to enjoy XBox Media Player until I saw that...

Re:$29.99

[Prior Restraint]

...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.

Is broadband getting cheap enough in NYC for people on government assistance to afford? The articles don't say one way or the other what sort of Internet connection this family had. If she's a top file-sharer, wouldn't she have to have a high-speed connection?

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.

Re:$29.99

[tato (and tato only)]

For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account [emusic.com].

EMusic is owned by Vivendi Universal and is a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the RIAA.

Also, EMusic astroturfers may bugger off.

Re: $29.99

[Black Parrot]

> The mods are truly, truly crack addled.

I thought addling happened to the other end.

Re:$29.99

[Henry V .009]

That was the best example of geek ownage that I have seen in some time. Bravo.

Re:$29.99

[Toddlerbob]

For most things, emusic.com uses a variable bit-rate encoding that, as already stated, works out to average about 160. Older things are 128. It's not CD, but it's not that far off, either. You can sign up for a free trial and see if you like it. I've used the service for a year now, and really enjoy it, as I enjoy classic jazz and they have a lot of the old Fantasy-riverside catalog on it.

Re:$29.99

[Apathetic1]

I'm not sure how this keeps escaping people but eMusic is owned by Vivendi Universal. That makes it officially NOT RIAA free!

Re:$29.99

[heXXXen]

um, sir..

Before today I had never heard of eMusic.

Now I am a proud subscriber, thanks to you. This knocks the socks off of iTunes not only in price but in selection (so much non-RIAA metal i can't even shake a stick at it!!).

Once again, you rule, thanks for the heads up.

Re:$29.99

[seanadams.com]

I might've bought one except for sean adam's past rants against antispammer tools and how bad using block lists to fight spammers is.

AC, how about a rebuttal? I am very anti-spam, but still prepared to voice my concerns over the problems with blacklists such as SPEWS.

Re:$29.99

[creep]

They're going through their library and re-encoding nearly everything at 192 VBR, using Lame 3.92.

Re:$29.99

[seanadams.com]

eMusic is owned by Vivendi Universal.

I'll admit, that's news to me. But if it's the only way I can legally get good music for a fair price, I'm game. RIAA: I'm done buying CDs for $15+ a pop. Please tally one more vote for emusic.

Re:$29.99

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if a company is finally embracing downloadable music technology without DRM, then I'm all for supporting them. The flipside to boycotting companies that behave in ways you don't like is supporting them when they start to behave in ways you do like. The problem with most activists movements is they don't seem to know when to stop and keep pressing the point even after the opposition concedes. In this case, $10 or $15 a month for unlimited downloads seems like a perfectly fair compromise and much like what we've been asking for. We should reward these first steps towards reform.

Re:$29.99

[Robotech_Master]

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.

Re:$29.99

[jwilcox154]

Actually, emusic is owned by Vivendi-Univer$al, actually,Try dmusic is definitly RIAA free music.

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?

Re:$29.99

[seanadams.com]

Kazaa could easily confuse a 12 year old into thinking that she could have unlimited downloads for $29.95

Did you READ MY POST AT ALL? The whole point I was trying to make is that you CAN get legiitmate music for cheap, ergo the girl was not out of line in her understanding of Kazaa's offer.

Perhaps I was too subtle....

Re:$29.99

[parliboy]

This is an RTFA issue, with all due respect.

She shared about 1,000 songs, and they offered $2 per song.

Coincidentally, that's about how many pieces of media I share right now, but they're all outside of RIAA purvue. I actually hope my name gets picked, as I would very much love to be a test case for invasion of privacy.

Re:$29.99

[nyseal]

Hmmmm....was that $230.00 by YOUR standards, or theirs? Even so, $10.00 / mo does not sound like a 'free emusic account' to me; though maybe not a bad deal.

Re:$29.99

[shark72]

"CD's have no such warning."

They don't word it in the same way that videos do, perhaps due to space, but a CD from my collection which I just grabbed randomly states:

"Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution."

That would make me think twice.

"Taking $2,000 from a 12 year old girl who couldn't possibly have known better?"

In case it hasn't been made clear, the names on the list were provided to the RIAA by the ISPs as a result of being subpoenaed.. If the child's name was provided by the ISP, that means that the Internet service was signed for in the child's name. The money was not taken from the 12-year-old. I think we're all taking this ball and running with it a bit too much. If the family had decided to be wacky and signed up for Internet service in their dog's name, would people be shrieking "They took $2,00 from a poor dog!" ? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. On /., we would. But it would be just as disingenuous.

Re:$29.99

[Feztaa]

Yes, you make excellent points.

But at this point, it doesn't even matter that what these people are doing is illegal!

EFF said it best, but I'll paraphrase:

Enjoying music is not wrong! Technology has enabled music lovers to build the largest collections of music ever! With a large harddrive and a fast internet connection, it is painfully easy to develop a collection of music that would take months to listen to end-to-end.

Instead of providing users with a legitimate way of doing this, the RIAA has set out on a path to criminalise music lovers everywhere.

What I mean is, it's become apparent that CDs are just not convenient enough for people to buy lots of them; people want to pay for single-song downloads, and then only have exactly what songs they like. Instead of enabling this and making life good for consumers and artists alike, the RIAA is alienating EVERYBODY.

I suggest everybody go out and discover independant music. I've been surfing on iuma.com (Internet Underground Music Archive), and I've found lots of great music that the artists want you to download for free. It's free, it's legit, and it's not the cookie-cutter shite that the RIAA has been pushing lately.

So I say, fuck the RIAA. If they want to put all of their potential customers in jail, they can go out of business for all I care.

And finally, check out Downhill Battle, and Don't Buy CDs , two good sites advocating the downfall of the RIAA.

Re:$29.99

[Luketh]

They don't want your sympathy... they want your money.

Re:$29.99

[Fizzlewhiff]

Did you READ MY POST AT ALL?

Hell no, this is slashdot!!! ;-) Yes I read your post and I simply added to it with a more common way of getting cheap music. (One that a 12 year old would be familiar with due to the lap flaps BMG and Columbia House stick in all the teen mags.) eMusic is a Vivendi company, you know, the evil guys who throw DMCA notices at people who mod Blizzard games. Not exactly someone I would want to plug.

Re:$29.99

[daveo0331]

The RIAA has been saying over and over again that "music needs to be paid for" or "free music is bad mmmkay" or whatever. So, what most people remember is if you paid money, good; if you didn't pay money, bad. This is a perfect opportunity for scam artists to set up pay p2p sites that many people assume have the blessing of the RIAA for the simple reason that they had to pay money to use it.

You can be sure that in the next few months, more of these pay sites will start appearing. This could be a bad thing for sites like Itunes. How will the non /. crowd tell the difference between a pay site that can get them sued and one that can't? And if the cost of getting it wrong is tens of thousands of dollars, who's going to take the risk?

Re:$29.99

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution"

To be fair, you still have to go find out what the laws are etc. I can't imagine anybody high school and younger even looking into that. I know better thanks to the RIAA's heavy handed approach with its customers. However, before that I thought that meant I couldn't take the song and remix it or something. No, I'm not the brightest bulb of the bunch, but there's a number of ways that can be interpreted assuming that anybody's read that to begin with. This is especially true when nobody's particularly interested in it in the first place. People buy their music so they can listen to it at their convenience.

I see what you're saying, but really it's not enough.

Re:$29.99

[antic]

With R.Kelly and the RIAA on the loose, young girls need to watch out!

Re:$29.99

[John Courtland]

Where is it that they tax recordable media because it "could" be used to steal music and play it? Cause, um, I think it would be well within my right to "liberate" as many songs as I liked if I had to continuously pay this "tax".

Re:$29.99

[yelmalio]

- Blank Audio CD's are sold as audio CDs.

Now there's a point. Given that blank CD's can be used to copy, and hence pirate, music why doesn't the RIAA go after the manufacturers of the CD's and CD recorders for aiding and abetting piracy.

We all bought our burners and 100 blanks purely for disk backup, didn't we. We all need 100 Gbyte drives for the sheer amount of (non-MP3) data, don't we. Course we did. Sue the aiders and abetters as well.

Why doesn't the RIAA sue AOL and other ISP's for carrying alt.binaries.music.* newsgroups? Surely they are culpable in aiding and abetting piracy as well.

Re:$29.99

[Snaller]

"Taking $2,000 from a 12 year old girl who couldn't possibly have known better?"

In case it hasn't been made clear, the names on the list were provided to the RIAA by the ISPs as a result of being subpoenaed.. If the child's name was provided by the ISP, that means that the Internet service was signed for in the child's name. The money was not taken from the 12-year-old. I think we're all taking this ball and running with it a bit too much. If the family had decided to be wacky and signed up for Internet service in their dog's name, would people be shrieking "They took $2,00 from a poor dog!" ? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. On /., we would. But it would be just as disingenuous.


So a human gets a $2000 fine, but the dog only $200 fine?! What kind of speciesism is that?!

Re:$29.99

[zoeblade]

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.

Oh no, I can picture the track listings now...

1. [FBI Warning]
2. Mr. Self Destruct
3. Piggy
4. [Advert]
5. March of the Pigs
6. Closer
7. [Advert]...

Re:$29.99

[demon]

I did read the article, and it didn't say. Neither did the article pointing out that the RIAA was suing a 12-year-old. I'd suggest you read the article as well, and pay attention to what's NOT there, as well as what is.

Re:$29.99

[rnd()]

That's rediculous. It's like saying that because there was no sign posted near the shelf of CDs being sold at the CD Store's sidewalk sale, that the 12 year-old was justified in filling up her backpack and leaving without paying.

It may seem stupid for the RIAA to go after a 12 year-old, but it's actually quite smart, since they will get all sorts of awareness out of it relatively inexpensively. Also, people aren't going to stop liking Britney Spears over it.

Re:$29.99

[FurryFeet]

In other words, she may have high INT, but low WIS.

Re:$29.99

[Paulrothrock]

There was an honor roll student at my high school who asked why the space shuttle doesn't hit the ozone layer when it takes off.

Her GPA was higher than mine.

Re:$29.99

[Infosquawk]

Thanks for pointing out emusic.com... Pretty neat service. (I'm probably not their ideal customer, despising subscription fees as I do, but, for $15 a month, it's probably a better deal than cable TV.)

I found that on emusic.com they have a lot of albums which I wouldn't have normally purchased, but since you can download all you can eat for the subscription fee, you'd probably go ahead. This way they get some income from albums that probably don't sell a heck of a lot of copies in the stores.

That's the kind of secondary benefit of the mp3 distribution method that the RIAA is just completely missing out on by being such pinheads as they are.

Re:$29.99

[pmz]

We're talking a 12 year old girl who is book smart. That doesn't mean she has common sense.

This reminds me of a Car Talk episode on NPR a while back. A person in medical school decided to attempt to change their engine oil for themselves. Well, against all odds in the universe, they managed to miss the engine entirely, drain the transmission, and put engine oil into the automatic transmission! How a person could miss the big "Engine Oil" filler cap and the plug on the bottom of the engine oil oil pan is amazing. Even the fact that it was red fluid going out and yellow fluid going in wasn't enough to stop this person, nor was it enough that the amount of oil required to fill the transmission was way off the capacity listed in the manual.

I hope this person doesn't go into a surgical field. Perhaps this is also an indication that medical schools are lacking something in their admissions process...

Re:$29.99

[gad_zuki!]

>EMusic [emusic.com] is owned by Vivendi Universal and is a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the RIAA.

So what? People have been asking for DRM free MP3 downloads for ages. In fact this is the root problem of whats wrong with the music industry - too expensive, afraid of change, etc.

Sorry, if its not owned by Mom and Pop but its a good service at a great price.

Re:$29.99

[parliboy]

Ah, so it's not. Was mixing it up with some of the other articles out on this topic.

You got any ketchup for me to use with my crow?

Re:$29.99

[shark72]

You do have a good point. A 3" x 5" card in each CD which went into more details in an easy-to-follow manner on what one can do and one cannot would be an important element in their education campaign. I can't guess how effective it would actually be, though.

Re:$29.99

[tf23]

It doesn't help when most of the ISP's (especially RoadRunner in my area) constantly are, and have been, advertising "download all the music and multimedia you want very quickly".

To be honest, I think a lot of people think it's OK because that's one of the methods broadband's been sold for the last few years.

Re:$29.99

[bhtooefr]

thedownloadplace.com. It's a KaZaA client that you have to pay for. So here goes this 12-year old's business model:

1. Get ripped off and mis-led by a KaZaA scam artist
2. Get sued by RIAA
3. Get publicized
4. ??? (It turns out to be get geeks feeling sorry for you, and donating)
5. Profit! (but how much?)

Re:$29.99

[Anonvmous Coward]

" I can't guess how effective it would actually be, though."

Would the effectiveness really matter? If a card like you suggests fell out that read "Don't share this on the internet!" then the RIAA's got a case. "People can't avoid this!!"

I like your idea. I think the RIAA should do this.

Re:$29.99

[shark72]

Well, $200 is $2,000 in dog dollars. I certainly think this is fair. I only give my dog a $10 weekly allowance, after all.

Good.

[r_glen]

Let the prejudice complaints start rolling in...

Won't somebody think of the audlt children?!?

[McGruff]

At least the net is now free from 12 year old girls pirating music. Now back to the pRon.

See any serious problems with this story?

[BrynM]

"See any serious problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor."

You guys might want to change this tag line for subscribers. I nearly e-mailed you to bitch about the RIAA.

Re:See any serious problems with this story?

[winkydink]

Yes, this particular "Omelette" is starting to taste a little stale. Now that I see it, that SCO ingredient doesn't look so fresh either.

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.

[cj171]

'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love. that disgusts me because I know she wouldn't really say that...c'mon, 12 year olds arent idiots...

Re:Wow.

[barks]

I hear you...I don't normally buy CDs and now I see no reason to.

RIAA wants to play hardball, fine...a new personal goal will be to download another 2000 songs...
what you sued another child...fine, another 2000 songs...
sue another music lover...opps you lost revenue for another 2000 songs...
and on and on we go...copyright warfare is sort of futile isn't it?

Re:Wow.

[tambo]

Yeah, but you'll never win that battle. I mean, they only make MP3 players with, what, 60gb max? :)

- David Stein

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.

[paroneayea]

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?

Re:Wow.

[jlgolson]

I agree, I posted a very similar thing elsewhere. Nice Esq, where'd you go to school? They can come after me for my downloaded songs all they want, I have no money anyway! HA! But seriously, "There was even a person from Cambridge, MA that was sharing over 900 songs." From a Fox 25 newscast in Boston. Does anyone have so few as 900 songs? Seriously? They act like this is a lot. HA! Wait, if they nailed someone sharing 900 songs I think I'm screwed...

-jg

Re:Wow.

[gid]

Site that I learned about recently, but have yet to buy anything from em cd baby. Looks to be pretty nice, I listened to some of the samples, but I've been so busy with other junk that I haven't actually decided on what to buy. :)

Re:Wow.

[barks]

hmmm...i think you've just given me an idea for a cool computer mod....hmmm now if I can only power up this backpack mp3 player.

Re:Wow.

[JOW]

Is a Troll the same as Esq ?

Re:Wow.

[secolactico]

I hear you...I don't normally buy CDs and now I see no reason to.

[snip]

sue another music lover...opps you lost revenue for another 2000 songs...

Why? You weren't going to buy them, anyway. And if you share them, you might get sued. And everytime someone gets sued, more and more people stop sharing (which means you run out of songs to download).

So, at most, it's a futile resistance unless you can convince more people to join your boycott.

Lets face it, if you want to punish RIAA, stop buying their CDs *and* supporting artists that are part of them. Time to start the low blows, kick the nuts and the head dies (to paraphrase MAD magazine).

That said, I'll say it again (not that anyone cares): I believe downloading MP3 for which you have no rights is wrong and so is distributing them. Whether it's stealing or not, is a matter of semantics.

Re:Wow.

[Spl0it]

Hehe 50 a year at $14.95 (isn't that a low price????) it would only take until year 2005 unless you've allready purchased some this year then 2006 :) btw. I havn't bought a CD since....uhm....1994 or 1995 :) and I'm 21 lol :)

Re:Wow.

[Mad Marlin]

Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.

No kidding. I didn't really think much of the whole RIAA suing people thing all that much, because, despite what some people here might like to think, it is stealing. But this is just wrong. I think I am going to join you in banning the RIAA from now on. A $2,000 settlement with a 12-year-old girl in public housing? What the f-ck are they thinking?

Re:Wow.

[ahaning]

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.

Re:Wow.

[itsari]

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]

Re:Wow.

[snorb]

I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative?

Not exactly the same, but you can use the RIAA radar to check and make sure the CD you're interested in is "RIAA-safe" (ie. not from a label that's a RIAA member). Site's kinda slow, but I've found it very useful.

Personally, I've made the decision to avoid RIAA records for life, but so far that's just meant that I haven't bought the new Radiohead. It's not much of a sacrifice since most of the music I like is on independent labels anyway. I don't know what I'd do if Warp or Ipecac were RIAA members.

Re:Wow.

[wfrp01]

Yes. Tell your friends. Tell them to tell their friends.

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

Re:Wow.

[Stormie]

why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative?

I don't know if this is exactly what you're after, but RIAA Radar allows you to check whether a given album was released by an RIAA-member label or not. For those situations where you already know of an artist and want to decide whether to buy the CD or warez it. :-)

Re:Wow.

[cj171]

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? that sounds great, I would definitely be interested in any site like that...they should however, include a music tastes thing where people could say what indie bands were like riaa bands...on another note, does the money paid for used cds go to the riaa or not?

Re:Wow.

[sould]

I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music

Some guy called Michael Crawford has written am article for Kuro5hin called Links to Thousand of Legal Music Downloads.

Interesting article - also talks about an interesting player concept called irate. It downloads the free tunes for you....

Re:Wow.

[the uNF cola]

Isn't their music also supposed to be available via itunes?

Re:Wow.

[Artifex]

why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative?

Try Magnetbox, they have a finder that lets you type in an artist and get a yes/no.

Re:Wow.

[hackwrench]

Everytime someone gets sued, more and more people stop sharing. Please think of the sharers.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wow.

[Cecil]

I've looked for an RIAA-free venue as well, and have come up mostly empty, however I will pass along what I did find:

• AmpCast (a service much like what mp3.com used to offer) not entirely RIAA-free, but mostly indy.
• Moonshine Records (an RIAA-free electronica label)
  

Unfortunately that's pretty much all I found. It would be great if someone could come up with some suggestions of non-RIAA CDs, and optimally let you purchase them.

Finally, while I don't really agree, you may also want to read this: Reasons against a full RIAA boycott, suggesting a boycott of just the major 5 labels.

Re:Wow.

[Canadian_Daemon]

Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.
I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER CD FROM THE RIAA AGIAN

Re:Wow.

[strongmad]

that's a little tricky. probably a lot of artists who are really against this type of action got roped into being under RIAA before they knew how evil it is. and as others are saying, the artists get trapped into long contracts.

Re:Wow.

[mentaiko]

I don't think they care one bit about the $2000. In fact, I bet the RIAA would PAID for the result they got: major news coverage and a bunch of parents starting to think "maybe we should tell our kids it's not OK to steal just because it's convenient".

I think they're looking for a change in the public mentality, and a bunch of precedent showing that they are capable and willing to enfore their intellectual property rights. Personally I have a feeling that once this is well-established, we might see the record companies think about moving to the much more sensible electronic distribution models we all want to see.

Re:Wow.

[famazza]

• Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again(...)

I used to buy CDs, and I could even keep buying over and over, as I had always bought. But since RIAA started this stupid quest against the "Information Revolution" I simply stopd buying CDS.

This is a protest by civil desobedience. It's really unfair! I must adapt to new technologies, but RIAA doesn't, it has its own lawyers.

IMO we should everybody start sharing even more files, not only .mp3, but most files possible. By the means of civil desobedienc we can change the laws.

Re:Wow.

[rice_web]

I too believe that sharing music is wrong (I downloaded about ten songs myself, but I never liked the services and couldn't justify the downloads). However, I believe we must boycott the RIAA, potentially with a few legal loopholes.

Whatever the case, these bastards need to be taken down.

Re:Wow.

[jellocat]

Actually, the best thing to do is buy music that is RIAA free. Show the world that artists can make more money by buying through cdbaby.com.

yeah, they are mostly unkown, but it is an amazing start.

They are even Microsoft free!

http://cdbaby.com/about

excerpts from link:

in a regular record deal or distribution deal, musicians only make $1-$2 per CD, if they ever get paid by their label. When selling through CD Baby, musicians make $6-$12 per CD, and get paid weekly.

Our servers are running 100% OpenBSD - the world's most secure operating system. Powered by Apache, PHP, and MySQL.

No Microsoft products were used in the creation of this website.

ranting will not change anything, DO something!

start using it, start changing things.

Re:Wow.

[robogun]

I would think that supports the market for used CDs. Right now, due to demand, a used cd has a retail value from $5 to $8 or so. They used to be around $10, but the stores (at least around here) have had to cut prices lately due to lack of demand.

If demand (and prices) goes back up, then some people will buy new cds because they aren't THAT much more expensive. I do not buy ANY cds, used or new.

The thing to do is download from alt.binaries.mp3 or some such similar, at least until the RIAA decides to go after those downloaders.

Re:Wow.

[WTF Wazzat]

...and don't forget to write the SOBs and tell them you are doing it.

Re:Wow.

[cbreaker]

Looks like I'm too late to get a new one of these things. I just looked at the empeg site and got all excited about it, but upon further investigation, it's been discontinued completely.

Apparently it was very expensive to manufacture and thus the cost for the consumer was high and not too many people actually bought them. A crying shame.

Could maybe get one on ebay at some point, who knows.

Re:Wow.

[Odinson]

These guys need a mirror. They are completely slashdoted at 1:23 am EST. Cool concept at least.

I will keep trying though.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, artists actually sound better in the live format.

Check out etree.org for more information on freely distributable shows by these artist as well:
Agents of Good Roots,Alan Hertz and Friends Alan Hertz Project,Ali Baba's Tahini Allman Brothers Band,Amfibian Ancient Harmony,Anders Osborne Ari Hest,Awnings for Eyelids Barefoot Manner,The Basement Shift Beanland,Bela Fleck & The Flecktones Bela Fleck & Tony Trischka Ben Harper, Ben Harper and The Innocent Criminals Bernie Worrell and the WOO Warriors Big E,Big Head Todd and the Monsters Big In Japan,Big Smith,The Big Wu,Blind Melon Blueground Undergrass,Blues Traveler Bockman's Euphio,Brothers Past,Bruce Hornsby Burt Neilson Band,Carbon Leaf,Charlie Hunter Chris Robinson,Club d'Elf Counting Crows,Cowboy Junkies Critters Buggin,Dan Bern Dark Star Orchestra,Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds Dave Matthews (solo),Dave Matthews Band David Gans,David Gray,Day by the River,The Dead Deep Banana Blackout,Derek Trucks Band Dickey Betts,Dirty Dozen Brass Band Disco Biscuits,Dispatch Donna the Buffalo,Dr. Didg Drive-By Truckers,Edie Brickell,Ekoostik Hookah Family Groove Company,The Fareed Haque Group Galactic,Garage A Trois,Garaj Mahal Garcia,George Porter, Jr. & Runnin' Pardners Ghost Trane,Gov't Mule,Grand Theft Bus Grateful Dead,GreyBoy AllStars Guster,Hot Tuna,Howie Day,Indiana Trip Factory Jack Johnson,Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey Jason Mraz,Jazz Mandolin Project Jeff Tweedy,Jimmy Swift Band John Butler Trio,John Cowan Band John Hartford,John Mayer,John Scofield,John Scofield Band,Jolene,Jorma Kaukonen Karl Denson and Chris Wood Karl Denson's Tiny Universe Keller Williams Keller Williams w/ String Cheese Incident Kimock,Kudzu Kings KVHW,Lake Trout,Leftover Salmon Legion of Mary,Leo Kottke & Mike Gordon Les Claypool's Fearless Flying Frog Brigade Little Feat,Living Daylights Lo Faber Band,Los Lobos,Mad Dog Trio Marc Ford,Marcus Eaton and the Lobby Mason Jennings,Matt Nathanson Medeski, Martin & Wood Mermen,Mike Clark's Prescription Renewal moe.,moe. side projects The Mood Cultivation Project The Motet,nero,The New Deal New Monsoon,New Riders of the Purple Sage North Mississippi Allstars O.A.R. (Of A Revolution) Offering,OM Trio,The Other Ones,Oysterhead Particle,Pat McGee Band Pat Metheny, Patterson Hood and Friends Pearl Jam,Percy Hill,Phil Lesh & Friends Phish,Porcupine Tree Psychedelic Breakfast Radiators,Railroad Earth Raq,Ratdog,The Recipe,Reid Genauer Robert Hunter,Robert Randolph Robert Walter's 20th Congress Rusted Root,Santa Cruz Hemp Allstars Schleigho,Scott Amendola Band,Seth Yacovone Band Sex Mob,Shaking Tree The Slip,Soulive,Sound Tribe Sector 9 Spearhead,Spin Doctors,Sri Bidi,Stanton Moore Stephen Kellogg,Steve Kimock & Friends Steve Kimock Band,Strangefolk String Cheese Incident,Sweet Potato Project Tenacious D,Tim Reynolds Topaz,Tortoise,TR3,Trey Anastasio Ulu,Umphrey's McGee,Uncle Sammy,Vida Blue W.O.M.B.A.T.S.,Warren Haynes,Ween,Widespread Panic,Wilco,Will Bernard & Motherbug Will Bernard 4tet,Will Bernard Projects Willy Porter,Willy Porter Band The Word,Yonder Mountain String Band Zero,Zony Mash,Zwan

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.

Re:Wow.

[Scarblac]

I bought from them, no problem at all. It was also very fast, taking four days or so to send to Europe, if I recall correctly, it's been a while.

I like Fred Wilson. And there are some other things I'll buy soon.

Re:Wow.

[Illserve]

How about some sort of "RIAA-free" sticker that could be put on the cases of independent label CD's in music shops?

Oh wait, there aren't any. Nevermind.

Re:Wow.

[ahaning]

Ahem. How do you get all the way to that part of my post without seeing that I mentioned that Howie Day was amongst the etree stuff at archive.org.

Also, thank you for using archive.org's easy-to-read format for your list of bands. Perhaps some Linux disro will pick up this layout for their package list.

Re:Wow.

[Lumpy]

IUMA

This is one of the best places to go...

in fact my company uses IUMA exclusively for finding talent for tv commercials.. they are cheaper (WooHoo we dont have to pay $20,000.00 for a 30 second clip!) and usually better in quality.

Unfortunately some of them get sucked over to the dark side...John Mayer is one of them that used to be a IUMA artist... now he's the property of an RIAA member.

Re:Wow.

[battjt]

Supporting a secondary market supports the primary market. You are now just sharing the cost of the CD with the original owner. If the primary buyer can count on a secondary market, then the original realized cost is less. Joe

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Corporations aren't evil, they are just a bunch of people getting together for collaborative economic activity. They are to making money what clubs and social organizations are to making friends.

You should not fault companies for wanting to prevent unauthorized theft and (free) distribution of their products.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Your statements are an example of an argument about an arcane detail of the precise legal meaning of words. Copyright law exists to protect something that someone has created and now, as a virtue of that creative act, owns. Property rights exist to protect what someone owns. Notice the similarity there?

The point is, it's not up to you to decide how the material is distributed, nor is it up to you to decide the price. When you decide to attempt to do either one of those things, you risk suffering the legal penalties.

You may disapprove of copyright law (or the concept of private property for that matter), but if you do, the way to change things isn't to blatantly violate the law, but to create alternatives that law-abiding citizens can participate in that work better. So far all I've heard you do is take the easy way out and condone violation of the existing laws. It must be fun in never never land.

Re:Wow.

[smallpaul]

Copyright law exists to protect something that someone has created and now, as a virtue of that creative act, owns

No. You cannot own either an idea or an expression of an idea (as if there were a clear line between those two to start with). You can be granted a time-limited exclusive right to distribute an idea or an expression of an idea, but that doesn't mean you own it.

So far all I've heard you do is take the easy way out and condone violation of the existing laws.

I didn't see the parent poster condone the violation of the laws. I saw him respect those laws by reading them carefully and noticing that they distinguish between theft and copyright infringement. If we all did that the debate could be more clearly framed in terms of law rather than emotional equations of stolen bikes and downloaded songs.

Re:Wow.

[Dog and Pony]

When you follow that link, make sure you check out "Swedish alternative rock act Machinae Supremacy". :)

Irate is a real nice concept and fun to use, but I'm getting really sick of the buggy player and the stupid, slow interface. I'm almost thinking to start hacking on it myself, but that'd mean going back to doing Java... I wish he would have chosen something a bit more suitable and effective. Though, if I get the time, maybe I'll do something compatible in one of those (putting my money where my mouth is and all that... ;-)

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

So then what is the practical difference between having exclusive rights to distribute something and actually owning it? This really ammuses me, because there is no practical difference.

Re:Wow.

[Rogerborg]

That "some guy" being MichaelCrawford.

Re:Wow.

[Rogerborg]

Copyright infringement is not theft. See U.S. Supreme Court, DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Those wacky Supreme Court judges and their never never land.

Re:Wow.

[Rogerborg]

Copyright infringement is not theft. Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Re:Wow.

[Rogerborg]

Whether [unauthorised copying is] stealing or not, is a matter of semantics

It's a matter of Supreme Court case law precedent.

Re:Wow.

[FileNotFound]

Buying used CDs is almost as bad imo.

Ok fine YOU didn't buy the new CD, but you just gave money to someone who did..and guess what. That person will go out and buy a new CD...

You're still helping, not as much but still...

Re:Wow.

[brkello]

Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING.

Oh jeez, haven't we gone over this before. It doesn't matter if it is stealing or copyright infringement. Both are illegal. Your argument has been stated so many times it is beyond me how it could be considered insightful. Actually, at this point, any post to an RIAA article should be automatically modded redundant.

Re:Wow.

[thrykol]

Not totally true. Even though you aren't buying RIAA CDs directly, you are "encouraging" other consumers to purchase RIAA CDs. These consumers know that they can always dump their CDs at the used CD stores. If you don't purchase used RIAA CDs, the used CD stores (and other outlets) would begin to aquire a surplus of these CDs and quit purchasing said CDs. Ultimately, the only way to kill the sale of RIAA associated CDs is to quite buying them regardless of the source.

Re:Wow.

[Mackus Daddius]

Well, the most obvious difference being that the exclusive right is for limited times, whereas property ownership is normally assumed to be valid in perpetuity

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

You may have a point there... My point is only that for all practical purposes for commerce, copyright is equivalent to property rights in many ways.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

What is the practical difference? [long pause]

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Uh, that is pretty obvious. Is there any practical difference during the copyright term?

Re:Wow.

[Dun Malg]

So then what is the practical difference between having exclusive rights to distribute something and actually owning it? This really ammuses me, because there is no practical difference.

There is a practical difference. "Ownership" is the legal right to posession of a physical object- a car, a box of nails, a plot of land. You cannot take physical posession of a song, a story, or an idea. That's why we have copyright and patent law in the first place! The recasting of unauthorized copying into "theft" or "stealing" are attempts to subvert the stated intent of copyright law: monopoly on copying for a limited time. It's in the damned US Constitution, for crying out loud! The power to exercise this limited monopoly is a protection granted by the government to enrich the public domain, whereas the right to own property is a basic right. The two are totally unrelated, despite efforts to equivocate "intellectual property" with "real property". The term "intellectual property" was concoted in the mid 19th century as a propaganda tool by copyright holders to get further extensions in copyrights! In short, whether you find it amusing or not, the two are not the same thing.

Re:Wow.

[Politburo]

Your statements are an example of an argument about an arcane detail of the precise legal meaning of words.

Surprise, that's what law is. The words used in lawmaking are always carefully chosen to give a precise legal definition. In this case, words have been chosen to specifically differentiate between copyright and property ownership. In the same vein, different words exist in the law to describe the situations where these properties have been illegally used or taken. The Supreme Court has ruled that, "The history of the criminal infringement provisions of the Copyright Act indicates that Congress had no intention to reach copyright infringement when it enacted 2134[, the law against interstate transport of stolen goods]." From this link conveniently 'stolen' from a sibling post.

Re:Wow.

[Mackus Daddius]

Well, for example, there is no concept of "fair use" of property. Portions of works that are under copyright can be reproduced for educational or critical purposes. There is no parallel in property law. (Imagine a college professor taking over a room of your house to teach a class.)

The framers understood that ideas are different than property and should be treated as such. Here's a relevant excerpt from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters on the subject:

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Re:Wow.

[Featureless]

Simple. Talking in terms of violating copyright is accurate. Talking in terms of stealing is inaccurate.

But I know you want me to elaborate, right? Let's take your clothes. I can't borrow them without asking, even if I promise to give them back. After all, without your clothes, you'd be naked. But what if I could steal your clothes, and yet you could still have them on?

Is it as bad to be naked, as not? I mean, you might be a nudist, but I think in general people would have to agree that still having your clothes isn't quite as bad off as being naked. Both are bad - you had something stolen from you, right? But perhaps you can start to see that one is not quite as bad as the other. In fact, calling them the same is what I like to call exaggerating.

The role - even the basic idea - of copyright in this country is changing. Not because file sharers are changing it, but because large media concerns are. It is not changing to be more "pro-consumer" or "liberal." It has changed to become vastly, astoundlingly more pro-media-concern. Media companies now have more recourse to go after file sharers than a young woman has to go after a person who raped her, or the police have to go after a child pornographer (i.e. DMCA, which grants them the power of arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional judgeless subpoenas). Copyright terms can last well over a hundred years. "Taxes" are paid on all kinds of recording media, with the money going directly to the media companies (who dole it our fairly, of course). Please, stop before I get past the tip of the iceberg. Media companies these days have phenomal political influence, because they're, well, the media. They get what they want.

They want copytight infringement to be the same as stealing, even though it never was before. This subtle change in language... changes everything. It influences public opinion, news coverage, and the tone of legislation now and in the future. The idea is to fool people into believing there's no difference. It's like the "repeat" in "lather-rinse-repeat." With just one new word, they can make a bit more money.

Copyright is very little like property rights. It has a sole purpose: to replace the old world system of "patronage," where artists had to find wealthy people to feed and house them while they make art, with a new system that creates an artificial means of income for them. If the market likes their work, then they can profit.

These days the music "market" has become, as they say, "highly consolidated." Artists can't really profit from their works directly anymore because performers have a terrible time competing economically with recordings, and (until the internet) only large organizations can afford to undertake the whole process of "mass media" - 8 tracks, cassette tapes, CDs, etc. etc. - actually producing and distributing records. These guys have historically been tight with the mafia, and it shows; they formed a trust, fixed prices, rigged retail and radio distribution channels, and used their bargaining power as the new arbiters of music to cut outrageously bad deals for the artists they "represent." They also (very successfully) lobby the government for extravagant legislative "gifts," just like other big money interests - see above.

Just looking at music for the moment, the whole mess looks less and less like the apparent intent of the "copyright language" in the constitution. This isn't even getting into the "subtler" issues, like whether or not libraries are "mass thieves," or by quoting someone you are "stealing their sentence," or when a rap artists samples someone they "stole their soundbite."

Interestingly, unlike my steailng your clothes, there are lots of in-betweens when it comes to "intellectual property" (a term which is, itself, another language attack in the whole "sharin is stealin" war). Did Shakespeare "steal" the ideas for his plays when he adapted some dry historical and political writing, or some pulpy popular theater, into the greatest

Re:Wow.

[vidnet]

Hooray! The goddess of justice has gotten her vision back!

Re:Wow.

[LetterJ]

The drop in demand for brick and morter used CD stores is also due in part to sites like half.com. I, too buy only used, but have entirely shifted to using half.com and amazon.com to get them. One of the nicest thinga about half.com is that there isn't any *1* price for used CD's. It responds more to supply and demand than many regular stores can, so you can actually see what CD's people aren't willing to part with (a good indication of quality music). Discs on half.com that are $0.50-$1 are either mega-hits or duds. If a given disc is going for $13 used and $15 new, it's either really new, really obscure or no one wants to sell their copy.

Re:Wow.

[barks]

Dang!!! You're gonna have to obviously post an article once your done it with some pics.

Re:Wow.

[CentrX]

But they have completely different consequences and justifications. When you steal from someone, you are depriving them of something in their possession. That's completely different from duplicating some song for which they were given a monopoly on distribution by the government, in order to encourage the arts. Copyright infringement is a civil matter whereas theft is often a criminal matter.

You say "both are illegal", which is true, but both are illegal in the same way that both speeding and assault are illegal, or in the same way that both embezzlement and murder are illegal. Yes they're both illegal, but they are entirely different classes of crime, both morally and under the law. To refer to both theft and copyright infringement as "stealing" is a lie that equates things that are, in fact, different, and much of the argument about the injustice of the RIAA's action are that they are zealously "enforcing" an unjust law in an unjust manner.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

If you sit down with a bunch of wood and nails, you could end up with a birdhouse.

If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.

My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference? Sure, there is a difference in the origin of the concepts, but not in the practical implications of them for commerce.

All you did is repeat the whole "they are not from the same legal origin" line, which is slightly better (but not much better) than the "they're different words" argument that someone offered earlier.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

That may be, but you haven't answered the question of how there is a practical difference in what it means for commerce. Anyone can harp on some wording in a supreme court decision, but what is falling through the cracks is the fact that for all intents and purposes, despite the differences in their origin, copyright law and property ownership are the same thing, when applied to commerce during the term of a copyright.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

I like the quote. I particularly like the part at the bottom:

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

What is the difference between "society giving exclusive right to profits... " and society giving an individual exclusive right to profits from the sale of his physical property?

Jefferson's point is that copyright protection should not be too extensive, but that some should exist in order to reward innovators. That is my position too. If you create a copyrightable work, you may bury it, sell it, or keep it to yourself, just as you could with a bag full of gold that you owned.

The only relevant difference is in the manner of sale: With a copyrighted work, you are selling copies, while with the gold you are selling part of the original quantity. Copyright law comes into play because it sets limits around the (limited)extent to which someone can be guaranteed to be able to sell copies.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Not a bad series of points. Much better than those made by most people. But I do have a few gripes:

You and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with p2p, but that filesharing copyrighted works is wrong.

You and I agree that the Recording industry has bought some politicians. In my opinion, when companies would rather spend money in Washington than in R&D, there is something seriously wrong with our legislative system. Wrong with the RIAA? Nope, they're just responding to pols who are willing to be bought. We see the same thing with the steel industry, the AMA, the NRA, the ABA, etc. In general our congress loves regulating things b/c that way people come to them offering incentives and campaign contributions. I bring this up becuase people erroneously blame the RIAA, which is obviously an entity devoted to helping its members. If things were different, the RIAA might have evolved into a group that produced software standards, but instead it became a lobbying organization.

You interestingly mention copyright as a replacement for patronage. Patronage is still alive and well in our society and it is a good thing. Patronage matches people with money with people with skills/ideas, and allows both to mutually benefit. In fact, the much-criticized institution known as the corporation is at its core a way of organizing people economically for their mutual benefit, in a way that is greater than any individual could do alone.

It doesn't matter if copying a copyrighted work is "better" or "worse" than stealing property, and a lot depends on the property you're comparing it to and the market value for the information vs the piece of property. There is no way to draw a distinction about this on the sole basis of the kind of information contained in the copyrighted material.

I think we both agree that the Recording Industry is a dinosaur. However I think people should figure out a way to replace it rather than just complaining about how inefficient it is.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Ok... sit down at your computer and write some very useful code... spend about 2 years doing it... then publish it on your website along with your name and picture.

Wouldn't it make you happy to receive $0.00 for your effort, but to have Bill Gates mention you by name on national television in the same sentence as he mentions the fact that Microsoft made $10,000,000 on it in the first 6 months?

Re:Wow.

[brkello]

Ok, let's go back to your whole "it isn't stealing" argument. The argument depends on what definition flavor you are looking at. One definition of stealing states:

"To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator."

Using that definition, it is stealing. But fine, let's say the crimes are different and require different litigation. Well, duh. Even "stealing" is different depending on if you are stealing bread or stealing government secrets. The whole argument that "music sharing is copyright infringement not stealing" is stupid because it is used as a justification to continue doing it because...I am not sure why, the crime isn't that bad? Everyone is doing it? You don't want to give up the perks? They hate the monopolistic RIAA? Sorry Robin Hood, stealing from the evil for yourself doesn't make it good.

As I have stated earlier, people can say it is stealing and be correct by definition. So to state it as stealing just means they have a different interpretation of the word "steal" than you do. I hate the RIAA, but how is this unjust? People break the law and now are having to pay for their actions. I am just glad they are going after the people who are guilty and have failed when going after p2p software.

I would basically agree with the other posters if you don't like the RIAA. Don't buy RIAA affiliated CDs. If you have to buy them, buy them used.

Re:Wow.

[bhtooefr]

Fuck RIAA by not going to see bands that have signed deals with RIAA member companies. Or, if you do, somehow get the message to them that you won't pay unless they go independent (in other words, you're not paying). Go buy CDs from CDBaby or something, or get your music from dmusic.com.

Re:Wow.

[bhtooefr]

Yes, it does. No, not directly, but the person that sold the used CD gets money that may be used to buy another new RIAA CD.

Re:Wow.

[bhtooefr]

I didn't RTFy(your)A, but it's RIAA that's doing this. OK, so the 5 major labels may be causing the main influence, but that's the price everyone pays by becoming a RIAA member. Also, CDBaby is a good source of non-RIAA CDs that I've seen mentioned here.

Re:Wow.

[bhtooefr]

No, no, no. DON'T share the files, and for the love of (insert favorite open source hero here), tell your music store WHY you aren't buying CDs!

Re:Wow.

[Mackus Daddius]

Context is very important here. He prefaces the excerpt you cited by stating that ideas, by their very nature, belong to all ("That ideas should freely spread..."). Jefferson is saying that once you publish your idea, it immediately becomes part of what we now call the public domain. Even the word 'publish' hints to this as it is derived from the latin publicare, "to make public". That is the important distinction here and, I believe, the answer to your question. Your property is yours, you own it, it belongs to you and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. Your published ideas however, do not belong to you, they belong to the public, who then issue you an exclusive right to profit from copies of those ideas for (what originally was) a limited time.

Re:Wow.

[Dun Malg]

If you sit down with a bunch of wood and nails, you could end up with a birdhouse.

If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.

My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference?

The difference is obvious:
-If I take your birdhouse, you are left with no birdhouse, and I have a birdhouse I didn't pay for. That's theft.
-If I copy the software you wrote without permission, I have software I didn't pay you for, but you still have your software. That's copyright infringement.

The first case deprives you of real property, while the second deprives you of nothing. Arguing that you've lost a potential sale of your software to me is as legally spurious a claim as saying that I would have paid for that birdhouse if I hadn't stolen it! You can't claim damages based on an event that might have happened. This is why copyright law and property law are dealt with via totally seperate areas of the law. They simply aren't the same thing. I'm not saying either are legal, by any means; only that they are not directly comparable. Copyright law exists only because the government wishes to encourage the production of such works so as to enrich the public domain. People who make their living selling their right-to-copy are doing so only at the sufferance of the government, and the government may amend the extent of their right to copy an all sorts of ways. Property rights, on the other hand, are the basic rights of all people. Basic rights theory says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Copyrights are a limitation on personal freedom (e.g. my freedom to sing a song in public without paying ASCAP) that are granted to individuals only because the public domain will eventually be enriched when those copyrights expire. To put it bluntly, we the people are doing content creators a favor by allowing them copyrights, whereas the prohibition on stealing your birdhouse is based on our essential liberties as human beings. See the distinction?

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

But then what do you make of Jefferson's mention of right to profit?

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

You are right if I would have created either one for my own purpose, but if I decided to create in order to make a profit, they are still identical, since infringement/theft deprives me of the expected profit from my endevour. One could argue that the market accounts for ease of replication in pricing, thus making the ROI for creating a birdhouse roughly similar to the ROI for creating software, assuming that demand was similar.

Re:Wow.

[Rogerborg]

About 3 to 5 years in Federal pokey.

Re:Wow.

[Featureless]

We certainly agree that, between the bribe-paying corporate body, and the crooked politician (inhabiting his lavishly broken system), the latter is deserving of more blame. But I don't think I'm comfortable with the kind of rhetorical implication of relative innocence that comes from saying, "Wrong with the RIAA? Nope, they're just responding to pols who are willing to be bought." The crooked cop may be the first guy you go after, but I don't feel much less outrage at the pimps and dealers who pay him protection - "just because he can be bought." Plenty of people compete in our society through honest means, troubling as our times are. I feel comfortable vilifying both parties in corruption almost equally.

I didn't mean to imply that patronage has disappeared, or that it needs to, and I think you raise a good point by bringing that up. There are many models for keeping art alive and healthy that work, and, not to be discounted too easily, patronage produced some of our more fantastic works of art, if we look back on our history. One thing I would say is that the corporation, "a way of organizing people economically for their mutual benefit," will produce art as well, but as you indicate, it will only produce art (or anything else) that is economically beneficial for its participants. If it fails to do so, it will cease to exist. Further, it will rarely resist capital's gravitational pull to produce what (in art, or in anything) will be the most beneficial. That's what corporations are for, by many people's book, and it is in this that they execute one of the most important parts of capitalism's design. But some things, and I would venture to suggest they include not only art but things like education, police, and "public" utilities, tend not to work very well from within the framework of the corporation. Which is not to disparage the basic idea of it at all. But I think it' necessary to recognize past failures and sense limitations. Fundamentally, doing the "right" thing, making the "best" art, is not necessarily to anyone's mutual economic benefit - or is not recognizable as such, which to the corporate decision-maker is the same thing.

I must stridently continue to insist that it very much does matter if violating a copyright is better or worse than stealing. But I feel I can add little to what I've already said on that point. You rightly bring up that some protected works are much more valuable than others, and we can of course draw examples; the unlawful copying of a multi-million dollar piece of "micromarket" software versus the theft of a pack of gum, but we are, after all, under the header of the RIAA's suit against a child over copying music, and in the end, nothing changes the fact that unlawful copying is still not theft, even though both crimes can take place in many mangitudes, and both can be quite serious.

I think when you say that people should replace [the RIAA] rather than just complaining about how inefficient it is, there, my friend, you have the most resounding "yes!" I often finding myself making the same comment. I have a modest idea myself, that could be retrofitted into most mediums where this data can be exchanged. Using some simple public key cryptography and hopefully with some refinements to the current "minipayment" or even "micropayment" architecture available, I propose a Kazaa, or Winamp, or (etc) add on I call the "pay the person who made this file button." Maybe even the "pay the person who made this file $1 button," although Amazon might sue us. All too simple, of course, but it's important to take a first step, and the sooner the better.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Your public key idea sounds like it has potential. Though it seems to me that the file would need to be disabled until the person paid for it. The public key would allow the payment to be routed properly and would also unlock the file.

That's actually a very interesting idea, because (at least in my interpretation) it couples the concept of DRM with the concept of non-proprietary distribution. It would have a number of very cool side-effects, among which are:

It would facilitate the decoupling of music creators and music promoters. Right now you don't even get to record your album unless there is a marketing plan in place, but with this idea you could record it, distribute it, and if it took off you would end up with a lot of micropayments in your bank account.

I still think that there'd need to be room for promoters and people who specialize in marketing music... but who knows, that phenomenon could be replaced by recommenders that simply helped consumers identify music that they were very likely to enjoy. movielens.umn.edu does this for movies and it's definitely increased the level of enjoyment that I obtain from the cinema.

When you think about it, it used to be that artists had to go to a recording studio and to a promoter -- a "label" -- because there wasn't any other distribution mechanism... You had albums and radio. Now, digital recording technology is so inexpensive that nearly anyone can put together a decent recording with only a few thousand dollars in off-the-shelf equipment and some simple know-how with a mixer and very basic post-production techniques.

So one question that comes to mind is, what would they play on the radio, and how would artists make money from it? I suppose something like that could be incorporated into the DRM so that if you were a radio station you had to 'buy' more than just one 'play' every time you played a song.

The interesting thing would be that some songs would cost more or less than others, and prices would likely fluctuate, since artists would want to make as much money as possible. That might require some kind of central clearing system, but it could be done relatively easily, especially if prices would move day to day rather than minute to minute.

Wow, you've really got me thinking here... I prefer thinking of cool alternatives to defending the RIAA... :)

Re:Wow.

[Featureless]

I quite agree. :)

In my mind I do draw a distinction between DRM as the RIAA and Microsoft have envisioned it and what I think would be acceptable in the marketplace (sans police-state regulations on consumer products). Corporate DRM systems have typically picked up detritus like a bill rolling through congress, developing centralized architectures and unnecessary restrictions for the sole purpose of violating the privacy of users, locking out competitors (who would have to licen$$$e your technology, or illegally "circumvent" it, to be compatible... and as DeCSS eloquently showed, no one can be sure what's for interoperability and what's not), and gratuitously violating fair use rights (i.e. backups).

I actually thought of the very first step in the process purely as a donation system, for a number of reasons. It's much simpler technical problem, much more likely to be widely installed (who installs something that "breaks" Kazaa?), and it raises social awareness of the issues behind copyright in the first place. I actually believe that donation alone will be shockingly successful. I also believe that, unless you _do_ find some way to completely eradicate P2P, donation is technically all you've got anyway, since no DRM system can be secure, and content only needs to escape once to arrive in the P2P networks and be "free" forevermore.

Which is not to say that there isn't a need (and market) for a "soft lock" P2P system that does more to enforce the social contract. I think many organizations (and I really mean companies, schools, families, etc.) will be thrilled to have a more "legitimate" medium and will embrace it. I think it will inevitably follow. But I think it's important to be realistic about our prospects of creating a secure system (exactly zero), to respect the privacy and fair use rights of users, and to engineer P2P "security" with open systems that are as decentralized, modularized, commoditized, and market-driven as possible, so as to insure that it will be difficult for any single entity or small group to influence distribution prices again. In a perfect world, all the money goes straight to the artist, just like it does when you put it in the hat. I think in the end successful "DRM" measures to secure content online are quite modest.

I see this as a very gradual evolutionary process where the pressure of the law (criminal and civil) push from one side, and the prospect of superior quality, easier to use legitimate alternatives pull from the other... where the moves happen in small steps, each one choking off the content trust a little more, morally, legally, and ultimately, financially, as real electronic distribution ultimately replaces antique systems.

Radio is another good point. It's relatively easier to regulate, since it's quite closely monitored. I would like to hope artists could strike a better deal with radio when they find themselves less encumbered by the record labels. But in the end it might even look like the artists paying to get on the radio rather than vice versa. It all depends on who is of more value to whom.

It segues nicely into your other point about marketing/promotion's evolution. No doubt there will still be many artists who pay to promote themselves, there will still be MTV, there will still be wild parties and PR "chat room teams," there will still, in fact, be all kinds of traditional marketing activities. Just in a much healthier market. Recommenders will rise with their skill; some will succumb to the financial rewards of selling recommendations, and others will resist... all in all I think it has the potential to be a wonderfully vibrant new marketplace.

Re:Wow.

[rnd()]

Very cool comments. I think you're right about the inevitable characteristics (openness, decentralization, soft-lock) of a successful system.

I wonder if there would be a way to create hardware DRM at the portable storage level, to make the lock a bit stronger... do you think this kind of thing would be easily breakable as well?

When you think about it, the licensing and "product activation" features of something like Windows XP represents an optimal form of DRM... there are lots of hacks on the internet, but probably 95% of users comply with the licensing terms.

Re:Wow.

[Mackus Daddius]

I'm all for it. (I had to cut my previous comment short as I was on my way out the door, so I'll continue a bit here.)

The problem is that copyright is a balancing act, and that balance has been steadily shifted towards the copy right holder at the expense of the public. Which I suppose isn't surprising given that, until very recently, the only parties interested in this area of the law where those who profitted from it.

What is interesting, however, is that the framers had the foresight to understand this important concept. Only now, with technology that can speed ideas around the globe in seconds, are the rest of us finally catching up. Unfortunately, all the years in between have left an awful lot of kruft in the legal code.

Speaking of technology, it seems strange that as the time required to dissemenate and profit from a work decreases, the length of copyright afforded to that work increases. That seems extremely counterintuitive. Back when books were bound by hand and distributed by horse, the duration of the copy right was 14 years. Now, when technology can speed this comment across the globe in a second, my right to it will last for another 125 years or so.

Re:Wow.

[Featureless]

Yes, absolutely. Literally no consumer product DRM regime (with or without hardware) has been successful. None. And once such a system has been "unsuccessful," the cost and simplicity to receive its "stolen" content is identical to anything else in the P2P system.

One thing I find fun is to poke holes in proposed DRM systems; I've had the pleasure of doing it a lot over the years with some very smart people, but I have never had to think for more than 60 seconds about how any proposed system could be violated.

DRM must overcome impossible obstacles. It must hide its restrictive nature as much as possible. The more work and complications for the user, the worse off the system is. It must be cost-competitive, and that's very difficult with "tamper-resistant" hardware or extravagant client-server software systems. It has to stand up to, not just "casual" attack from millions of bright young folks around the world, but the work of "best in the business" professional pirates in Asia, who have multi-million dollar budgets for equipment and engineering expertise.

I once discussed this phenomenon with someone who was convinced that without a "grass roots" piracy effort (i.e. everyone ripping their CDs) P2P piracy would wither. But there is big, readily available evidence to the contrary. Protected content need only escape from the DRM "jail" once, and it can never be put back in. Even in cases (like some console games) where media is in a custom proprietary format, with the only publicly available "readers" inside consoles, which are closed-standard products made by single manufacturers under security tighter than what the former U.S.S.R. often employs to protect chemical weapons, protected by elaborate hardware-software security systems using silicon-up chains of trust, fault tolarant security failsafes based on strong encryption, and the most extensive software-hardware QA in the CE world, you will find disc images of these "unbreakable" games on Kazaa (for use in emulators, CD/DVD writers, or in the case of Gamecube games, the "pirate burners" in Hong Kong shops), and often (as on Dreamcast and XBox) hardware modification is not even necessary to play the pirated product.

XP product activation is an excellent example of centralized DRM systems that are probably untenable without coercion. The comparable thing in music is having to a) uniquely identify yourself to the record label with some difficult-to-forge system, like a smart card, TCPA hardware module, or the low-tech version, a constellation of hardware serial numbers on things like CD writers, motherboards, Pentium III's, and ethernet cards, b) communicate that identification, along with your name, address, phone number, etc etc along with a unique "license number" which you purchased along with a song, back to a centralized licensing server, so, you must be connected to a network, a complication for stereo components and portable devices c) have to re-establish that licensing relationship if you ever have even a relatively minor change in your hardware, a problem when music moves between portable devices like cars, stereo components, discmen, loaning to friends, etc. and let's not even get into making a mix tape, d) elaborate software (and eventually hardware) work to try to protect the data with encryption in any case where it's not actually being used - i.e. born to fail engineering.

All of this violates your privacy egregiously - having to divulge your information to Microsoft to use their product is bad enough, but with music the regime "requires" someone to also coincidentally learn your listening habits is... well, transparent to me, anyway, as quite opportunistic.

Microsoft achieved its phenomenal wealth _before_ XP product activation. These rather agressive licensing enforcement techniques probably do hurt their marketshare, quite subtly at first, but in increasing degrees as alternatives become more viable (Apple, Linux).

That was quick

[Nick of NSTime]

It was very kind of our beloved RIAA to reach such an amicable settlement with this 12-year-old girl's mother. Now 50 Cent will surely be able to afford that ivory backscratcher he has had his eye on.

Re:That was quick

[alex_ant]

I thought the RIAA was an evil fascist megacorp that barely gave a dime to its artists? Make up your mind slashmorons.

Re:That was quick

[13Echo]

Not the ivory backscratcher. He'll be able to buy a new bling-bling chalice for those pimpin' videos.

In case you didn't notice, the chalice is all the rage in rap videos these days. You aren't pimp unless you have one.

Re:That was quick

[MulluskO]

50 Cent is not an artist.

Re:That was quick

[alex_ant]

sorry. thugz

Re:That was quick

[alex_ant]

...types the unbathed linux nerd sitting at his overclocked watercooled dual athlon and masturbating to hentai porn

Re:That was quick

[arkane1234]

Hey.. there's nothing wrong with lunix! ;)

Re:That was quick

[Anonymous Custard]

...types the unbathed linux nerd sitting at his overclocked watercooled dual athlon and masturbating to hentai porn

what... what the?!... how'd you know...?

oh, d'oh! forgot to turn off my webcam.

Re:That was quick

[sharkey]

hentai porn

Come on, people, links! Links!

Re:That was quick

[pmz]

Who is 50 Cent, anyway? Sounds like a cheap ass bastard, to me. I guess we can't call him/her/it a "dime-a-dozen rapper", because a dozen of him/her/it would be $6.00. Oh well.

Re:That was quick

[poot_rootbeer]

I'd be surprised if 50 Cent even saw fifty cents from this and other file-sharing settlements.

The RIAA represents the labels, not the artists.

Re:That was quick

[notcreative]

Here we go with the fat-cat bashing...

And in Whoville they say...

[Kedisar]

The RIAA's heart grew three sizes that day.

And they made little Cindy-loo-Who pay only $2000 and apologize. Grinches, I tell ya.

Good to see they let her off easy.

[shog9]

As terrible as her crime was, everyone needs a second chance. This $2000 slap on the wrist, while barely an inconvenience for the family, will surely be a reminder for the girl later on.

Stay on the straight and narrow, Brianna!

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.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[caferace]

From the actual article:

The family lives in a city housing project on New York's Upper West Side...

Then, like a dork, shog9 said: This $2000 slap on the wrist, while barely an inconvenience for the family, will surely be a reminder for the girl later on.

RTFA.

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.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[Xaer0cool]

that post wasn't sarcastic at all... and neither would anyone not notice the sarcasm that wasn't there... because everyone gets sarcasm. or something.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[gamgee5273]

I think he was being sarcastic. Re-read the post.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[EelBait]

I think that is called sarcasm.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[BrynM]

You need credit and money for a checking account. Most people I've ever known in the hood use money orders and cash, unless they were attempting check fraud. They can't afford a bank or banking fees. She will be paying this off for a long time and the RIAA just made it harder for a 12 year old girl to eat and keep from being evicted. Bastards.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[shog9]

Ok... i really shouldn't reply.
Ah, what the hell. Yes, $2000 is a big deal. $2000 is a big deal to me, with no kids, cheap housing, and a good job. $2000 is sure as fuck a big deal to her. About the only people who wouldn't think $2000 is a big deal are probably making ungodly huge sums, possibly as lawyers or executives for, oh, say a large music industry association.

It was an attempt at sarcasm. If you don't think it's funny, then just ignore it, 'k?

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[arth1]

This $2000 slap on the wrist, while barely an inconvenience for the family,

yes, $2000 for a single mom with two children living in the projects. more like this is all they had in the checking account.

I don't know about you others, but I'm upper middle class, and the only time I see $2k in my checking account is the day I get my paycheque. I seriously doubt that a housing project family would ever have that much.

Regards,
--
*Art

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:Good to see they let her off easy.

[Lally Singh]

Stay on the straight and narrow, Brianna!

Ok, I'm sorry. With the brianna I'm thinking of, this sounds really dirty.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[i_am_nitrogen]

Maybe it's just direct deposited to his checking account, at which point he immediately transfers it to other accounts with better interest rates.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[VertigoAce]

While I agree that it's a lot of money, the RIAA doesn't demand payment immediately (as I had assumed). One of my friends was sued by the RIAA and was given a few years to pay them. (Many of the people who settle sign an agreement to keep silent, so I can't go into detail). Anyway, that fact could make a difference to this family if they do get donations from people who hear about it. Basically, they could get the money upfront and invest it (savings account or something)and come out ahead, making the RIAA look stupider.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[arkane1234]

Anyone with a computer built after 1997 has a system able to use broadband.

They didn't say she had a Pentium4, they just said a computer. (you can low-end pentiumII/III at yardsales and the such now)

As far as broadband... that could mean a 25-30 buck connection. Not alot of cash, really.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[arkane1234]

One of my friends was sued by the RIAA and was given a few years to pay them. (Many of the people who settle sign an agreement to keep silent, so I can't go into detail)

Considering the last part of your sentence, are you *sure* it was your "friend"?
=)
If your friend signed the contract, that doesn't mean you did...

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[arkane1234]

I don't know about you others, but I'm upper middle class, and the only time I see $2k in my checking account is the day I get my paycheque. I seriously doubt that a housing project family would ever have that much.

I second that motion. Usually when I see more than $2k in my checking account, I start to wonder if I paid the rent.
Most people in housing authority housing don't exactly make 2K a month.... so it's gonna be a huge burden.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[BrynM]

As far as broadband... that could mean a 25-30 buck connection. Not alot of cash, really.

Especially if you consider it a way to help educate your 12 year old little girl so she can grow up and move out of the projects. I wonder if they returned her confiscated computer. If not, they've raised the bar for future ruining evil. Let's count them off:

• Ruin a low income family financially
• Disgrace a child for life
• If Mom is like half of the Moms I've ever met in the hood, got a kid a beating
• Increased the chance of homelesness for a child
• Labeled someone a criminal at an early age, which can scar for life
• Ruin the chance of a child to absorb technology and survive in modern america

Now all they need to do is rape some cleregy and they're on their way to the throne of hell. Good Job!

Not that I'm bitter about this or anything...

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[ImpTech]

Not that we'll ever know, but I'd be very curious to know how many songs this girl had on her hard drive. By my reckoning, she'd have to have at least 100 albums worth of music to make this $2000 even remotely reasonable (assuming each album is worth $20, which they aren't). So, continuing to be conservative, say each $20 album has 10 songs on it. Brianna should have 1000 songs stored illegally on her computer. 128kbps mp3's are usually about 1MB/minute, so we're talking 3GB of space probably. Is this possible? Sure. Likely? Not very. Single Mom probably didn't buy the greatest computer with the biggest hard disk on the planet, and really what 12 year old is a great musical connoiseur with especially diverse interests? My suspicion is that even at $2000 they're getting screwed, and not just in principle.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"They had enough for a computer and broadband internet..."

So does my mom that lives on $500 a month. What's your point?

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[Jacer]

They're pretty well-to-do poverty stricken people to have $2,000 sitting around. While I come from a single parent home, my mom has owned the home since I was little. She works one full-time and one part-time job to make ends meet. She doesn't help with mine, or my sister's tuition, she can't afford it. I got in between a rock and a hard place last semester, and couldn't afford my rent for three months. She emptied out her account, closing it, and handed me the $875. While I don't presume to know the entire budget, I do know that she makes between $30-40 more a month than the bear minimum to cover her expenses.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[TC (WC)]

Of course, if his friend had, then the poster shouldn't have been told details, hence why it makes sense that someone who didn't sign it would be unwilling to mention the details. If the poster were to know, then that's proof that his friend violated the terms of the contract.

Re:Good to see they let her off easy.

[rastos1]

>Apparently you don't understand the following words...
>The family lives in a city housing project

You know, I agree with most of the opionons expressed here, but one thing disturbs me:

They live in a city housing project and can aford a computer and fast-enough Internet connection?

PayPal.

[grub]

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. :))

Re:PayPal.

[strongmad]

She might have legal fees beyond the $2000 fine.

Re:PayPal.

[chazzf]

Do we know her mailing address? Why not just write a check or send a money order? Less cumbersome than the technical solution...

Re:PayPal.

[grub]

If you paid taxes, you probably already donated something to her.

I'm not a US citizen so my tax money is irrelevant.

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.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[aclarke]

Yeah, it's pissing people like me off. Sure, I downloaded my share of songs, but I also erased the ones I didn't purchase. I have probably 500 CDs but I am no longer going to purchase CDs from RIAA labels. Off to the used CD store for me next time.

Boycott the RIAA.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[BrookHarty]

Ok, everyone raise your hand if your pissed at the RIAA? Yup, that many. Wheres the non-riaa alternatives? Going to concerts and virtual tip jars are not the solution.

I have emusic and itunes, but they still have riaa fingers in the cookie jar. We need some alternatives, even if it takes DRM to put member companies of the RIAA out of business.

BTW, I just listen to streaming radio station, some really good stuff out there, Indy stations and what hot. Just wish the RIAA didnt get a cut of that money.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[CtrlPhreak]

Umm yeah, lets start with www.cdbaby.com all independednt artists, lets not forget they've signed up with ITMS as well.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Wheres the non-riaa alternatives?

Buying and selling music second hand allows you to listen to all kinds of great stuff and even subsidise the costs with cds you no longer listen to or want to own. And the RIAA won't see a penny.

Second hand music - it's what's for dinner.

YLFI

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[semanticgap]

They are already screwed. We don't need "music companies", musicians don't need them, and music lovers don't either. They are a middle man whose time has passed.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[plierhead]

One of the first rules of business is not to make your cusotmers your enemy.

Correction: that rule only applies when you are not a monopoly. When you are, the first rule of business is to gouge your customers as hard and as often as you can.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[William Baric]

This may piss them off enough that they may look to other forms of entertainment

Haven't you heard of DVD? People are already looking at other forms of entertainment and this is why the RIAA is fighting to make sure consumer spend all their money on CD instead of spending some on CD and some on DVD. Sure, they may piss off some people in the process, but they believe their choice is : lose some sales because a few angry people are boycotting their product or lose a lot of sales because people are buying DVD with the money they saved by sharing CD instead of buying them.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[Luketh]

I beg to differ... Recording, publishing, distributing and advertising CDs is an expensive process. Some of the best bands in the world would never get off the ground if publishers hadn't 'discovered' (read: agreed to exploit) them because they would never have had the money to get off the ground. I think it's nearly a case of the ends justifying the means. I'm still anti-RIAA but you can't say that music publishers are all bad, in every way, and shouldn't exist.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[rushiferu]

"...I think that this will really screw the music companies in the long run."

No it won't. By next week everyone outside of the music or geek community will have forgotten about the whole damn thing. Most Americans don't know anything about what's going on or don't care.

Instead of setting up a collection fund for every Joe that gets sued, why don't you support efforts that can actually affect the situation at hand?
With enough money you can: buy anti-RIAA ads, organize protest for free publicity, buy congressmen, etc...

You need to make people understand and *care* about something like this before you can expect change. Billion dollar industries don't roll over unless they have to.

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[Cro Magnon]

Even monopolies have limits. Contrary to popular belief, music is not a life-and-death need and if the RIAA p*ss off enough people they may stop buying their crap and they'll dry up and blow away. Or maybe the people will contact their Congress critter and remind him/her/it that no amount of money will get them elected if they p*ss off the voters!

Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run

[semanticgap]

because it's not like it costs anything to build sound studios, or to equip them with professional equipment or staff them with sound engineers who know how to master decent CDs.

This is done in a recording studio, which is usually a business completely independent from what is referred to as "music industry". These guys charge by the hour, and that's their business. They are here to stay.

And promotion and advertising is free, too

There you may have a point, but it has been demonstrated that you can get more attention by simply posting something to /. than paying a million for an advertizing campain.

RIAA under attack?

[alta]

I tried RIAA.com and .org and I got nothing. Anyone else have any luck? Not that I would expect that the wouldn't be under attack right now...

Re:RIAA under attack?

[Unimatic1140]

And if that's not enough, what happen to the boycott-riaa website??? Unfortunately they seem to be down when we all really need them.

This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[alex_ant]

Yes, go after the supply. It's working great in the war on drugs

Re:This is Ridiculous

[INMCM]

Actually they don't go after the supply in the War on Drugs. They g after the consumers and small time pushers thinking (and it's the same thing the RIAA thinks) that it will deter people. This will not work for two reasons:

1). People aren't usally detered from gray-area moral things like taking drugs. The same goes for those selling them. It's just to EASY to get/sell drugs to make it a problem in most places. So when the cops catch people, they throw them in jail, and a whole new crew of folks is out there to continue the drug econonmy.

2). They don't go after the suppliers for one one very good rule: They are super dangerous. High level drug trade is bad news and if a poitician were to take a real hardline stance on it, he could very well end up dead. So why bother with the dangerous sharks when you can throw Joe Pusher in prison. It all looks the same on Cops.

Anyway, the point I"m trying to get across is that this is all about scaring normal people into buying CDs again. Geeks will from now on find better ways to grab tunes. THe RIAA wants to control the Layman market. That's were the big money really is.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[alex_ant]

Actually the gov't goes after both supply and demand in the war on drugs. US has also been actively involved in voracious attempts to stamp out overseas sources, esp. in South America. MOST US politicians of the past 50 years HAVE taken a hardline stance, and it tends to be the drug lords who are a little more concerned for their safety than the prez, since they don't have the Secret Service and the US military and F16s and atomic bombs and whatnot protecting them.

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

[wideBlueSkies]

I think this adds up just fine.

I got the impression that they really didn't know it was wrong, and now Mom, in order to protect her kid is somehow going to come up with the cash. And no, she probably doesn't have it sitting around.

In order to protect your children, you'd find that you'd do anything. Even coming up with a corny 'sorry story' to help make the big bad company go away.

wbs.

Re:something doesnt add up

[isaac]

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.

No, it probably went down more like this. Even if they had a pro-bono attorney, the case would have cost them more than $2000 to fight, and they would probably lose anyhow. Then what? Mom's even deeper in the hole and perhaps even faces loss of custody of her kid, whom she could no longer provide for at all.

$2000 is cheaper than any dealing with federal court (where copyright cases are tried).

-Isaac

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.

Re:something doesnt add up

[Darth Coder]

You might find this interesting then. Earlier today, the following was posted to a popular discussion forum for music industry professionals:

My source in Manhattan says the kid is a fake. A child actress hired by the RIAA in order to spook other people into fast settlements.
We're talking about an industry that pays people to call TRL. An industry that hires kids to stand outside the windows of MTV to wave signs about how they are devoted to an unknown act. They are not above faking an out of court settlement in order to make the kids think that this is the easiest thing for them to do.

Re:something doesnt add up

[User8201]

I think SOMEONE was listed in an actual lawsuit that was actually filed. On the other hand, it's plausible the RIAA fined her $2000 and agreed to forfeit the penalty if:
1. She does not disclose that she paid nothing, so other people are scared too.
2. She says she doesn't want to hurt the ARTISTS. Not the RIAA. This is the RIAA propaganda line - the artists are hurt by p2p music copying.

There is no way in hell any judge would have required a girl and single mom living in public housing to pay as much as $2000, especially with how skillfully the girl said she thought it was legal because of confusion about paying anyway. So the RIAA would have lost, with a dangerous precident. I think SOMEONE was helping this girl and her mom with what to say. Maybe FOX news, but someone, made it more dramatic, guiding her with what to say, offering to pay her defense fund, and paying her settlement fee.

Just my theory for the day.

Re:something doesnt add up

[pmz]

$2000 is cheaper than any dealing with federal court (where copyright cases are tried).

Do banks offer loans for legal fees?

Re:something doesnt add up

[Quasar1999]

Not that I don't trust you... but please provide a link to the original post...

Re:something doesnt add up

[NickFortune]

I hate it when real life stokes my paranoia :)

Seriously, yes that is very interesting. Do you have a reference?

Re:something doesnt add up

[Darth Coder]

Original post is part of this thread: link

Re:something doesnt add up

[Darth Coder]

Original post is part of this thread: link

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?

Re:I took action today...

[Basehart]

got up had a crap had breakfast ripped some CD's had lunch ripped some more CD's had a crap had dinner typed this

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

You should buy music, just not RIAA. Metropolis Records, who carries Electronic Body Music, Industrial Dance Music, and other amazing types of music, aren't members of the RIAA.

They have the kind of music you hear in "good" clubs, and on movies. It's a billion times better than top 40 crap.

A Different Drum Records (http://www.adifferentdrum.com/) for synthpop, Niliaihah Records (http://www.nilaihah.com/) for some other EBM/darkwave...

There's a ton of other non-RIAA music out there. Go listen to Covenant's song "We Stand Alone" off of "Northern Lights". The Azonic's "Progression" (oh my god can she sing). DeVision "Dinner Without Grace". Some of those are a bit old, but will give you a good taste of what is out there. I haven't listened to the "radio" for music for nearly three years now.

Re:I took action today...

[Guppy06]

"What did you do today?"

I bumped up the size of my Freenet node space.

Re:I took action today...

[putaro]

I downloaded every Metallica track I could find.

Re:I took action today...

[arkane1234]

What did you do today?

I worked at my place of employment.

Re:I took action today...

[arkane1234]

speaking of morally bankrupt...

Re:I took action today...

[robogun]

Wow, everybody look at this holier-than-thou guy! He never downlo^H^H^H stole a song in his life! He tells us all how to live, even leading by example! I bet He walks on water!
A) the RIAA is suing people who SHARE not who DOWNLOAD, adn are extorting money from a CHILD
B) you are still boycotting the RIAA by buying a movie

Re:I took action today...

[Superfarstucker]

=) 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 =)...

Re:I took action today...

[ElJefe]

Here's a list of all the Metropolis artists available at EMusic.com. $15/month, unlimited downloads, all in MP3 format...

-Chris

Re:I took action today...

[back@slash]

And you yet again found the time to post hundreds of times to slashdot today. I've always admired your stamina Anonymous Coward!

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

I believe it. I've nearly been there myself a few times.

And your right, and it's sad. I'll still like the music, I just won't support it anymore. I've been working on that too, buring complelation cd's, listening to the music around my friends who haven't heard of it...I was even thinking about staging some type of pirate radio station just playing non-riaa music. I could probably get many promo-cds just by writting the various artists and telling them what I'm up to.

ah...the possibilities....a radio station as a protest against the RIAA. Ranting against the RIAA with EDM. And you might be able to get tactic unwritten approval from the artists themselves.

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

sweet! My roommate and I where just recently discussing buying some type of digital music service for the apartment.

Re:I took action today...

[Bios_Hakr]

Thanks, man, I'll download those off Kazaa as soon as I get home...:)

Re:I took action today...

[Our Man In Redmond]

I just went to see Arlo Guthrie in concert today, and dropped $40 on CDs. Not necessarily because I was anxious to get the music (although I am certainly looking forward to enjoying it), but because they are produced by Arlo himself under his non-RIAA affiliated label, and the money goes to supporting a working musician (and a national treasure, if I'm not being too hyperbolic).

I'm planning on doing the same next week at shows by world-music-meets-dance-band group Brave Combo and a capella humorists Da Vinci's Notebook. Again, it supports working musicians whose work I like, and not a dime goes to the RIAA.

Not only that, I bought a CD through CD Baby from a group I'd never heard of, based solely on the previews CD Baby provided.

I urge the rest of you to do the same with bands you like. You can simultaneously support working musicians and deprive the entertainment industrial complex of money to churn out more dreck, sue you, or both.

Re:I took action today...

[vistic]

I only buy from Metropolis. Their logo is the only bumper sticker currently on my car. Their store is at http://www.industrial-music.com/

Lots of good bands: VNV Nation, Apoptygma Berzerk, And One, Die Form, Evil's Toy, Covenant, Cruxshadows, Wolfsheim, etc...

Although I think some of those may be on other labels, sold through Metropolis.

Re:I took action today...

[vistic]

I should also mention that I became aware of ALL of these bands through Napster. Thanks to filesharing, Metropolis records has made a lot of money off of me.

(Also: Clan of Xymox, Front 242... Oh! And check out their excellent compilation albums listed under "Various Artists" on their store's page)

Re:I took action today...

[Ill_Omen]

It made my day when I found out Metropolis and Dancing Ferret Discs were not RIAA members. Now I can boycott them without actually missing out on the music I actually buy... I just hope Tool doesn't release a new album before this all gets sorted out...

Re:I took action today...

[Bartmoss]

Dito.

Re:I took action today...

[Guppy06]

"I shook my head at the morally bankrupt Slashdot crowd that wants to continue lying to people telling them that stealing music should be legal."

Time for remedial English, everyone!

Your average dictionary will tell you that the verb "to lie" (aside from the "going horizontal" definition) is to intentionally state information that isn't true. A misrepresentation of a statement of fact.

The word "should," you will note, expressed a matter of opinion. It's how you feel.

Therefore, anything with the word "should" in it cannot be a lie. Fact != opinion. The time such a statement is a lie is when you lie about your own feelings on the subject.

Re:I took action today...

[lhpineapple]

I downloaded seven more cds today.

-L

Re:I took action today...

[cjjjer]

1. Read this thread.
2. Laughed that you gave money away like that.
3. Downloaded another album from one of many private ftp sites I know of.
4. Laughed at the fools who use p2p as a primary souce of music/movies/software/etc/etc.

Not that I don't think that the RIAA will never come after other forms of gathering music but mainstream p2p does offer little in the way of protecting the user from prying eyes. As the case in point.

Re:I took action today...

[bitrott]

Go listen to Covenant's song "We Stand Alone" off of "Northern Lights"

*SHUDDER* EBM needs to die the death it's had waiting for it since the early 90's. Noone's brought anything new to the sound since Front242. It really irritates too that some synthpop and ebm bands are getting "found" by electroclash. They were the bastard stepchildren of New Wave. Mawkish and crappy. You can't just dust them off and bring them back into the fold. They don't have the attitude or the talent.

Re:I took action today...

[ad0gg]

Today I complained on slashdot and thats it. Just like every other day.

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

http://www.nilaihah.com/mp3s.htm

Last song on the page.

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

It's actaully hard to find the real good "stuff" on Kazaa. Try soulseek.

Re:I took action today...

[lonesome phreak]

IMHO, Northern Lights is far more trancendental that his other works. He's getting better as time goes by. His songs are more complex, and have pretty good lyrics and themes. They are one of my fav bands.

If the electroclash crowd feels that the music fits under that banner, then it does. The scenes the entity that deciedes what's in and out. If they say VNV is in, then it is. I'm not saying it is, but that's the way it works.

But I have to agree, it's not really in the Miss Kitty/Faint sort of groove, either. It's got it's own sound, it's own themes. And much of the sythpop still sounds like whiney boy bands, just with more electronics.

What exactly is the "fold"?

Re:I took action today...

[taernim]

I hope you deleted them immediately afterwards! Not because piracy is wrong... more just that Metallica sucks. ;)

Re:I took action today...

[bitrott]

I wasn't talking about VNV. Blessedly their blithering gooshtepping has been ignored by electroclash. I was talking about other EBM and Synthpop bands (both genres are mostly the same). Soviet for example. The "scene" doesn't decide shit. The only reason some of those bands are making it on there is because some DJs and Ministry of Sound are putting them on their mixes in attempts to make a cohesive sound. Which has worked, except for missteps: EBM and synthpop.

Collection of information of children under 13

[pridkett]

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.

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.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[BrynM]

I found the act at a free speech site and this is the portion that I think you might be speaking of:

``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

Now this begs the question: Could this be considered a commercial purpose or is it law enforcement? The RIAA, despite what they would hope, is not a law enforcement agency, but they are litigants. Does anyone here know enough to clarify this?

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[alex_ant]

No.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[stratjakt]

If this story was on the level, there'd be an army of lawyers beating down their door to represent them pro bono, if only to get their names in the paper.

I call shenanigans on this whole "saga".

The whole thing just reeks of publicity stunt. It's on the same intelligence insulting level as the "look what will happen to you if you smoke marijuana, kids!" tripe.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[Hao Wu]

Maybe. But I still will not allow them near my fancy chiseled walkway around the pond. You take some risk with download, even if share-option is Off.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[michaeltoe]

Your name is hot... /me dazes off into lala land

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[laird]

"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."

I have a feeling that it can't be illegal to collect any info about the online activities of kids under 13 -- that would make web server logs illegal, which doesn't seem right.

So I looked it up, at http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.ht ml.

It looks like COPA makes it illegal to let kids access porn ("material that is harmful to minors"), and that if you collect registration information in order to enforce this, you "shall not disclose any information collected for the purposes of restricting access to such communications to individuals 17 years of age or older without the prior written or electronic consent".

That being said, the RIAA didn't collect information on the girl's online behavior. They collected information about her shared music collection, which she was actively broadcasting to everyone on the planet. I think that it's pretty hard to argue a right to privacy to information that you're advertising on a global scale.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[teslatug]

This would have been such a sweet deal for some attorney to do as pro-bono. In one swing, you cast lawyers as not all bad in the public's eye and you can make a name for yourself. After all, how could the mom be held responsible for the child's actions (if a kid steals his dad's gun and shoots someone, the dad doesn't go to jail), and the child probably couldn't be sued because she is under 18. They shouldn't have even been allowed to track her because she is a minor.

Wasted opportunity I say, although they did settle rather quickly.

Re:Collection of information of children under 13

[TnkMkr]

I'm sorry but I have to entirely disagree with your statements. I think the mother should be held entirely liable for what her daughter has done. I think any parent should be held entirely responsible for the actions of their children.

If a child steals a father's gun and shoots someone the father should be as responsible as the child. It is all part of raising children and if parents can't control their children then they need to get help. It may sound a bit callous, but I think parents need some harsh treatment so they wake up and stop making the movie, music, television, schools and video games raise their kids

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:Bad press

[Andrewkov]

I'm sure the artists have no say in it, it's the record companies that are pulling the strings.

Re:Bad press

[Geldon]

I think the artists are the ones that are getting screwed the most in this deal. Supposedly the RIAA is filing lawsuits to recover the lost income from people not buying CDs.... While the RIAA is getting its usual 90-something percent of that lost revenue, it is also getting the artists' share... I doubt they are giving a cent of these "settlements" to the artists, I doubt they have to. Little Brianna is sad that she hurt the artists, but is still giving 2000 bucks to the overlords taking all the artists' money.

er, I meant to say:

[seanadams.com]

let's not pretend that $29.99 is a lot to pay for a few gigs of zeroes and ones

let's not pretend that $29.99 is too little to pay for a few gigs of zeroes and ones

$2000

[bmantz65]

That's a ton of lunch money. At least the girl will be famous in her middle school. More than I ever got.

Thank you RIAA!

[Durandal64]

The RIAA: Making the world a safer place, one hapless victim who can't afford a good lawyer at a time.

This is not what America is all about

[jlgolson]

This is the most appalling thing I have ever heard of. I am not buying another CD that is from the RIAA until they shape up. This is not the "hardcore" sharers they should be targeting. Despicable.

-jg

Re:This is not what America is all about

[shark72]

Au contraire. The USA's intellectual property is one of its biggest exports, adding billions of dollars to our economy each year. One can argue that the USA's strong intellectual property laws are one of the reasons why we're one of the richest countries in the world, and have a relatively good way of life. This family in the projects still managed to have a computer with an Internet connection. The poorest 20% of many, many countries don't even have anything close to that.

It's all economics. Those countries which rely on producing and exporting intellectual property -- for example, the USA and Canda -- tend to have strong copyright enforcement. Countries which do not -- Iran comes to mind -- often have lax copyright enforcement, because it is not in their best economic interest to bother.

Copyright enforcement is capitalism in its purest form, and the USA is a capitalist country.

Lastly, if this truly is the most apalling thing you have ever heard, you should read the news more often. Our men and women are dying in Iraq. I find this to be much more serious than somebody being nailed for illegally sharing more than a thousand copyrighted songs.

Re:This is not what America is all about

[jlgolson]

Now we have both extreme's. John Ashcroft is not a threat to the country and more than the troops dying in Iraq. Ashcroft is doing what he thinks is right, so is Bush, and so are the troops.

This is a copyright issue, this is a "going to far" issue. Suing single mothers in court is not the answer. The market is asking for some way to buy songs online. the iTunes Music Store is a good step. They've sold 10 million songs so far, way above what anyone thought they would. I've used it. It's a great thing, but I can't buy all of Warren Zevon's albums. Until I can do that, and buy whatever else I can buy in my local Tower Records that is not the perfect solution.

People will continue to steal music, even though it is illegal, no matter what pressure is applied to them. People still do drugs, and that can get you thrown in prison for many years, or even kill you. People do things that are bad, and making them illegal is not the way to stop them.

Housing Project...

[Bitwick]

The really sad part about all of this is that they live in a Housing Project. $2000 is a lot of money for someone living in public housing I would think. It does just seem very heartless. B

Re:Housing Project...

[Bitwick]

Here is the link where the New York City Housing Project information came from. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5073717.html?tag=nl

Age

[igabe]

My question is simply how young is young enough for this kind of quick settlement.

13, 14, 15, 15... where is the line drawn? And yes I know there must be a lot of grey areas, but still.

Re:Age

[swordgeek]

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.

Re:Age

[Flower]

Probably 12. They can't spin her off as a teenager.

Re:Age

[Ridgelift]

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.

Hey Dave, that's you and me. If out of the millions of readers of /. only a small percentage ponied up a nickel each, not only would that $2000.00 fine not injure a family who doesn't need to be the scapegoat of an industry gone mad from greed, but it would show that there are many willing to stand behind a small family and fight the RIAA.

2 grand?

[wideBlueSkies]

What did she do, share 1 song?

I thought the RIAA was going after big fish.

But seriously, I guess they were pretty lenient with her. For their own reasons of course, they don't want to be viewed as beating up on a single mom with a pre-teen.

Though I really would like to know what her sharing numbers were.

wbs.

The RIAA did not settle!!!

[Muhammed al-Sahhaf]

Do not believe the lies. The RIAA did not settle. The RIAA has achieved complete victory against the file swaping aggressors. Brianna LaHara martyred herself upon our ranks of lawyers. Our dogs will eat her stomach while our women beat her face with their shoes.

Sincerely,
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf
Minister of Information, RIAA

Re:The RIAA did not settle!!!

[blackmonday]

Dear sir, you win. After years of reading Slashdot, that was the shit-pants funniest thing I ever read.

*Click* Time!?

[rjoseph]

Wow, that was quick. I get to work and she's getting sued, and I leave work and they've already settled? Gotta hand it to the RIAA lawyers on this one, has to be the fastest settlement in history. Poor girl is going to have an irrational fear of KaZaA for the rest of her life, too...

RIAA doesn't understand what music is.

[aaron240]

The RIAA takes music's popularity for granted. Humans have appreciated music since the beginning, but there is no universal rule that music in the "pop" sense is here forever.

Music drives our culture at the moment and most of us love it--the RIAA makes money because of it. People often try to make their identities from music, in fact. If the RIAA keeps up this pissing on their fans, there won't be fans.

Is it inconceivable that the pervasive popularity of music will wane? Of course it is, and it's beautiful. Artists will survive and music appreciators will get what they want. Only the commercial interests of PHBs in the RIAA will suffer.

Re:RIAA doesn't understand what music is.

[lavanderson]

I'm not so sure that little breanna will spend the rest of her life not a music fan. In fact, I bet she downloads again. I think that even if the RIAA keeps pissing off fans, there will be fans.

The RIAA's real holding power isn't in the hands of the fans, it's in the hands of the artists. There are too many fans who don't and won't realize what's going on, realize how they could contribute, and follow through on it.

I think.

Thank God someone has guts

[47PHA60]

Not many of us would have the character to threaten and face down a single mom with a 12 year old and a 9 year old. I guess the reason for that is because, well, she's a single mom with two kids, for pete's sake!

Good one RIAA! Just to let you know, I don't buy CD's anymore because the music is terrible; and the only downloading I do is from the Apple store, and it all seems to be music at least 10 years old. The best CD's I have heard in the past 3 years were burned at home by musician friends or produced by local musicians on small labels, because most RIAA members won't go near a real musician anymore. But now you've given me a deeper ethical reason to avoid the "products" you represent.

Actually, I guess I should send that comment to the RIAA, instead of /.

shortsighted assholes

[b17bmbr]

remember the flap about microsoft auditing that oregon school district(sorry, no link). talk about shortsighted. now they got open source bills on the docket in the legislature and microsoft had to do a huge about face. this will hurt the riaa because it will show what a bunch of thugs they really are. this will turn the public against them. if they were hitting real pirates, i.e., those burning and selling bootleg cd's, i'd say more power to them, but hammering a twelve year old girl. any sympathy they would have gotten is shot out the window now.

Re:shortsighted assholes

[nacturation]

remember the flap about microsoft auditing that oregon school district(sorry, no link)

I did the painstaking research for you. Please follow these steps to reproduce my complex methodology:

1. Open www.google.com
2. In the search box, enter: microsoft audit oregon school district
3. Click "I'm feeling lucky"

How evil can they get?

[swordgeek]

Evil fucktards. They'll keep threatening and settling, threatening and settling, until everyone is scared to listen to music they've legally bought.

These people paid for a service that they believed to be a legal and appropriate way of getting music online. Like oh, cable TV, maybe? There is NO EVIDENCE one way or another that these people have legally done anything wrong, but they can't afford to not settle.

Again, Fucktards. That's not nearly nasty enough, but it's all I can come up with right now.

Re:How evil can they get?

[shark72]

What do you mean by no evidence? I think it's been established pretty clearly that the RIAA has been collecting the IP addresses of folks who are sharing more than 1,000 copyrighted song. After the whole "Usher" incident, I think it's safe to say that they're crossing their i's and dotting their t's with regard to gathering evidence before filing the suits.

Re:How evil can they get?

[swordgeek]

There's tons of evidence that these people downloaded the songs. They also PAID FOR A DOWNLOADING SERVICE! If there's illegality going on, then the RIAA should fight it out with Kazaa. Period. They should NOT be allowed to go after the end users of this service.

Re:How evil can they get?

[Artifex]

There's tons of evidence that these people downloaded the songs. They also PAID FOR A DOWNLOADING SERVICE! If there's illegality going on, then the RIAA should fight it out with Kazaa. Period. They should NOT be allowed to go after the end users of this service.

If they'd read the agreement, they'd see that they weren't supposed to trade anything copyrighted. I just went to kazaa.com and looked.

By the way, if you were one of those guys who said that the RIAA shouldn't sue Napster because it's not the service's fault if people trade copyrighted material... what prompted your reversal of opinion?

Re:How evil can they get?

[swordgeek]

"By the way, if you were one of those guys who said that the RIAA shouldn't sue Napster because it's not the service's fault if people trade copyrighted material... what prompted your reversal of opinion?"

You make a big presumption, and one that's not entirely correct. I had mixed feelings on the Napster case.

Now if Kazaa is charging a fee to trade files that they could trade elsewhere for free, and the fee is the only material difference, then it seems fairly reasonable to naively expect that the service charge allows you to download whatever you find on the service. I think that a court would have a field day with this one. It's just too thorny to nail down to a single settlement, or a bunch of /. posts.

Re:How evil can they get?

[TWooster]

How about:

Cunting bitch.

I always liked that one.

Re:How evil can they get?

[swordgeek]

Um...no thanks.

I've never been a terribly polite person when it comes to delicate language, but that's misogynistic enough to give me hives.

I'll stick with fucktards. Rabid fucktards maybe.

did the RIAA write the apology?

[havaloc]

"I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
I think she meant to say, I'm sorry that you (the RIAA) won't be able to buy a new Benz this year because of falling sales.

Re:did the RIAA write the apology?

[shark72]

To answer your question, I am quite positive that the quotes were supplied by some PR person working for the RIAA. Pretty sloppily done; they look exceedingly fake.

Interesting that you mention a Mercedes Benz. Do you think areas of law like copyright violation should be subjective based on how rich or poor the copyright holder is? For example, once somebody reaches, say, a certain yearly income level, they no longer have the ability to hold a copyright?

At any rate, remember that for every talentless one-hit-wonder you see on MTV Cribs, there are another 1,000 songwriters, background singers, and session musicians who are considerably less well off. When somebody downloads a CD instead of purchasing it, these people lose money as well. CD sales are down 31 percent in the US over the past couple of years while file sharing is at an all-time high. Of course, no self-respecting /.-er would ever insinuate that there could possibly be a connection, but with those kinds of numbers, it's not just a matter of fewer German luxury cars; it's a matter of survival for some people. If you're not sure where I'm getting at, imagine if your salary were cut 31%.

Re:did the RIAA write the apology?

[rice_web]

She shouldn't be sorry (even though she probably isn't, she's probably just POed): the RIAA is a group of bastards.

I know this site is clogged with boycott the RIAA chants, but it must be taken seriously. Stop buying your latest video games and DVDs, stop listening to your tunes (or just download them). Go to the concert and support the artist, but download away. Download that pre-release film from the internet, since the light technicians and makeup artists were disposable anyway.

Reading stories like this make me sick, and the RIAA needs to be thrown into a fire. At the same time, how about we finally split Microsoft? Require our government to use Linux? Or maybe boycott the RIAA?

Nah, it'll never happen. People just need their entertainment too much, don't they?

Its nice to know

[mhlandrydotnet]

... that the RIAA is assessing penalties based on what you can pay as opposed to the crime. (The article concerning taking the college kids life savings comes to mind.) I don't suppose The General Public would go for assigning speeding fines based on how much you could pay as opposed to how fast you were going. So why does The General Public put up with the RIAA doing the same thing?

Re:Its nice to know

[El]

Actually, in some European countries, speeding fines ARE based on ability to pay...

Re:Its nice to know

[agent dero]

The RIAA is not doing anything legal of the sort, they are threatening with suits, nothing more. Basically bullying money out of these people that work during the day, and maybe downloaded a couple songs last night to go to sleep to.

Instead of bitching about it on /, why not write your congressman or senator and get this shit taken care of, make some political noise about it, until the problem (RIAA) is solved (dead)

How much music can a 12 year old steal?

[djtripp]

Exactly how much music can a 12 year old rightfully steal online? Are we talking gigabytes, terabytes? This is ludicrous. I remember when I was 12 and I copied all those tapes of all my friends music so I could have my own copy, I think I had a whopping 20-30 90 min tapes.

What would be interesting now, is to see if this is a staged settlement, look back at the family in 1-5 years, see if they actually paid the fine, and if they did, see if by chance the RIAA, or some subsidiary of them refunded them their "alleged" $2000 fine. There is just something not right here. (insert wrong doers name here)

I'm going to buy some songs on iTMS.

--
Why to people answer rhetorical questions?

I didn't think it was illegal..

[duckie13]

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.

Re:I didn't think it was illegal..

[shark72]

If the music files are copyrighted by somebody else and you don't have permission from the copyright holder to share them, yeah, it's illegal. See Title 17 of the US code for details.

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.

Who's next?

[vitaflo]

I'm just waiting for the RIAA to sue some deaf dude. You know it's only a matter of time.

Re:Who's next?

[tcc]

> I'm just waiting for the RIAA to sue some deaf dude. You know it's only a matter of time

Actually, that would be Hillary-ous :)

Re:Who's next?

[thadeusPawlickiROX]

Some deaf dude? Come on, I'm waiting for someone who doesn't *OWN* or *USE* a computer to get sued.

Re:Who's next?

[AntiOrganic]

Hilary Rosen stepped down months ago. Where have you been?

Re:Who's next?

[bludwulf]

Deaf people listen to music too. I have a deaf friend who is a speech major that listens to music on subwoofers. So technically I guess it's feeling instead of listening, but it's still the same music. ;)

Funny

[whereiswaldo]

'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?

Re:Funny

[paul_pick1]

I suspect that the envelope containing $3000 and a note saying "get out of the media spotlight now please, you're embarassing us" also contained some sound-bite ready suggestions for her exit lines.

Re:Funny

[Merk]

It's probably part of the settlement deal. We don't sue you for millions, in exchange you confess in public about how wrong you are, and let our PR dept. put words in your mouth.

Re: Funny

[Black Parrot]

> What do you suppose that the $2,000 fine neatly offsets a $2,000 "work for hire" payment from the RIAA to Brianna's family for producing such spin-friendly quotes?

And if you download the recording of her saying them, maybe you can get sued into a sweet deal too!

Re:Funny

[Dexx]

Wow - I haven't heard such a doubleplusgood deal since I last talked with the Ministry of Love!

Re:Funny

[poot_rootbeer]

Or was that quote a pre-fab'd one they told her to say?

It was almost certainly specified in the settlement agreement that she had to make a public statement like the one above.

Re:Funny

[CrayzyJ]

Prefabbed by whom, her mother or the RIAA. I am starting to thing all of the little girls cutsy statements are driven by her mother. She's probably telling Brianna to lie through her teeth (we didn't know) to keep their arses out of hot(ter) water.

Re:Funny

[_Bucktooth_]

Maybe she didn't even say it. It's just included in a press release.

Re:Youthful Offenders

[Craig Maloney]

The difference was your case was taken up in the criminal courts. The RIAA is not a branch of law enforcement, even though they're acting like it. These are civil cases they're bringing about, and the law is different there.

How much will "The artists she loves" really get?

[QuackQuack]

Given the way royalties are paid, I'll bet $100 or less of that $2000 actually goes to the artists. Who determines which artists get settlement money anyway? Is it divided among every possible artist? According to sales? What are the chances that the "Artists She Loves" ever see a dime of this?

Maybe fair

[GarbanzoBean]

Well, I know you'll think I'm a troll, but....

Copyright violation, while not criminal, does hurt other people. If your kid that cheated on SAT's, she did no harm to anyone in the same way that copying music and sharing hurts no one. She didn't go to jail, she just paid for damage; although as in case with SAT's it is not a tangible as if she just threw rocks through someone's windshield.

My 2 cents.

Ps. Not to say that music business model is great (in fact, the way they treat artists should be a crime).

Re:Maybe fair

[Andrewkov]

If she did cheat on the SAT's, it *does* hurt the other kids who didn't cheat, and maybe don't get to go to the good college because the cheaters got better marks...

Re:Maybe fair

[GarbanzoBean]

Yes, and if she copies music she might hurt the artists.

where does the money go?

[laslo2]

Okay, RIAA made $2000.00 today. But where does that money go? To the artists of the songs she was sharing, or to the lawyers?

help em

[dmrobbin]

somebody should take up a collection to help these folks out, they're being screwed. you guy's know any widely read website that might be able to do this? I got my 20$ ready

Awesome

[INMCM]

Man, sometimes it just pays to be 12 and easisly manipulated to cry. I wonder if the RIAA would sue me if I said I had cancer or something that would make society care about me more than "normies".

Proof in pudding.

[FooMasterZero]

This among other settlements, is simple proof that the RIAA is using it's leverage unjustly.

If the RIAA is truly feels that the damages are just then they should persue them, and continue to sue people for money they feel has been 'stolen' from them. The simple fact the RIAA has settled more than once for signifcantly less says to me that they know they are gonna be loosing they shorts to the technologies like itunes and such that they want to try and make a desperate attempt to make some cash before there time is over. Fact of the matter is they can't sue everyone so they are gonna try and sue everyone they can before it becomes illegal for them to do so, because if enough people do it, it becomes legal (* again in some cases *) regardless of how destructive it is, look at prohibition enough said.

Much like a dinosaur devouring it's own cousin at sees the fire in the sky.

Family Settles With 12-Year-Old Murderer

[alex_ant]

"It looks like the family of a Texas murder victim has rushed to settle with 12-year-old Timmy McGee, after serving him with a lawsuit on Monday. It looks like her single mother will be paying a $2,000 fine to the family for her son's cold-blooded killing, which he had thought was legal. Said Timmy: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love humans and don't want to hurt the people I love.' What a relief this must be for families of murder victims everywhere."

Re:Family Settles With 12-Year-Old Murderer

[alex_ant]

Well they're both crimes. Obviously one is a lot more severe than the other, but they're both against the law, and we can choose to break them (whether or not we're ignorant of them) at our own risk.

donating money

[negacao]

Agh!

Where can we donate money to help this girl and her mom out?!

I'm unable to find any contact information for them, or any place to donate. Does anybody have a way to contact them or know of fund?

Surely between all of us we can match a measly $2,000. :)

I think it's high time we make an example out the RIAA.

Re:justice...and she is an HONORS student...

[Cnik70]

so she is definately smart enough to realize that downloading music was a copyright infringement.

Consumers unite!

[Michael.Forman]

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.

Re:Consumers unite!

[TLouden]

Yes, it's BS.
No I won't buy any more compact discs (I haven't yet because I prefer my shoutcast tech streams)
And Yes I think RIAA is getting pretty pathetic.

Re:Consumers unite!

[PovRayMan]

It was her mother that was bullied into paying the $2000. That is the fact that many people are ignoring because it's not as newsworthy as the 12 year old daughter.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Art Tatum]

You do realize that not all CDs are produced by RIAA labels, right? You can still buy independent music (just make absolutely sure it's really independent, since big labels have bought a lot of them out).

Re:Consumers unite!

[Alpha_Nerd]

The minor didn't pay the money and I really doubt they were actually sueing her - much more likely they were sueing the mother.

And yes, what a terrible world we live in when people have to take responsibility for their illegal actions...

Re: Consumers unite!

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

Guess I need to run out and buy a few so I can quit too...

Re:Consumers unite!

[Merk]

If it was illegal then how come she wasn't arrested? Do you not understand the difference between a lawsuit and an arrest?

Re:Consumers unite!

[illumina us]

First off sharing music has been around for a long time, this arguement has been around for longer than that. P2P networks and sharing of files is not the problem, the problem is that people don't want to buy music that costs too damn much especially if the band is not that good. I will only buy music to support a band, and even then the band makes more money from tours then they do from the RIAA. The RIAA is becoming an almost worthless organization, hell, RIAA may as well be SCO.

Re:Consumers unite!

[nightsweat]

I've sent a note to Senator Durbin's office to see if they know about where one might send money to help pay the fine. I hope they either know of an account or recognize the political hay to be made by putting together such an account.

I'm in for $100. Who's with me?

Re:Consumers unite!

[Michael.Forman]

Excellent point. For that matter purchasing online music as opposed to CDs from RIAA labels is equally bad.

Here are some of my independent sources:

A Different Drum
Emusic

Where do you go?

Michael.

Re:Consumers unite!

[dema]

I wouldn't say "another compact disc" because not ALL CDs created have something to do with the RIAA. I am always glad to purchase CDs at shows from bands themselves. There is no better way to really give back to the music community then helping a band pay for gas to get home (:

Re:Consumers unite!

[negacao]

Agreed.

Re:Consumers unite!

[gyratedotorg]

I from this day forward will never again purchase another compact disc. Ever.

people say things like this far too often here. dont forget; there are plenty of record labels out there (which distribute far better music imo) that dont belong to the riaa. theres no need to stop buying cds altogether.

Re:Consumers unite!

[droleary]

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.

Yawn. The RIAA doesn't give a fuck about you, and neither do most consumers they target. If you really wanted to enact some change, you'd walk up to an RIAA executive or an attorney involved in this action and put a bullet in their head. Now that will get some attention, especially if it starts to happen a lot.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Klaruz]

CD Baby

The owner (or somebody who works for them) posts on slashdot too. I'm surprised he hasn't swooped in and replied to your comment yet.

Re:Consumers unite!

[dayve]

I'm in!

I haven't bought a CD for several months because I've been busy, but this just sealed the deal. I will never buy a new CD from any RIAA owned artist again!

Re:Consumers unite!

[d3am0n]

This is sick, i'm never buying anything from these people again, and if i see them on the street, i'd spit on them. What a bunch of assholes, i mean, the kid lives in the goddamn projects for christs sakes.

Re:Consumers unite!

[RisingSon]

Agreed. I don't really have a strong opinion about file sharing; however, I choose to buy my CDs. Maybe because I listen to crap like indie rock, folk and local music and not the mainstream stuff.

After reading the article and some posts, I was irritated, tempted to rant and then surfed on. Later I came to CNN and read about it again. Pissed enough to come back and post.

BLOW ME. WTF can a 13 year old girl be responsible for? I am far far from a bleeding heart liberal. I support corporate America - I work for a hedge fund. I don't have a problem being a shark for money. But what a bunch of pricks. When I was 13 I hadn't even seen tits yet. I'd love to pry into all their documents and weblogs and I'm sure I could find enough wrongdoing to warrant a lawsuit.

Whats that? Bobby and Jenny aren't spending enough of their allowance on that shiny new miss spears disc of audio-shit? Sue them! Sue them all! Fuck you RIAA. I don't care for you invading the privacy of citizens to protect the leviathan of a markup on pre-baked music for the easily brainwashed kiddies.

Keep your copyrighted material. I'm never buying another CD. Not because it sounds cool, not because I'm pissed, but because you are TOTALLY in the wrong. Your happy happy fun time will be over soon and all I have to do is sit back and watch.

Re:Consumers unite!

[shawnce]

Your statement is confusing...

Being arrested doesn't equate with something being illegal. Arresting someone is just one possible recourse to insure the person appears in course, etc. as needed and is seldom used for many classes of crimes.

For example it is illegal to drive faster then the speed limit but you don't normally get arrested for that. You usually get fined instead.

In this case they got sued for copy right violations; illegally sharing copy righted music.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Spl0it]

1994 or 1995 till today without a RIAA CD! What have you done today?

Re:Consumers unite!

[KentoNET]

Do RW's count? Gotta burn those LiveCD's on something...

Seriously though, I haven't bought an RIAA-affiliated CD in quite some time (can't really remember). And now it's just about set that I never will again.

It's easier for me because I think pretty much every CD released by the mainstream companies sucks anyway. And it seems as though that is becoming the new norm with North American music consumers. Any CD that actually HAS good music only has one or two acceptable songs on it...

Re:Consumers unite!

[baneblackblade]

Hear hear! The last straw was drawn for me quite some time ago, but recently they have thrown themselves into deep seeded hate. I have every intention of fighting them to the best of my ability, and have created a website for such protests...though it's not quite ready yet. Simply not buying they're CDs won't make this all stop. It'll take centuries before they're piles of money run out, even if they don't sell a single CD in that time. In addition to this, we need to try to educate the general public about whats really going on, and to resist actively. We don't really have enough time for passive resistance, since they have all the resources they need to survive a hundred-year siege while they pick us off, one by one. I wouldn't be all that surprised if after suing every US citizen they pushed for laws enabling them to sue people in other countries. though...I think if it came to that said other countries would then initiate guerilla warfare, and from there everything just gets worse...

Re:Consumers unite!

[Cecil]

What a terrible world we live in when people blindly follow laws which are supposed to be for the good of everyone and clearly are not.

Are you so used to taking it up the ass from your goverment that you've forgotten the government exists to serve you, the citizens of your country? Yes, they also have a responsibility to cater to the groups of people who employ you, but that argument only holds water to a certain extent. How many people does the RIAA employ? How many people are artists, songwriters, composers, musicians?
Most of whom end up bullied into giving up the copyright on their songs to an RIAA label so they can keep a monopoly on all music until the end of time.

Copyright is broken. How many times do you people need to get kicked in the face by the media bullies until you see that something is wrong, and perhaps this is not the way it was meant to be?

Re:Consumers unite!

[kiwirob]

I'm not a big spender like Mr $100 but sure I'm in for $25 if someone can arrange where to pay it. Hey I'm in New Zealand, the other side of the world and I find all this disgusting. RIAA is a joke.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Merk]

You're right. I was trying to draw a distinction between civil law and criminal law. Most people who seem to think the RIAA is in the right are saying the people are criminals, which they're not.

Re:Consumers unite!

[iwrigley]

Er... actually, if the band is signed to a record label, they will almost certainly have to buy the CDs that they are selling at their gigs from their label -- they can't just duplicate their own and sell them.

Re:Consumers unite!

[arkane1234]

Yeah, but I don't like those 3 albums...

Re:Consumers unite!

[arkane1234]

Emusic isn't independant.

Re:Consumers unite!

[tinrobot]

Yes, but they lived in a housing project. I would imagine that $2000 is her college fund.

Re:Consumers unite!

[tinrobot]

I agree. I haven't bought a CD in over a year.

The fact that they took money from a 12 year old (or her Mom) and pocketed it rather than donating to a music school or something is just awful.

I already have plenty of music on CD, tape and vinyl. If I want to listen to new stuff, Shoutcast seems to serve the purpose just fine.

The RIAA is so blowing it.

Re:Consumers unite!

[ozzee]

... and put a bullet in their ...

There is absolutley no need for violence here and even less need to write about it. Please keep your sentiments of use of firearms to youself.

Besides, the RIAA just shot thselves in the head 261 times yesterday, they beat you to it !

Re:Consumers unite!

[Seraphim_72]

You also might want to send a note to Norm Coleman - US Senator (R)-Minn he has made statements that might help!! I am in no way a Coleman fan - but in this regard he is proving to be a decent man .... contact him here.

Seraphim

Re:Consumers unite!

[droleary]

There is absolutley no need for violence here and even less need to write about it.

You're wrong. In fact, there is a great need to write about it now because it may end up being the only way to enact change in the future. America's history is a violent one, and the RIAA seems to have forgotten that. They bullied a 12 year old girl for money (quite a lot, in fact); in my neighborhood that kind of thing will get any number of people on your ass and they will make you stop.

If you're against the killing, could I get your support in something more of a "van Gogh" retribution? That is, take their ear off as a symbol of who these people are. Nothing quite like a reminder in the mirror every morning that pushing poor children around over music isn't the right thing to do.

Besides, the RIAA just shot thselves in the head 261 times yesterday, they beat you to it !

On the contrary. If they can get the majority to settle for thousands, then they'll have regular folk set up to cave in left and right in the future. How long they'll last taking continually more extreme actions against the fans is anybody's guess, but I don't see any artists rushing out to help the little girl the RIAA fucked over. As long as the RIAA lives, music is completely screwed.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Mike Hawk]

I'd just like to point out that your response shows a general lack of understanding of the issue AND actually serves to back up the RIAA's mission.

From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue. I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable future anyway.

If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:
1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.
2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.

Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)

My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.

Re:Consumers unite!

[seraph93]

If you're against the killing, could I get your support in something more of a "van Gogh" retribution? That is, take their ear off as a symbol of who these people are. Nothing quite like a reminder in the mirror every morning that pushing poor children around over music isn't the right thing to do.

Ooooh, I've got a better one! We gotta give them fair warning first, right? So we could leave a severed horse's head on their doorstep and scrawl "CEASE AND DESIST" on the door in blood. It's more due process than they'd give us.

Even better, we could use the severed head of one of those hideous pop idols they're always trying to cram down our throats--it's not like it's murder or anything, pop idols aren't really people anyway.

On a more serious note, though, it's not just the RIAA pushing people around, it's all the giant companies, who all seem to be in the same business: fucking everybody out of as much money as they possibly can. While I personally abhorr violence (outside of video games and message boards anyway), it doesn't look like anyone's being left with many other options. Who has the money to countersue these bastards? I certainly don't, and neither do any of their targets (extortion doesn't work nearly as well when your victim can fight back). The corporations, and the RIAA in particular, have forgotten a few very important things:

1) Americans are damn near the most violent and brutal people on the planet.
2) Bullets are much, much cheaper than lawsuits (they're cheaper than CDs, too).
3) Judge Lynch's court is *always* in session.

Kudos for such bold and controversial posts. America might not be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave anymore, but it's nice to see there's still a couple of them left.

Re:Consumers unite!

[ozzee]

You're wrong. In fact, there is a great need to write about it now because it may end up being the only way to enact change in the future. America's history is a violent one, and the RIAA seems to have forgotten that. They bullied a 12 year old girl for money (quite a lot, in fact); in my neighborhood that kind of thing will get any number of people on your ass and they will make you stop.

This is killing a person for *money* we're talking about.I'm sorry, but I think human life, even that of my enemy, is far too precious to kill for MONEY.

Now, there is a fate far worse than death ! How about the imminent demise of the RIAA ?

I predict it. The RIAA is now tainted goods. Very few people will want to be affiliated with tem. It is inevitable.

Re:Consumers unite!

[__aamkky7574]

Damn straight. This is just insane - maybe the RIAA think they are scaring people, but all they are doing is making them angrier:

1. This girl is 12 years old.
2. She's TWELVE, for crying out loud.
3. She's from a poor neighborhood.
4. There's a good chance that she thought what she was doing was completely legit.

I won't be annoyed by an RIAA boycott too much, since playing with http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp I find that most of the music I listen to comes from non-RIAA labels. But I'd urge everyone to use the above site next time they're thinking of buying a CD, and choose the non-RIAA option.

P.

Re:Consumers unite!

[vekotin]

We're looking at changes to the copyright laws here in Finland and in many other EU countries as well. They have a lot of quotes from bad experiences learned with RIAA in USA as well as views on DMCA effects. I don't really believe this story changes the official side, but when you're trying to make people learn about the harms behind the acts of the music industry, this is a great headline story.

I hate politicians who only speak what people want to hear but let's face it - that works. And right now it's not even a lie.

And looking at this from another point of view, what possible good can their actions do? $2000 is barely enough for a couple new golf balls for the execs. If they had played kindly, they could've gotten a huge load of sympathy votes for them and only miss one afternoon at the country club.

I don't believe my acts here can hurt the RIAA except maybe a tiny bit, mostly because I don't personally enjoy music made in the USA(no offense intended, just personal taste). However, that chance of a tiny bit is all I need. I already decided to never buy copy protected CD's. Looks like the rest of all audio CD's are off limits now as well.

Re:Consumers unite!

[webmistress_amanda]

Yes, but if they are a lucky, smart, hard-working local band, they are either totally self-produced (like the band I'm in), or they are signed to a small, local label who simply helps them get their material out there for a *fair* share of the profit.

The huge labels and the RIAA make me sick.

Re:Consumers unite!

[dema]

Yea, that's what I was talking about. My friend's band has been self-produced for a while now, in fact, I've found myself many times burning tons of CDs to help get them ready before a tour. And now they are signed to a small local label in Milwaukee that will be putting out their next CD that has NOTHING to do with the RIAA. Go indie music!

Re:Consumers unite!

[demozthenes]

...and it's easy enough to find yourself a good used CD shop. There's at least 10 of them within a five-mile radius of my home in Boston. It's one of the best ways to persuade people to stop giving their precious paychecks to the RIAA, simply for these reasons:

- You're not "missing out" on popular music by giving up on buying music altogether.
- Purchasing used media is far cheaper; it's not difficult to find a good album for $1 or $2 in some places.
- Because they cost less, it's easier to convince the RIAA's biggest customers, the young people and the poor college students, to shop there.
- Usually, by shopping there you're keeping an independent business alive. There are no enormous used-record-store "chains" or monopolies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll depart to go listen to my $2 Pearl Jam album. :}

Re:Consumers unite!

[dema]

We'll see if you feel the same way when you think you are doing something perfectly legal (that you have payed for) and some group of corporations slaps you with a $2,000 fine for "damages" even though you have no idea what you've done wrong.

What a terrible world we live in where people feel that human emotion has no real meaning because the LAW is ALL that matters.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Michael.Forman]

An analysis of the logical flaws of the above reply, submitted for your reading pleasure.

From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue.

Ad hominem. The reply attacks the author instead the position through the derogatory use of "irrational" and "little".

I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable (sic) future anyway.

Speculation. There is no evidence in the post of past or future purchasing habits.

If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:

Ad hominem. The reply attacks the author instead of supporting the position through the implication that the author lacks understanding.

1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.

Logical. This is the kernel of your argument and is well put.

2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.

Speculation. There is no information in the "tone and phrasing" which conclusively conveys the complex idea of halting CDs purchases while continuing to listen to new music. The continuing train of logic builds upon the preceding speculative argument.

Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)

Ad hominem. Attacking the author instead of supporting the argument, through the omission and inclusion of the author from the groups of "educated adults" and "spoiled children" respectively.
Special pleading. The act of "coming across as educated adults and not spoiled children" to achieve the goal of "do(ing) something right" is special pleading disguised as a logical statement. It provides no support for the argument.

My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that a simultaneous boycott will eliminate p2p as a source of contention, given that p2p sharing will resume after a boycott.

You too can detect Baloney!

Michael.

Re:Consumers unite!

[droleary]

This is killing a person for *money* we're talking about.

Gee, kind of like how the country got started (taxation without representation ring a bell?), isn't it? The money is incidental, though; surely you can see that. They start by abusing the youngest and poorest for $2000. It's not the last part of that sentence that you should focus on, it's everything that comes before it. And this is just the beginning of their long slide down. Who knows where they'll sink their claws along the way.

The RIAA is now tainted goods.

The problem is that their little cartel has tainted music in the process. They fuck over the artists they sign and they fuck over the independents who don't sign, and through it all the fans are screwed left and right. I'm sick of big business thinking it can run roughshod over people and then have executives think they can escape the aftermath in a golden parachute.

I actually a fairly non-violent person, but if I was around when the RIAA lawyer was bragging about taking $2000 from a poor little girl, I would have smacked the fucker right there. They bolder their actions forward are, the bigger the backlash is going to be when everything finally comes to a head. I like to not have to get violent, but when the things they're pulling get too close to my back yard, I'm not sure I'll have a better choice . . .

Re:Consumers unite!

[ozzee]

... bragging about taking $2000 from a poor little girl, I would have smacked the ...

Smacking the guy for being so callous is almost ok in my book. Putting a slug in his body is not.

Now channel that negative spirit into some positive letters to some choice individuals.

Join boycott-riaa.org.

Demand that everyone you do business with consider being an RIAA free zone.

Lobby you local government, state government and federal government to become RIAA free zones.

Lobby to have the Copyright laws changed - revoke the amendments in the last 50 years. Repeal the DMCA.

.... I can go on and on with things that need to be done and will be easily done now that the RIAA has so missed the mark 261 times.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Mike Hawk]

Ah, but I was not speaking to logic. The point is that history has proven logic alone cannot win the day. PR will first, then we hit them with logic. Your whole post was lacking in logic (and a point or evidence, really) and could be construed exaclty as I described. I seek not to defend the RIAA but to make sure we portray a movement against them in the proper light to gather support. Your tone will do nothing but to turn people off.

But I'm glad you took freshman English and learned some simple logical fallacy terms! Congrats.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Michael.Forman]

I will analyze the grammar of the following post for your reading pleasure.

Ah, but I was not speaking to logic.

Sentence fragment. The sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction.
Improper colloquial preposition. In colloquial speech the use of "to" as the preposition implies, that the object of the preposition is a recipient of the dialog (a person, animal, or recording device). A good substitute would be "of".

The point is that history has proven logic alone cannot win the day.

No errors.

PR will first, then we hit them with logic.

Sentence fragment. The first coordinate clause lacks a required second verb.
Temporal disagreement. The coordinate clause is in the future tense while the subordinate clause is in the present tense, even though the coordinate clause occurs first.

Your whole post was lacking in logic (and a point or evidence, really) and could be construed exaclty (sic) as I described.

Faulty parallelism. The verbal element "was lacking" is incorrectly used as both an intransitive ("in logic") and transitive verb ("a point ...").

I seek not to defend the RIAA but to make sure we portray a movement against them in the proper light to gather support.

Improper coordinate conjunction. In sentences where the first coordinate clause is negated by the second coordinate clause the coordinating conjunction, "rather", should be substituted for "but".

Your tone will do nothing but to turn people off.

Unnecessary subordinate conjunction. The subordinate conjunction, "to", is unnecessary and without the coordinate conjunction, "but", risks negating the intended meaning of the sentence.

But I'm glad you took freshman English and learned some simple logical fallacy terms! Congrats.

Sentence fragment. The sentence begins with the coordinating conjunction, "but".
Improper adjectival form The nounal element "simple logical fallacy terms" contains the adjectival form of "logic" ("logical") which ambiguously modifies "terms". It should be replaced with the genitive construction, "terms of logic". The use of "fallacy" is awkward and should be omitted. The revised nounal element would read "simple terms of logic".

P.S. - This was English. The prior was Logic.

Michael.

Re:Consumers unite!

[arkane1234]

You'd think they'd make it with a little better formatting, jesus.

I don't like anonymous cowards, so we're even.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Mike Hawk]

Cute. Continue to display your lack of understanding of the issue by debating my prose rather than my points. Whoops. But (gasp!) I'm glad you have your writer's handbook handy and infinite time to look up minor details. Now you can continue to bicker over minor points (nice AC flame post follow-up by the way), or you can take my point, and understand it in the context of this new article posted on slashdot today about who is really winning the PR war. Guess what? Its not guys like you.

Re:Consumers unite!

[Michael.Forman]

Sorry. I'm just having fun.

By the way there were no books used. All that stuff is in my head! (For better or worse.)

You have demonstrated a understanding of the topic and you do have a good point that was underscored by the new post you linked to above.

My "Consumers Unite!" post was phrased in a manner consistent with anticapitalist protesters of the mid 1800s, who attempted to address the proletariat en masse with simple messages typically in the form of a call to action.

This issue is classic class conflict. The corporation is attempting to maintain control over its means of production, which is in this case is a music distribution network. The primary source for maintaining control comes from the State in the form of legislation. Thus, while I agree that you have a point when you refer to public relations, this issue will ultimately be decided in the courts regardless of public opinion. Much like copyright laws, it is only a matter of time until the means of production is litigated back into the control of the music industry.

I submit, that policing comments on Slashdot to present a good attitude serves only to create a docile community. Such a community is exactly the most vulnerable to a slow march towards legislation. We need action.

Michael.

Boycott

[leebrownusa]

How about just stop buying all music CD's for say a month. I mean every last one of us just stop. Economics, I mean DOLLARS is the only thing global corporate entities understand. DO IT.

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:RIAA Marketing 101

[YrWrstNtmr]

Don't studies suggest that using abusive tactics with children only works for a short time, and then they just hate the abuser, permanently?

The problem is, there is no visible "abuser". The RIAA? Who are they? Sony, Warner Brothers, EMI, Tower Records, MTV....THAT'S who is in the music biz. You don't buy CD's from the RIAA. I'd venture to say that almost no one had heard of the RIAA, even readers here if not for the recent foolishness.

Hate the RIAA? Sure. "I get my music from Sam Goody's, not the RIAA!"

Re:RIAA Marketing 101

[Empiric]

Yes, but I think this lack of clarity only makes it worse businesswise for the parties involved in this. A young person's sense of cause-and-effect will likely say "I liked her music"-"I downloaded her music"-"I got hurt". The negative goodwill will go to the artist, not the RIAA acronym. Another reason that if the artists themselves don't see things as the RIAA does, they should speak up now.

You guys talk pretty tough...

[Boone^]

If I was SUED for a ton of money, I'd be soiling my pants over the potential outcome that I COULD LOSE. Everyone talks tough, but if I could get out of a potential jam for $2000, I'd probably do it.

Re:You guys talk pretty tough...

[WellAren'tYouJustThe]

Well aren't you just the master of the obvoius.

tax^H^H^Hsettlement bracket

[ejaw5]

So when a 12 yr old does it it's $2000, but when it's two college kids it's $12,000,000,000.

What's wrong with blowing them up?

[satanami69]

Anyone want to handle taking care of that?

I sure hope not. Sickos.

Sue Kazaa for $2029.99

[Anonymous Coward]

If they where mis-lead into believing they did not commit a crime or they where in the right when they paid the 29.99 fee to kazaa. Then Hell they should sue kazaa.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget you're talking about a greedy middleman that ensures artists get pennies on the dollars for their music.

That's not wrong in their book o' morals, suggesting they lack scruples completely.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[dominion]

Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong

Actually, most people who don't shoplift do so because they don't *need* to.

The myth about shoplifting is that it's perpetrated by 14-year old middle class kids who want to have a thrill.

Anyone who's worked as a checker for a grocery store in a poor community will tell you that the biggest shoplifters are elderly women.

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

[Lothar 0]

Not so much human nature as attributing to others the greed they have in themselves, restrained only by what the law allows them to get away with.

Re: The Best RIAA Quote

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

Unless you're hungry or have a self-image problem, you're not likely to find a wallet with more money in it than your pride is worth to you.

Re: The Best RIAA Quote

[Black Parrot]

> When everyone is a criminal, crime is everything.

RIAA, SCO, ... I think the new economic reality is that companies are finding pseudo-legal shakedowns more profitable than advertising.

Maybe even more profitable than selling a product...

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[kcbrown]

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

They have such a low opinion because the only people they have any peer-level experience (as opposed to master/slave experience, e.g. with artists) with -- themselves -- are people that deserve such a low opinion...

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[antiMStroll]

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

Hey, cut them some slack. They spend every work day consorting with record industry types. What do you expect?

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:The Best RIAA Quote

[foo(foo(foo(bar)))]

They only think so little of human nature because that is the kind of bottom feeders they are. It's just like the MPAA comercials before movies now. If a producer doesn't profit $10 million (like 5 times what I will earn in my lifetime in raw sallary), then something isn't right with the world.

The root of the problem is, alltogther now, greed - Metallica style

This makes me want to share my entire music and movie collection on a Linux box and make sure that SCO knows about it. RIAA, MPAA, SCO, M$ - all evil companies (orginizations).

It is all greed - CEO greed, shareholder greed. This country is going to hell in a handbasket....bummer

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[michaeltoe]

Actually, to be honest, I used to shoplift quite frequently, and only stopped because I knew arrest was inevitable.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And a great many of them are also aware of the fact that copyright violation is not the same thing as theft.

It's not "right" but it doesn't deprive anyone of anything, either, no mater what *AA has to say about it. They have not LOST a single thing. THey haven't GAINED anything, either, but in most cases, they wouldn't anyhow.

Now a pirate that SELLS the copyrighted material has committed a crime. No one has a right to profit that way.

Disclaimer: I make my money working for a software company. I detest piracy. I also recognize that piracy doesn't really affect me. We make most of our money from support calls and sales relations with customers. Pirates don't ask for that. Realistically, they cost us nothing.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[rmohr02]

And according to Seinfeld, those elderly women love to shoplift batteries.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[KentoNET]

I agree that most people don't do it because they think it's wrong...

Also, maybe they think it's not even necessary. A loaf of bread or a box of cereal won't go for 20 bucks at your local supermarket nowadays, and that will show much more value than some crappy CD with maybe two songs you actually like.

Three bucks for a week's worth of food for you or twenty bucks for five minutes of good music? Touch choice isn't it?

--

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[epiphani]

Bull. I download music because, in my opinion, in order to steal something from you, you need to loose something.

On TV here in ontario right now they have a commercial against "Satalite Signal Theft" saying that "Theft is Theft" and so forth. Are Satalite companies loosing something by me using satalite television without paying them? Nope. Are music labels loosing something when I download music? Nope. They're loosing something they MIGHT have had.

As a close-to-broke student, I can garantee you that I wouldnt have bought any CDs recently. But I recently attended a concert of an artist my only exposure to was through mp3s that I'd downloaded. Thus, without this copyright infringement I've committed, the band would have recieved nothing from me. As it is, they've gotten revenue from my ticket sale and T-shirt I purchased.

As a side note about satalite signal theft - how can I steal something that is being BEAMED INTO MY BRAIN every second of my day.

Re: The Best RIAA Quote

[zakezuke]

Unless you're hungry or have a self-image problem, you're not likely to find a wallet with more money in it than your pride is worth to you.

No one needs morality when there isn't enough to eat, yes. It's why I had NO major complaints when I lost my wallet once only to find all my cards returned via US postal service. I was like 15/16 at the time, probally had enough cash for a school lunch as well as a driving permit, phone list, and misc other shit. Actually only the cards and misc crap was mailed back to me, the few bucks and wallet were never returned. All and all I can't complain.

I don't see it as a self image problem. Either the person who found my wallet needed my few bucks, didn't have any moral issues keeping the few bucks, or the wallet was actually run over and the contents scattered across the roadway. It would only be a self image problem if they percieved them selves as being honest yet using the finder's keepers rule.

This is not to say I haven't used the finder's keepers rule my self, but only after a good honest effort of trying to find the rightful owner. This happened once with a bankcard that I find stuck in a machine. I contacted the bank to report that it had been found, they wanted me to cut it up, I tried again to report it found, they said it was reported stolen. I asked for the address of the account holder so I can mail it back, they said they couldn't do that. I asked if I could give them MY address so the account holder could contact me to retrieve it, they said they couldn't do that either. I asked if I could mail it to them and they can mail it to the approperate address, they said no. I gave up on this and finally used it to apply bondo, and it might very well still exist in a bondo segment in my old car.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[borg389]

That's because the RIAA is composed of the kinds of people that wish to earn money through other people's efforts, including lots of lawyers.

They see nothing wrong with stealing money if they think they can get away with it. Thus, they think all other people are either like them or are suckers.

Thieves never trust other people.

I'm not suggesting that they should give every cd away and work on the honor system, but their approach of assuming everyone is a criminal is quite a telling point.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[nutbar]

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.

Bollocks. You seem to be confusing morality with legality. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is immoral, nor is something that is legal automatically moral.

Example: Most people believe that speeding by a small amount over the speed limit is okay. They find absolutely nothing wrong with it. Yet technically it is illegal.

Also, recently here in New Zealand prostitution has been made legal. As far as I am concerned, prostitution is immoral. The big question is should government dictate the morals of a nation, or just take the back seat and attempt to stimulate the economy? When is a law moral or immoral? Only the individual can decide.

Downloading music is looked upon as harmless by most people I know, similar to speeding a little over the limit. The conscience just doesn't come into it. Of course, if somebody was downloading thousands of songs a day and reselling them, that is a different issue.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Captain_Chaos]

We have an old saying in Dutch: "zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten," which translates roughly as: "as the innkeeper is, he trusts his guests," meaning that people only tend to suspect other people of wrongdoings that they would themselves perpetrate.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Snaller]

Why is this +5 Insightful? It's common sense.

No it isn't - its a prejudice among criminals.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Kjella]

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.

Actually, mostly because they don't see anyone hurting. E.g. I know when my neighbours are on vacation (not too hard to find out about somebody else either), it'd be no problem to knock in a window a dark night and loot the place. Chances of getting caught are basicly none. Why don't people do that? Because your neighbours will have lost their property. That makes a pretty good dent in someone's personal economy.

Now, when someone goes on Internet and downloads an mp3. Who is hurting? The guy you downloaded from? Nope. Some big multimillion company half-way around the earth that you've never ever been in contact with, which may or may not have lost a potential sale.

Between them and the kids that are probably starving somewhere, also half-way around the earth, which we also do an excellent job of ignoring, do you really expect people to start caring about the RIAA and their finances? Maybe sometime right after all hunger ends and world peace settles in, but not before...

Kjella

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[maiden_taiwan]

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...

Sadly, psychological research would probably disagree with you. Most people don't go far up the ladder of moral reasoning.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[aziraphale]

> But I recently attended a concert of an artist my only exposure to was through mp3s that I'd downloaded

Well, applying your own strict moral code, of course, it would have been alright for you to just sneak into the concert without paying, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not like it's stealing, because nobody lost anything, right? But you didn't - like a poor sap buying a CD when he could just as easily download the tracks for free, you bought a ticket. You need to ask yourself why you broke the law in one case (and that was okay) but you didn't in the other...

Maybe, just maybe, the reason you didn't sneak into the concert was that it would be wrong, and there was a good chance of your getting caught?

You see, there's things which are still immoral even if they don't involve stealing. Are you sure downloading illegally distributed MP3s (although not stealing) isn't immoral in some other way?

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Herkum01]

At least you know whom to focus the security guards on when they walk into your store. I mean, if the only thing keeping members of the RIAA from stealing is the threat of jail then I would be darn sure to watching them every second.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[pmz]

Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong...

Agreed. I know someone who has a storefront in a small town, and they sometimes leave on an errand without closing down the store. Coming back, people will have come into the store to buy something and left the money on the counter.

People who understand what makes communities work will not engage in criminal behavior. Criminals are either desparate or seeking prestige (like in a high school or gang clique).

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[ampathee]

well yes, when you can imagine yourself or someone like you in the reverse situation, you feel empathy and do what you would have done to you.

but it's different when the other is not a person, or not one you relate to. ask a whole lot of people whether they would steal from a shop if they were guaranteed not to get caught - i suspect a good deal of them would.
people don't empathize with corporations.

(apologies if this doesnt make sense, it's 4.50am and i am brain-scrambled :)

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[zoffimo]

When you sneak into a concert, you are reducing the number of people that can go see it. You're reducing capacity, which is usually listed as a finite amount of people, by one. It's a scarce resource and so doing this is a form of stealing (from my point of view, at least).

Compare this to downloading a music track, which doesn't reduce the ability of anyone else to listen to it because you are utilizing an essentially non-scarce resource.

Personally, I wouldn't sneak into a concert, and although I don't download "illegal" music I don't look down upon those that do.

Everyone has his or her dividing line between what is moral and immoral behaviour. Our laws have been traditionally been based on where the majority (of those in power) place that line.

But since I have this irrepressible notion that people are generally good, I would suggest that if the majority (or even a significant minority) of people want to download music then perhaps that action shouldn't be illegal.

Damn

[JZlives]

It must feel good to know that a multi-billion dollar company can make an extra two thousand bucks from a disadvantaged family. Though this should help out the fight against the RIAA, seeing that this thing will probably catch the eye of many major news sources. This also shows how stupid people are. It only takes a few days of college tech support to find out how stupid most everyone is when it comes to computers. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of these cases in the next few months, people who were under the impression that they were doing legal downloading. The only options left for us are: 1) Move to Canada. 2) Use the iTunes Music Store 3) Full scale nuclear combat.

One step too far

[deadmongrel]

I understand that RIAA want to make sure that the lables and the artists they represent get their fat check each week. And I do understand that swapping music is illegal but installing fear is not the way to go about it. well if you would ask me they are nothing more than terrorists. Would Dubya start a war on this Domestic terrorism? Isn't America Land of the Free or is it Land of the free* with *some restrictions apply?. Fine stop people illegally trading songs but the punishment should fit the crime. Most of the people download songs because they can't afford it. If they can afford they would buy it. Slapping fines would destroy them. How many hours do you think Mom LaHara have to work to make up for those $2000. Shame on you RIAA.

Bringing new meaning to

[Sergeant Beavis]

taking candy from a baby.

Congradulations Mr. Burns.

Anyone who settles is an f'ing idiot

[JoeShmoe]

Seriously...there would have been countless groups, ACLU, EFF, etc who would have rushed to defend this case. Why on earth would they be so stupid as to settle? The publicity alone guaranteed them special treatment...and how do they spend it? "Only" paying $2000.

I hope to God that no one starts up some stupid fund to raise $2000 for little Brianna. Let her Mom work double shifts for the next year.

Seriously...it's idiots like this that make life difficult for the rest of us. This was a golden opportunity to present the harsh reality of the copyright police and somehow RIAA diffuses it.

- JoeShmoe
.

Re:Anyone who settles is an f'ing idiot

[wideBlueSkies]

This is some working mom and her kid.

Mom barely knows that the Internet exists, never mind the EFF. She's too busy making a living.

Though, as I post I find myself wondering if the RIAA settled not only for PR reasons but also because they're afraid of pissing off the RIAA and ACLU? Maybe the RIAA was afraind of running into these guys in court, and somehow having a precident setting judgement made against them.

Thereby screwing up all future enforcement activities.

wbs.

Re:Anyone who settles is an f'ing idiot

[wideBlueSkies]

>>pissing off the RIAA and ACLU

I meant EFF and ACLU.

wbs.

Re:Anyone who settles is an f'ing idiot

[JoeShmoe]

This is precisely my point. Who jumps at the opportunity to pay someone $2000 for nothing? Wouldn't your natural response be to investigate your options? The time between the story breaking and the settlement was less than a day! Either there was some backdoor deal going on here (RIAA allowing payments of $1/yr for the next 2000 years) or this mom is completely daft? What possible investigation could she have done in that short period of time? She got scared, she caved, and I hope she and her family suffer for it. Not because they necessarily did something wrong by using Kazaa, but because they are to foolish to stand up to these bullies. All they do is give RIAA precedent to go after more and more people.

If you want to stop a snowball you do it when it's a few inches in diameter at the top of the hill...not when it's a few few in diameter at the bottom.

-JoeShmoe
.

Ouch

[mao che minh]

An inadvertent self inflicted 12 gauge round to the foot must hurt. The press is going to have a field day with this one. Even my non-techie friends (the kind that still don't know the difference between a right click and mashing both buttons at the same time despite using a computer for years) were talking about this case before I had even read it on Slashdot. This is serious bad publicity.

I was one of the few that believed that partaking in copyright infringement against the RIAA was immoral, out of general principle, and made you no better then them. I now understand that hindering their revenues streams by any means possible is a just action - a righteous act against a truly oppressive and immoral beast.

Fuck em. I can't believe that they did this.

Precedent?

[shayne321]

Not a legal precedent obviously, but now that the RIAA is targeting college students for $50,000, couldn't those sued simply point to this settlement and cry foul? Obviously RIAA is trying to wipe the egg of its face over suing a 12 year old girl, and I think that should be used against them.

RIAA trying to get more customers?

[obsid1an]

As I see it, the RIAA is losing money and they are placing the blame squarely on file sharing. Even assuming that is true, how many people will look at a company suing a 12 year old girl or elderly man and say, "I want to buy their product?" No one I know.

The problem with their sales may very well be pirates, but while suing may deter people from pirating, common sense just tells me it won't get more people buying their product.

This has been said before I believe but, I download a lot more porn than I ever have music (no, not child porn like the RIAA claims is rampent), yet online porn sites are some of the most profitable out there.

People want music online, but for the last couple years there was no legal way to get it online legally. Porn was immediately available online. Sure, you could rip a CD, but that is not the easiest thing to do for the computer newb. If I were to ask my parents to rip me their Yanni CD, there would be zero chance of it getting done.

The RIAA missed the ball. Back when p2p networks (mainly Napster) were starting up and getting popular, THAT was when they needed online music services. Not years down the road after suing everyone and their 12 year old kids.

We know that the RIAA has no shame...

[dksun]

but it would be interesting/entertaining if some reporter out there asks a "recording artist" like Britney or Madonna asking how they feel about this particular situation. Would their response be that the 12-year-old deserved to be sued? (bad PR) Would they say that the lawsuits are unfair? (not likely) Or, would they just smile and promote their latest and greatest product?

Excessive fees

[Brigadoon]

It should just take one person with enough resources and time to fight the legal limit of $150 000/copy infringement. From the US Constitution, Amendmend VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

However, US copyright law, Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 504 (c)(2):

In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

How is $150 000 NOT excessive? Maybe in the case of big business this could be concieveable, but for the average US citizen, $150 000 is the cost of a house, which many people pay off in a 20 year span. Granted, I don't think this fine has ever been imposed, but it's still stated as the legal maximum. That seems pretty GD excessive to me.

Smart move from the RIAA

[__aailob1448]

Let's take a closer look at what they have done here:

1-They settled at an incredible speed, thus turning the story into an over and done with non-story and closing a very ackward chapter in their litigious history.

2-They imposed a fine big enough to financially harm the [poor] family and act as an efficient deterrent for the girl and her mother but small enough not to outrage the public.

3-They showed consistency in their current policy. If they hadn't fined the mother, other people could have claimed unfair treatment. Not that it would have changed anything for them legally but it always sits well with the media.

4-RIAA is evil. I know it's irrelevant to my post but this *is* /. afterall.

Perspective

[Cirrius]

I am sure $2000 is no small sum for a single mother with 2 kids living in an innercity apartment.

RIAA is still feeling the backlash of suing the pants off of Napster instead of collaborating with them to create a new paradigm of legal online music sharing. Imagine if they had been in their current state of being when tape players came out. Or the radio. "They are just sending out all our songs through the air where anyone can get them with a radio box? Sue EVERYBODY!"

The death throes of a bloated corporate entity is a painful thing to watch.

good old single moms

[focitrixilous P]

No group gains as much sympathy as the single mom. In regards to the RIAA execs behind this, I quote my father. What happened to all those good assassins we used to have?

Re:good old single moms

[vegetablespork]

Oswald and James Earl Ray are dead. And I doubt the CIA has any interest in knocking off Sherman, unfortunately. Though I can imagine a family man who lost everything to the RIAA might consider blowing himself up and taking a few RIAA employees with him to the great beyond. Not that I advocate such an act of terrorism, of course.

Kind of disappointing

[yoshi1013]

I must admit that when I heard that this case was settled so quickly that I was really disappointed.

Though I understand that these people don't seem to be the type who would want to be on the forefront of something as controversial as all this music downloading stuff. From the articles it sounded like they just made an innocent mistake and just didn't understand everything they were doing.

I guess what irritates me the most is the way that the articles on the settlement read. The quote about how realize now that filesharing is bad just makes me picture someone in the RIAA curling his mustache in victory.

Because really suing a 12 year old child and hundreds others who could be equally ignorant of their situation is also really terrible.

Regardless there should be a large backlash against the RIAA. (One can only hope).

This is pure cold cost analysis....

[siasl]

The negative PR cost of this is much worse than anything they can get from them. This is pure damage control....

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.

[KyleW]

Where do I sign up? I never donate to cyber panhandlers but I'd gladly give this girl $10 (Canadian so that's 50 cents US).

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.

[funkdancer]

I'm not by any means loaded, but in this case I'd be willing to donate US$10 as well. If only 199 others would do it too (plus some for whatever overhead), it'd be a good fun & help the poor girls too...

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[denisdekat]

I love your idea, where is the .org site?

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[benspikey]

I will donate $5 for this girl...

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[NanoGator]

"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."

I say we buy $2,000 worth of CD's and return them the next day.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll contribute for size.

Let's have her collect more than $2000 and put the money away for college or something. It's bad enough that these RIAA pricks probably scarred her for life - at least some good can come of it.

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.

[NanoGator]

"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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Stevyn]

Alright, then lets do this. With this on the news and papers today the RIAA should have dropped this imediatly. Because of their neglect for common decency, we should show them what this Slashdot community can do once we work together.

I saw several people saying "Yes we should do this" and I will offer the responsiblilty of doing this.

My email address is pompeli2@tcnj.edi
I would not give this out if I was not serious.

Let do it

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,
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 ;-) (this should be embarassing
enough).

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[JackpotMonkey]

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.

The web site in question that she paid $29.99 for access to all this "free music" is here. You should really check out their faq page, quite a funny read seeing as how they basically are charging you for a link to kazaa or a kazaa networked app.

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 /.'ing Feels like.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Matrix2110]

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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Famatra]

Tell me a time and place, and I will gather there with the rest of the protestors and buy a CD then return it.

Its a very good idea, but we need the follow though now.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[SamSpectre]

CNN lists her full name as Brianna LaHara. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music. swap.settlement/index.html

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[bwalling]

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.

So, if you get a parking ticket, should you only have to pay it if you make more than $30K? What about fines for other crimes?

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Dave Walker]

Was thinking the same thing myself. Tell everyone you know "I don't want CD's for Christmas because..." and "I won't be buying anyone CD's for Christmas because...".
Christmas season is make it or break it for them, just as for many other businesses. Believe me, they'd sit up and take notice!!

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I started my boycott two years ago. I only buy used cd's and DVD's if I want to see a movie or hear some new music. Haven't stepped into a theater in over two years as well (to the chagrin of the lemminglass).

It was tough not to go see the LOTR, or the Two Towers, or Matrix reloaded on the big screen - but RIAA, and MPAA don't deserve a thin dime from me.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[zangdesign]

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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It was tough not to go see the LOTR, or the Two Towers, or Matrix reloaded on the big screen - but RIAA, and MPAA don't deserve a thin dime from me.

But you watched them on video or DVD, though, right?

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Would those be the same retailers who make anything up to 50% the sale cost of a CD from their mark-up?

(Aren't interviews with record company execs fascinating things? :-))

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[maddskillz]

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

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.

[I_M_Noman]

Second, boycott MTV/VH1 and your local Clearchannel station

Unfortunately, in many locations Clear Channel is the only game in town. Here in NYC alone they run 5 of the top stations, including the top Hispanic and Top-40 (or whatever they call that nowadays) stations as well as the only classic rock station. (And how sad is that, that there's only one classic rock radion station in NYC?)

Another problem is that Clear Channel also control many of the billboards that you see next to the major highways. In Northern NJ they have at least 5 alogn the NJ Turnpike. As long as people want to advertise on a billboard, they'll have to pay Clear Channel. And you'll probably read the sign. I know I do.

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.

[the web]

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.

Naw.....it's all in the spin. Obseruve....

$2000.00 worth of CD's were liberated from music stores today. They were burned on the steps of the capitol, and the artists recieved 2 dollars/cd from the liberators. This equates to a 2000% increase in money earned per cd for the artists.
Film @ 11.

**dusts hands**

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Nope.

Haven't found it used at a garage sale or video store.

Might borrow a friends - none of these methods enrich MPAA.

Also, when I'm done watching the DVD I usually sell it for a profit on our corporate intranet classifieds board.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[helpfulcorn]

You don't have to have any money to own a computer. There is no limit to owning a computer (as stated above by rob_benson). And as I have said before and will say again, a P90 (or a little faster) running Windows 95 can handle many P2P program and they don't cost much at all. I recall a P90 costing about $10 on Ebay. And as for internet access, who said they had broadband? To me you sound like some damn redneck ranting about how Mexicans are stealing your jobs or something. Shut up, you're stupid.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Stevyn]

Damn, it's pompeli2@tcnj.edu. Thanks Pooley.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[fsharp]

How about if we all send in one cent or a nickel on behalf of this girl to RIAA? Okay so there may not be enough /.'ers to make up the $2000.00, but maybe start a website with a howto.

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[cjjjer]

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.

Of the 5 people I know that live in public housing they can't afford to purchase a computer little alone the cost of dialup internet. These people may be actually doing well for themselves since they can afford both of these luxuries. Add the fact they are probably using Cable/DSL internet access. It would be interesting to see the public housing authority investigate this family only to find out they are cheating them as well. Which is totaly possible with all the press these people are getting.

Re: Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Black Parrot]

> The EFF did not have time in this case to do anything. This was brought to wordwide attention and settled in one day. [...] If this case had come up before a judge. There would have been hell to pay.

If it had stayed in the news a few more days there would have been hell to pay anyway, judge or no judge. The RIAA took especial care to make sure they settled it before the EFF, or anyone else, could make an issue of it. (What was it, about a day between the news of the suit and the news of the settlement?)

But their settlement still looks extremely harsh under the circumstances, and can still be milked for much PR benefits if people send the girl donations and the story hits the national news.

The problem remains of how to get the address. I think the best approach would be for someone who lives in the area to contact a reporter or DJ, who might have better luck at digging up the address, since those kind of people really like these "everyone helped a child in distress" stories. (A DJ might feel a conflict of interest, but you never know. Especially if you spin it as "She thought it was legal!" rather than "Help us stuff the RIAA".)

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[jav1231]

I agree. You can debate whether someone in public housing should have such amenities, but we are focusing on a single principle here. We want to send a message to the RIAA. I would be more than willing to make a donation. Furthermore, at $2k a pop, there are enough like-minded people I'm sure to cover many more such settlements. JAV

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[mrogers]

And prison sentences ought to be proportional to life expectancy. Women should get slightly longer sentences than men, and non-smokers should get considerably longer sentences than smokers. God damn healthy do-gooder freaks.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Syrrh]

What a delightfully ass-backwards idea! If you're poor, you can't be held liable for your actions! And all this time we thought it was the rich who could avoid real punishment.

The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12? It's not like the RIAA is going to shake her down for milk money, her mother is the one assuming responsibility. Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.

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

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[MoggyMania]

Given (Supplemental) Social Security only pays out a bit over $500 per month to live on, yes, I would call that a deterrent. Even $50 is a "deterrent" when it's all you have for a food budget each month.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[wurp]

Already done.

From http://boingboing.net

Help pay back the RIAA's 12-year-old victim
Emmett Plant is running a collection-plate to pay back the 12-year-old honor student who lives in a New York housing project who was intimidated into turning $2000 over to the RIAA to keep them from suing her for file-sharing.

Donate here

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[crotherm]

Seems to me that in a game of chess, no-one cares about the pawns.

Seems you don't play much chess. Pawns are VERY important.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Syrrh]

just as for many other businesses

That's the problem. To hurt the RIAA, you'd have to boycott them for a LONG time. If a real organized effort was made through December, it might give them some nervous thoughts, but no real damage. Retailers could be seriously crippled by such actions, ruining their one big sales period. Maybe that's an acceptable casualty for some, but don't act like you can ever hit the RIAA directly, they're too well-insulated.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[RocketSHE]

Problem #3: Air pollution.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[quintessencesluglord]

Ah, so time=money. On an order of magnitude, as much as a 50% difference for life expectancy. Variation of 50% on fines.

Except life expectancy is fairly finite. Money isn't.

Not to mention a lifetime prison sentence looks dramatically different to a 20 year old than to an 80 year old.

False analogy. Your turn.

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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[aiabx]

Then don't listen to the radio. We aren't talking about food and water here. Crappy radio stations are a luxury we can live without.
-aiabx

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[mrogers]

Thanks for the address. I've written to Mr. Cranleigh expressing my contempt for the RIAA's behaviour and enclosing $5 in greasy, crumpled dollar bills towards Ms. LaHara's settlement. I hope he wastes at least half an hour working out how to dispose of the money legally. Other Slashdotters with leftover holiday dollars might consider doing the same... or feel free to use a more obscure currency of your choice. Be sure to ask for a receipt. :->

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[zangdesign]

And you'll probably read the sign

Reading's still free, however, don't patronize Clearchannels advertizers. I didn't say this would be easy - in order for it to work, it has to hit a large number of people in the pocketbooks.

What you have to understand is - they've got all the money. About all we've got is our own money and the ability to spend it somewhere else.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[bhtooefr]

Make it a SourceForge project? (The RIAA Boycott project, with a non-RIAA music search engine - I know, there is one...) I would hope sf.net could take a /.ing, as slashdot.org can...

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[5KVGhost]

That's silly. The legal justification of these fines isn't to deter people, it's to compensate the RIAA for the monetary damage they've supposedly suffered through these illegal activities. The intrinsic value the RIAA attaches to those 50 tracks should be exactly the same regardless if the person breaking the law a 12 year old girl in public housing or Milton M. Gotrocks, Esq. downloading songs from his penthouse apartment.

If the value they choose to fine people is some random number based then I'd say that would substantially weaken their case.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Snarph]

Who says they purchased the computer? Maybe someone gave it to them. I usually give away my old systems to people or charities that can use 'em.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Zarkonnen]

Though I haven't followed the entire thing close enough to be sure, I do seem to recall that the "fines" imposed by the RIAA are a bit arbitrary.
And actually I don't think they are what one would properly call fines. They're lawsuit settlements. A fine, on the other hand, is something the state gives you because you've been naughty. If you are given a speeding fine it's not to compensate the state for the damage you did to the road, but a punishment for you breaking the law.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[mrogers]

Except life expectancy is fairly finite. Money isn't.

My money's finite. If yours isn't, can I borrow $1000?

Not to mention a lifetime prison sentence looks dramatically different to a 20 year old than to an 80 year old.

True. I should have said proportional to remaining life expectancy. So if you murdered someone when you only had a week to live, they'd lock you up for three days. Or execute you, depending on state law... how could you make that proportional?

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[maddskillz]

Same thing happened to Teemu Selane (NHL Player)

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Rich Klein]

Hasn't the EFF been going to bat for *all* the families (and individuals) being attacked by the RIAA?

2k! She's a Kid

[Bruha]

Yeah lets just take food out of the mouth of a young girl. She's a minor and the punishment does not fit the crime. Why not just let her talk to her school class about it. Taking 2k from her mother is a little harsh.

Should I be taken for my whole life savings or lack of for a traffic violation?

Personally the RIAA has broken tons of laws to gain this iformation on the downloaders. Wiretap's have to be approved by a judge and carried out by law enforcement personel. Where's the order and what group performed the investigation. I'm sure there are plenty of judges to just allow the entire law enforcement community to scan all internet traffic for song swapping while bin laden and co are passing messages on how to blow up their next target.

And doing so over the internet probably has violated the rights of people overseas by tapping their communications. And that all crosses state lines so they're in violation of federal wiretap laws along with international law enforcement treaties and other laws to prevent this type of abuse.

What we really need here is a class action against the RIAA over their lawlessness just to bust a few file traders.

how can they start suing without winning any case?

[superfast-scooter]

i didnt know that the riaa won any case proving that online swapping is illegal. (someone correct me if i'm wrong)
if they didn't, how can they just go out and sue whoever they like?
this is akin to someone taking the law into their own hands cos they feel like it (which is against the law).
so, if i am not wrong about my first statement, it would be alright for sco to go out and file suits and sue ppl too. and then "settle" with them? and make some money that way.

and if i am right, what law of the land gives them the right to "settle" cases with the people they have sued?

so now the big corporations have also become the law-makers?

This is sick

[Dr Reducto]

I have no words to describe how disgusted with the RIAA for this. A family living in the projects forced to shell out $2000, because they deprived a corporation of potential revenue!
I know I am preaching to the choir, but how do these people sleep at night? How could any artists agree that their newest Hummer is worth this?

Wow, Go Dick!

[Ro'que]

"Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" Senator Dick Durbin asked RIAA President Cary Sherman during a Senate Judiciary hearing.

In other news, I bought my first album from BuyMusic.com today. I would have waited for iTunes to go PC, but the specific CD I wanted was available for $9.50 so I went ahead and got it. The download was fast and everything was painless...The only thing is I can only burn my songs to cd three times and transfer them to three other computers. Of course, an Audigy 2 and a standalone digital recording setup says otherwise. Anyone want some Utopia Parkway MP3s? ;)

The end of all intellectual property

[Rooktoven]

I hope (seriously) that this helps lead to the entire destruction of the music industry, and eventually to the elimination of intellectual property in general. If that kills capitalism, leading to a breakdown of the social strata and revolution on a grand scale, so be it.

This is very fishy....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is very fishy....

[vegetablespork]

Interesting hypothesis--mod parent up!

More likely, I think, is that this girl was carefully targeted, and that there's some kind of underhanded "payment plan" that will result in the family never actually paying anything significant. Consider an analogy to American POWs who signed North Korean or North Vietnamese espoinage "confessions" and were paraded for propaganda.

EFF?

[moosesocks]

Who here thinks that the EFF should offer $2,000 to the girl and her family?

I'm sure that they would have been more than happy to pay legal fees if this ever went to court. (The mother obviously settled outside of court, because of being threatened with a fine of MUCH more than $2,000. )

Either way, if it did go to court, she would've been tried as a minor... which would have been quite interesting.

Picture of Girl

[satanami69]

The Arizona Republic article has a picture of the offender.

The modern mafia

[MoFoQ]

Looks more and more like the RIAA is the modern day mafia, using lawyers and threats of civil lawsuits to extort money out of people. Hell, even 2000 bucks is more than what they would get if the people they extort that money from were to buy the CD's (2000 bucks worth of CD's vs 2000 bucks of profit without having to pay distributors or music stores or having to pay expenses like....the CD itself).

The best part of this sort of extortion? It's legal. At least since no one has the guts to challenge them in court (and thanks to the profits they make, they have a lobbying power almost unequaled). In addition, they own a few politicians, whom I hope will retire or get caught in a scandal and their wives kick them in the ....well...you know where.

Hell, I choose the Italian mafia over the RIAA....at least they don't go after the average joe and they don't use lawyers, the world's most hated parasite, even more than crabs.

Well, if things go the way they have been, my pitchfork and flaming torches will have to be replaced with new ones by the end of this week.

- Arnie for prez!

This Will be Bad for the RIAA

[dmarx]

This is going to blow up in the RIAA's face. Look at who they're suing-a 12 year old girl who lives in public housing (just now settled), a grandfather, soccer moms, college kids-pretty much every segment of the population. With the exception of the 12 year old, all these people vote. More people downloaded songs than voted for Bush. Trust me-lawmakers will not stand by while their constituency gets sued into bankruptcy. Either:
-The DMCA will be repealed (so it will be harder to subpoena people)
-The damages that one could sue for would go down from the current $150,000/song (I think that's more than what you'd get for shoplifting a CD!) to an amount that would be the civil law equivalent of a speeding ticket.
-One would not be able to sue for nonprofit copyright infringement
-One would not be liable for a lawsuit if one's net worth is below, say, $1 million.
-A combination of the above.

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...

[TLouden]

I like that view, not that I know it's true but if it is then I'll start to d/l anything I can find. In fact my school has unused fiber lines at night, so using my laptop and ethernet I could get an entire store of music in a week. Then I'll sell hard drives with all this music to everyone for the price of the hard drive. Then RIAA will go away. And then the artists will have to make new songs to make any money because everyone would already have the old ones. Now I just have to get passed that district firewall...

[To the distric: Don't worry]
[To RIAA: Bite me! See what we can do.]

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

How was she, or anyone else who downloads music, not hurting artists in some way?

It stands to reason if you grab an artist's music without paying for it--regardless of how much you hate the RIAA or disagree with how much percentage they get of sales--you still didn't pay for that artist's album. And it will show up when the label looks at record sales and eventually drops that band for lack of it.

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.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[detect]

and that's a bad thing?

Yes, she didn't pay for the album... but she hasn't got a copy of the actual CD either. The same people who download music now are the same that would have taped the album off someone else pre-napster. The people who buy the CD are the fans who like the artists/album enough to buy the damn thing for it's own sake.. not just to have a high quality recording of it.

As for the poor starving artists u refer to, they should start becoming a little more business conscious and treat their profession as a job and not a free ticket to bundles of cash. Any true artist that signs to a label knows what they are sacrificing by doing it, make no mistake. The artists get jerked whether some 12 year-old downloads this or not. Full fucking stop.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[kscd]

You've made some valid, interesting points. However, when you say:
"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"
It's not really realistic. Almost all new artist deals are for five albums, with the option to extend to at least two more. How many artists' careers do you know that last that long? Sure they sometime re-negotiaite after the first big one or two, but fact is they're locked in. And short of declaring bankruptcy, they pretty much can't leave the label.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Jerk City Troll]

How was she, or anyone else who downloads music, not hurting artists in some way?

You're being overly critical!

It stands to reason if you grab an artist's music without paying for it

It isn't the artist's music, once they sign their rights away to a record label. They don't own it, the RIAA does. Often times, the RIAA never compensates the artists for sales. Artists making money from music sales is rare. Furthermore, the labels often require the artists to compensate them when the artist performs music publically, like in a concert. This is called selling out.

regardless of how much you hate the RIAA or disagree with how much percentage they get of sales--you still didn't pay for that artist's album.

Now, I disagree with the war in Iraq, but I will use a common argument. Under Saddam Hussain, the Iraqi people had food, water, electricity, and so forth. Nevertheless, Saddam was still a ruthless dictator who order the tortures, rapes, and murders of Iraqis. Now, under the RIAA, the artists get an initial compensation for their music, but they are abused and screwed by the RIAA continuously.

The goal here is to destroy the RIAA. When the RIAA no longer exists (what a dream), the artists will be forced to sell their music directly to music listeners and receive 100% of the revenue rather than 1% of 1%. How horrible!

And it will show up when the label looks at record sales and eventually drops that band for lack of it.

And then the band realizes they must choose dirt-cheap Internet based music distribution and reap the rewards. One can only hope this is how it will work.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[ergo98]

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?

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[detect]

Exactly. The only artists that get screwed over are the dumb fucks that would get screwed over no matter WHAT career they happened to choose.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Spectra72]

..and 10 years ago, No Annual Fee credit cards were unheard of as well. Doesn't mean things can't change or the artist couldn't simply walk away without signing and go to a smaller label that will allow them more flexibility. Or go to no label and put their music on the Net.

I'm sorry, maybe 10-15 years ago your argument would carry more weight with me. In this day and age there are just too many choices for me to feel sorry for artists.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[AEton]

Under Saddam Hussain, the Iraqi people had food, water, electricity, and so forth. Nevertheless, Saddam was still a ruthless dictator who order the tortures, rapes, and murders of Iraqis. Now, under the RIAA, the artists get an initial compensation for their music, but they are abused and screwed by the RIAA continuously.

Sweet. Let's "liberate" the RIAA - I can see it now:

Reporters: Commander Jerk City, Do you have any more information on the location of Mitch Bainwol?

JC: [dodging the question] We are very close to finding and liberating all the RIAA's artists. And if any of those thugs want to fight back, well, we'll show them a fight. 50 Cent? Bring 'em on!

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[jcam2]

The goal here is to destroy the RIAA. When the RIAA no longer exists (what a dream), the artists will be forced to sell their music directly to music listeners and receive 100% of the revenue rather than 1% of 1%. How horrible!

If it was really that easy, why aren't artists already doing this? Maybe today it might be possible by setting up a website and selling MP3s, but until recently the only way to sell music was on CDs, tapes or vinyl. No singer or songwriter wants to spend his time visiting millions of record stores making deals with each one individually ..

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[the_truk_stop]

Hopefully, people will keep downloading songs so the RIAA will go away!

Incredible. That's the exact wrong thing to do. Downloading the songs gives the RIAA the legal right to come after you, regardless of how stupid and baseless their supposed reasons for doing so may be. You'd be setting yourself up to drop your coins in their coffers.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Bitmanhome]

I hate to reply to a troll (especially down here, where noone reads) but there's actually a good point hiding in there. The music industry is set up precisely the way everyone wants. The artists like the marketing and noise they get from radio and MTV and awards shows. And the consumers like buying "brand name" music -- It's not just pop, its Britney Spears(tm) brand pop!

Does this mean the RIAA is reasonable? Not at all. Does this mean the RIAA are lying thieving bastards, abusing musicians, customers, and the legal system for big piles o' money? Most certainly. Does it need to be stopped? You bet.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[hyphz]

Simple. It's because they fall into two categories:

- The big famous established musicians, who *don't* get such a bad deal on their contracts (because labels compete for them);

- The small musicians, who have no chance of being distributed if they don't sign with a label.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[hyphz]

Um, I don't know where you got this idea from.

Nobody's ever said that Madonna or Britney made only $3/cd, that I know of. These big names get good contracts for the simple reason that if they want to, they can go sign with another label who'll be happy to have them.

The ones who get screwed are the little guys who have to get lucky to get into a label at all. If they do, the low pay they get cripples them.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[ergo98]

Oh boy, slamming the RIAA. You're a real original. To really be a Slashdot rebel you should stick a few jabs against SCO as well. Go get em tiger!

As a sidenote, due to a revised Goodwin's Law you instantly lost the debate: Claiming someone with a contrary opinion is a "troll" is one of the weakest, most juvenile debating techniques. Mind you the rest of your incoherent spittle set the tone pretty well.

I'm waiting for the story "Kmart arrests 11 year old girl shoplifting lipstick" - You do realize this happens, right? Damn that evil Kmart! The girl just wants some lipstick, and doesn't every little 11 year old have a right to free lipstick?

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[ergo98]

The "low" royalties that artists make, including the big names, has come up quite a few times as a justification for piracy (the old "Well I'll just tip them more in some hypothetical tipping universe where such talk was actually more than just lip service").

As far as the little guys who get screwed: Why do they sign up with the big labels? Who is grabbing their hand and forcing it on the contract? Are all little guys poor defenseless pawns unaware of their rights? No, they're very aware, and they're also aware that at the time it was a beneficial thing for them to do.

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[ergo98]

I hate to reply to an idiot (especially down here, where noone but the idiot reads) but what is your point? That mass culture desires a common experience (which we normally call pop)? Yes, you are correct.

Does this mean the RIAA is reasonable? Not at all. Does this mean the RIAA are lying thieving bastards, abusing musicians, customers, and the legal system for big piles o' money? Most certainly.

Uh, how did the original point "mean" that the above list of descriptors? People want hot dogs at the park, therefore that means that hot dog vendors are lying thieving bastards, abusing customers and hotdogs and the legal system for big piles o' money? Sorry, I don't quite understand it.

When these sorts of stories come up (RIAA stories) it really betrays the average young age of Slashdot: One where life is a simple black and white divide between poor, innocent consumers, and bad evil big business.

People Just Don't Seem to Get It

[Jack Comics]

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.

Re:People Just Don't Seem to Get It

[Lothar 0]

Neither bards nor their music could be infinitely replicated for all to share and enjoy. However, their medieval patrons, like the RIAA had a large sway in what the laws of the land were, and who would be subject to them.

When guns are held to Puffy's head with demands that he sing, then I'll concede the point to you.

Re:People Just Don't Seem to Get It

[Ridgelift]

People just don't seem to get it. Whatever you may think, people are not entitled to music. Never have been. You are entitled to life, liberty, housing, food, water, and clothes, and right to legally acquire property

You're right. But at the same time, people should only be punished "an eye for an eye". It's ludicrous to think that downloading a song is so heinous a crime that a person should be fined thousands. At most it's a misdemeanor, a slap on the wrist.

What use is a "free" country if large corporations and/or organizations can extort large damages just "to send a message"?

Re:People Just Don't Seem to Get It

[SandmanWAIX]

Culture and Art is an important part of human history, and is a mechanism for how we define ourselves as individuals and as a race in general. Music has always been free, performances have not. Now that we can reproduce recorded music at no cost, it now can be re-classified again as art instead of a business. Artists can now be truly called artists again. They throw their title around as if they are truly inspired and want to produce something for people to really enjoy and perhaps even accept into their culture. However we all know that they just wanna get paid and get da hundred dollar bills yall. Distributing music instantly, freely and across the globe will help to achieve the goal of the true artists out there. True artists want to reach their audiences and inspire them. Give them something to enjoy. Bards charged for their performances, or were sponsored through the government, and future musical artists can be paid the same way. Noone will be able to make millions of dolars from singing one song and profiting by selling it at ridiculous prices all over the world. The playing field will be much more even. Like it or not, the new revolution is here. Music can now be placed back high on the shelf as an art and not an industry.

How low can you go?

[billyradcliffe]

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.

Umm that was sarcasm

[KU_Fletch]

You know... the thing where you say one thing but mean another for the purposes of wit or humor.

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.

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

[Black Parrot]

> $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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh?

Polished what?

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

[FrankDrebin]

$2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.

That's exactly what I thought.

Seems a little too swift and convenient. It's all settled nice and neat, RIAA looks tough but fair, kid probably gets a new bike, and no public court documents.

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

[cappadocius]

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.

But why? To prevent looking like a bully? They still do. If they really wanted to avoid a PR problem why not simply not sue her?

Just because they get the subpoena doesn't mean they have to follow up on it.

Mark my words, one of these days one of those subpoenas will find a lawmaker's kid on the other end, and the RIAA will run away from that court room as fast as they can.

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

[BenSnyder]

"That's only my opinion without any facts."

And this was modded +5 Insightful... lol

I kid.

Seriously, with the RIAA taking $2,000, that has to mean something. Either it means that they don't think handing a $2,000 fine to a low income single parent family for the actions of a 12 year old about a non-obvious point of law to the majority of Americans isn't going to generate much bad publicity for them (or not as much as it would have otherwise), or it means that they've just released a negotiating price.

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

[Zeromous]

Yes, thats just like slashdot to mark this as insightful, yet completely dismiss my post where I pointed this out on the last thread.

This is propoganda aimed at children, attempting to set an example, via this little girl.

Its so obvious, that they never intended to fine her anyway- like someone else pointed out, I thought they were going after top sharers too.

I seriously doubt this 12yo girl moved any sort of digital media on par with the average user.

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

[digidave]

Chances are they had some pro bono lawyer who didn't have time to really study the case. He saw a list of songs the girl was trading and said, "looks like you're guilty, take the offer". And he'd be right. Why would this family take the chance of losing in court (which they couldn't pay for to begin with) and owing many times more money?

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

[pgrote]

"That's only my opinion without any facts."

"And this was modded +5 Insightful... lol "
I wanted to make it very clear to any RIAA lawyers that this was my opinion and no way represents any basis in the real world. :-)

Wow, I think I now understand myself better. ;-)

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

[DCheesi]

They needed to settle to put a definitive end to it. Simply failing to follow up would have left it open ended, and everyone would remember the original action but not the later inaction.

The question is: why $2000 instead of $2? I'm guessing $2000 is normally their lower limit on settlements, but still... Is there some legal reasoning why they couldn't make an exception in this case, or do they really think that $2000 is reasonable for a family in the projects to pay?

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

[donnacha]

> 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.

Brilliant idea and you're right in thinking that it's just the kind of heart-warming crap that would go down well with the American public but you're forgetting exactly that the same creeps who own the music companies own all the news sources with any kind of reach. No ambitious journalist or editor who values his career is going to run with a story that he thinks might blot his copybook.

Corporate America doesn't piss on Corporate America, just Americans.

For what it's worth, though, I think we should still do it, I'll contribute. And, hey, maybe we should buy her an ipod.

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

[Danse]

I'd chip in for that. Anything to give the RIAA a good nipple-twisting.

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

[WasterDave]

More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back.

For instance, we will offer you $2k to say "I didn't know downloading was illegal, now I know I was wrong". And, tadaa! Problem solved.

Dave

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

[RafeDawg]

$2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.

I'm with you. When the story broke that a 12-year old was being sued, the mother was the model of outrage, calling the suit ridiculous and vowing to fight it. Now she's down on her knees repentant and forking over 2 grand.

This behavior just doesn't add up. I can understand a shift from righteous indignation to remorse in order to make the problem go away. What I can't accept, however, is the idea that a single mom from the projects would be willing to throw in $2000 on top of that.

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

[digitalcowboy]

Mark my words, one of these days one of those subpoenas will find a lawmaker's kid on the other end, and the RIAA will run away from that court room as fast as they can.

And mark MY words, no one will EVER hear about it.

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

[AbbyNormal]

Mark my words, one of these days one of those subpoenas will find a lawmaker's kid ...

You're new here aren't you?

All it would take is one call from Daddy/Mommy to the RIAA. Situation closed.

Other RIAA suits

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Come on. . .

[loraksus]

There has to be at least 1 mentally unbalanced person with a rifle who gets one of these lawsuits . . .
Maybe next round then.

Little Brianna sold out...

[godivx]

We almost had the perfect story to stick it to the RIAA.

Be patient. One of these cases is gonna bite them in the butt. And I can't wait to see it.

Let's see how many senators reconsider

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:Let's see how many senators reconsider

[Sphere1952]

And on the next day we set our sights on the MPAA.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is...

[Funksaw]

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "taking candy from a baby."

-- Funksaw

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...

Re:What sort of legal precedence does this set?

[n.wegner]

The "settles" part in the title sounds like it didn't make it to court. That means it doesn't set a legal precedent at all.

Re:What sort of legal precedence does this set?

[Solarbeat]

Settlements do not set precendents, as there was no court decision.

Re:What sort of legal precedence does this set?

[phorm]

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 information?

[KalvinB]

The personal information that was collected was allowed BY A COURT ORDER. Are you going to claim the court committed a crime by ordering her information released?

Ben

Re:what information?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

That is certainly possible. On appeal, the court order can be found improper and illegal. It has happened before, and it can happen again. Some "justices" need to be disbarred. Some deserve more drastic measures than that, but that's another thread...

You won't get modded up ... a shame ...

[pgrote]

but you are onto something. I am amazed hardly anyone has picked up on how well their usage has improved. I'm even more amazed that they changed their stance in one day.

I have a feeling there is more to this story, but I have a feeling the settlement will preclude them from speaking on it in the future.

No facts to base this on; just gut instinct.

w0rd

[appler]

I didn't even know there were projects on the Upper West side. Then again, I walked into like three wrong classes at school today. Thankfully, Ebeneezer RIAA wasn't there waiting for me with a lawsuit.

How did they track the kid down????????

[Kref1]

Im assuming that they track people down by IP address and subpeona the ISP for information about the user. I didnt know that and ISP would allow a 12 year old girl to sign up for an account. Why wasnt the lawsuit against the mother, and how did the little girls information get to the RIAA.

Re:How did they track the kid down????????

[Cliffy03]

That is a good point. Considering the articles about this go on about account holders getting sued and not even downloading anything themselves. Unless of course it was the media putting a spin on the story and trying to sell some papers.

As an aside, a Google search of sued points first to the EFF article, "How Not To Get Sued By The RIAA For File-Sharing".

...And watch your "independent" music...and more

[waxdaddy]

I'm ridiculousliy pissed off about this settlement. My girlfriend didn't seem so agitated, but when I said, "Well, wait until they come after you, then complain," the argument was over.

I used to support the catch-all "F**K THE RIAA, BUY INDEPENDENT," but for all of you who think that you're buying independent, you'd better do your research.

I listen mostly to hip-hop (underground and whatnot). Over the past few years, fans like me have been fortunate enough to see good, indie hip-hop get signed on and distributed by Caroline.

Now, Caroline Distribution (caroline.com) is a HUGE independent-music distributor. But, what most people do NOT know, is that they are now owned by EMI. And because of this, all music distributed by them is now wrapped up in the wonderful world of the RIAA.

Therefore, if you plan on "only buy[ing] independent music from now on," you'd better do your research and be prepared to buy that music from very, very limited and hard-to-find resources. There are at least a dozen Caroline-type companies out there now, so keep those peepers open.

I still say "F**K THE RIAA," regardless. And shame on the lawyers that most certainly bullied Brianna & her mom to settle this case in like 24 hours. If they'd have given it a week, carloads of defense lawyers would be in front of their housing project.

Oh, and here's a link to the member list for the RIAA. A lot longer than you thought, eh?

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

-waxdaddy

they have CCR there, WOW!!!!!

[polished look 2]

but i rarely listen to music other than the radio so i don't consider it worth $29.99/month.

I said it before...

[DroopyStonx]

and I'll say it again:

Wow, those RIAA sure know how to clean up the streets to make it a safer place for the rest of us!

That 12 year old girl is definitely a menace to society and should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. That'll teach those criminals.!

If you're saying, "Oh that's bullshit they're suing a 12 year old girl," then just think of how safer the streets would be without this internet thug running around downloading songs left and right.

Helping her brother with homework? BAH! That's an innocent facade that's used to hide her true nature. She's a HORRIBLE MUSIC DOWNLOADER!!

[/sarcasm]

I wonder how these assholes can sleep at night.

Shit like this just makes me want to download more and more CDs without paying. Makes me wanna go out and spend $20 on 100 CD-Rs and make CDs for everyone I know just so it fucks the RIAA. That's all it does. Brews animosity.

Re:I said it before...

[Channard]

I wonder how these assholes can sleep at night.

I wonder why you wonder. After all, PR wise, this may be a disaster, but many corporations have shown to have few qualms when it comes to making money - this isn't any different.

12 Year Old?

[EverDense]

How can the RIAA go after children?
Aren't kids incapable of being responsible for criminal activities as defined by law?

How about ...

[pgrote]

The RIAA somehow pushed the money to them or that no money was even exchanged? The RIAA gets off by looking like it settled and did some good by enforcing rights. Now, they sweep this under the rug and move on.

Amazing how more people haven't picked up on the simple fact that it took less than 48 hours to make this happen. Given the national exposure, the target of the RIAA and the pressure it should have taken longer.

Just my opinion. :-)

New Meaning to Prisoner Rape

[Baldrson]

Just think of all the pre-teen girls the RIAA can pimp out in the prison system! Talk about work restitution!

Show your love

[chunkwhite86]

Show your love of music and support independant artists!

There are web sites like CDBaby.com which sell all independant music and charge very low prices! Tired of filling the pockets of the RIAA? Me too.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way affiliated with cdbaby.com. I'm just a very satisfied customer and a fan of some of the independant artists who's CD's they sell.

RIAA and CANADA

[Seeker_betahotmail.c]

Can the riaa sue us in canada, if so then they can F*** off and if not, then ill burn and send to you, YOU ONLY PAY THE S&H

Mail It In

[SomeOtherGuy]

Yea...I saw on the national news last night sandwiched in between the 87 billion to rebuild Iraq for the next month and a little story about more people dieing since "after the war
" than during the war that the RIAA was going after the "heavy hitters"..If this little girl living on welfare is one of the top 250 "heavy hitters" than I weap more than ever before at these bastards....I hope that someone in power sees this and realizes that things have gone just a tad bit to far for these greedy bastards. I think that that it would be really cool if these national news chains that think this is such "top news" follow the RIAA to the projects to collect their 2 grand from this poor family.

The RIAA needs competition.

[MoOsEb0y]

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.

Set up the SAVE BRIANNA fund!

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Anyone know if there is one?

They aren't held accountable....their parents are.

[ciphertext]

Their parents, as the legally responsible guardian, for the 12 year olds are reasonably responsible for their children's actions.

The library ...

[pgrote]

... is also a good way to find new music as well. It's a protected right ... for now.

Re:The library ...

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

",,,for now" is a good point. THe RIAA has been trying to kill resale of used CD's for years. If they can only get DRM mandated, they can realize their dream. If ever a group of slimeballs needed to get SARS en masse and die a horrible death that would be them.

I don't fault the artists (by which I do not mean boybands, bubblegum, rap or any of the other shit the RIAA is pushing) that are forced to do business under the RIAA banner in order to get ANY air time at all. I fault the useless functionaries of the RIAA itself.

Alienate your customers. Yea that's a brilliant idea...

Re:The library ...

[Danse]

If ever a group of slimeballs needed to get SARS en masse and die a horrible death that would be them.

I'd prefer to see them get a particularly nasty case of genital ebola. It would still be terminal, but much more satisfying in the process.

Re:The library ...

[Rogerborg]

You know, the Romans used trained giraffes to rape people to death. Now, I'm not suggesting that we do that to the RIAA. I'm thinking that a sufficiently large and determined horse should be sufficient.

Re:The library ...

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:The library ...

[KlomDark]

Giraffes? Where did you hear that?

Re:The library ...

[bhtooefr]

Nah, their assholes are bigger than the goatse guy's - when they're NOT stretching them... I think we need nuclear missiles for this job...

Re:The library ...

[Radish03]

You're legally allowed to make one backup copy of media you own. It would seem to follow that legally once you stop owning it, you should no longer have any backup copies.

Re:The library ...

[Rogerborg]

I may have dreamed it

$2,000 from a welfare family.

[vegetablespork]

A truly proud day for American industry.

I just don't understand.

[alex_ant]

Some uninformed but apparently well-meaning kid does something stupid and illegal and her mother, who IS RESPONSIBLE for her and IS IGNORANT of the law, allows it to happen, and Slashdot erupts in incredulity. What the fuck??? Yes I'm aware the family lives in public housing, but it's not like this family will be cast out onto the street or be unable to eat. They did something VERY STUPID and got called on it. Considering the sizes of some of the other lawsuits the RIAA is pushing, they should be RELIEVED they got off only owing $2k, which they will undoubtedly be privileged to pay off in installments.

Re:I just don't understand.

[alex_ant]

Dear Anonymous Dipshit: YOU CAN'T SUE A 12 YEAR OLD!!!!! Which is why the RIAA sued her LEGAL GUARDIAN, which would be HER MOTHER.

Another link

[Andrewkov]

FYI, there's another story about this over at The Register.

Heartless ***es

[TLouden]

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.

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. :D

Political Action against the RIAA and associates

[randall_burns]

The TV/Movie/Music Industry donated about $9.4 Million in the last election cycle.

In this election cycle, Top recipients include Kerry, Bush, Dean, Gephardt, Boxer, Edwards, Lieberman, McCain. If you are a constituent, let these public servants you don't like the company they keep.

I've read that on the average a company gets a 300 fold return on investment for political contributions. The abuse of justice we've just seen didn't occur under the older rules-basically the major media companies have bought major changes in copyright law.

Personally, I think we need a major revamping of copyright laws and reconsideration of how we provide incentives for science and the arts(i.e. lots of federal funds are basically wasted in this area and wiser direction of funds could create a bank of popular material people might actually listen to that could be availble for free download--as well as stuff as free curriculum materials for education. This is just basic infrastructure for an information age.

However, these kind of issues aren't going to get on the table in a society with the best government money can buy.

Purpose of Copyrighting

[SSonnentag]

What ever happed to the purpose of copyrighting? Weren't copyright laws put in place to prevent others from making MONEY off the work of the copyright holder? Copyrights were never meant to prevent buyers of products from using, sharing, or giving away what they bought. Down with the RIAA! Boooo! Judges that back up the claims of the RIAA should be ashamed of themselves. What a bunch of good-for-nothing creeps!

Re:Purpose of Copyrighting

[Little Brother]

Copyright laws were designed to make sure works entered into the public domain after a reasonable period of time. Prior to copyright law common law gave artists sole right to use their material AS LONG AS THEY LIVED. This needed to be limited so copyright laws were invented. Now copyright laws extend copyright protection BEYOND the lifteime of the creators. Copyright law is now operating as the exact oppisite of what it was origionaly intended to do, instead of making sure that all materials eventualy enter the public domain, it makes sure that all materials created after Mickey Mouse DON'T enter public domain. Grumble.

Don't even get me started on the ridicoulous, wrongheaded idea of "intellectual property" by the way.

emusic

[nick_drake]

I've used emusic, and I've been happy with the offerings: some things I'd been looking for as well as some new things I've started liking. The nice thing about emusic is that you can share the account with a few friends, bring the relative price down.

Ironically, I downloaded an album and in one of the songs the guy raps: "We've been workin' too hard for you to f**kin' download it." I chuckle every time I hear that line.

Re:emusic

[TheDarkRogue]

What song is that?

Re:emusic

[nick_drake]

it was something by People Under the Stairs. I couldn't find the lyrics to the song online, so I'm not sure which one it was.

It's Evil.

[chris_sawtell]

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.

Of course they would, had they known it.

This is one of the most outstanding examples of Corporate America's anti-social behaviour I have yet to see. They have stood over an essentially defenceless pair of unfortunates and demanded Two Grand out of them. Is extortion a legal activity in the US now? Just what do they think they are doing? It is this kind of behaviour which justifies in so many peoples minds the murderous actions which took place in New York just on two years ago. Note: Both acts are wrong and two wrongs never make a right. I am outraged by this. It's totally over the top. In just two words It's evil.

Could /. have quick whip-round and collect the money to pay off the extortionists? Perhaps not, that will only encourage them.

Re:It's Evil.

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Actually, thanks to the DMCA, extortion IS legal in the US.

It's a 12 year old girl for god's sake!!

[canning]

RIAA President Cary Sherman had this to say to any potential file swappers after the settlement...
"I want your heart. I want to eat your children. He is no match for me when I am right. I want to rip out his heart and feed it to him.

Re:How much will "The artists she loves" really ge

[realdpk]

The artists pay for the lawyers (perhaps not directly). The settlement will probably go straight to pay the lawyers bills, but it probably will not cover the bills entirely. So, the artists lose, again.

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.

Re:Simple Solution

[TLouden]

That's much better stated than my post right before yours but exactly how I feel.

Re:Simple Solution

[Spectra72]

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.

Re:Simple Solution

[Chromodromic]

Your post is pretty multi-faceted, and I don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to answer briefly.

First, read this.

As to culpability, you have a point, to a degree. Musicians, whether they are qualified or not to make their own business career decisions, certainly *should* be qualified or they shouldn't be signing. (It is, I think, important to note that this could be said of a great many individuals in a great many industries.) And yes, they do make mistakes, and yes they pay for them.

There are some mitigating factors, however, and real points to made about our culture, the dreams of artists (as any individual in any career may have dreams about future successes), and the carrots that are waved in front of the faces of artists by an already existing and quite powerful music industry.

Firstly, when discussing artists in the music industry, it's important to include B-level artists, studio musicians, singing groups at various levels of the pipeline, and garage musicians who are working hard to create something, in addition to the luminaries of the industry such as those you mentioned, Prince and U2. These are people that picked up their instruments and started acquiring their performance chops probably between 13 and 18, some of them even younger, and have been playing, practicing and worshipping at the altars of their idols for *years* before they've acquired the musicianship, songwriting ability, and/or singing/dance/performance skills necessary to be interesting to anyone besides their parents.

By the time they hit an age where their talent and skills are formidable enough--and many never do--they are *primed*. They're hungry. These are people that move to different cities for opportunities, who take bum jobs to support their dreams, and who bust their tails on top of the tails they've already been busting to try and get some attention, favorable press, the eyes and ears of someone who has any kind of power.

And why? Because, in order to duplicate the successes of the Princes (who wore the word "Slave" on his forehead for years and only broke from his label after a protracted fight, before he achieved any real independent success, which, by the way, begs the question "Where has he been lately?") and the U2s (who also had their own battles, and who struck out only after riding on the backs of labels to begin with), these younger artists need distribution. You can garner local attention, you can even make your own videos and albums. But there's one thing technology has not enabled, not really, not yet: distribution channels for product.

This is where the RIAA helms the ship. And this is where they're tough to beat. And before anyone goes replying about the Internet and all these downloadable tunes, keep in mind that real distribution isn't just about shipping product, although that is a big portion of the pie, it's also about advertising, branding, image building and a ton of other things. These younger artists have been weaned on the heroes of an entire, and very real, "industry", in all the senses of that word.

So is the RIAA needed? Well, for a national music industry, played by the old rules, yeah, they're needed. Neither Prince, nor U2, would be where they are today if they hadn't first hopped a ride on the RIAA's train. But that doesn't make the RIAA right, and that doesn't make their methods excusable. It just makes them powerful.

God, how many stories are there, from blues musicians in the thirties, forties, and fifties, on up to current bands today, like Incubus, getting into wars with their labels either over getting rooked for hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars, or selling millions of albums only to end up having made about $50,000 a piece?

Honestly, I could write on this forever, supplying documentation, examples of my own contracts, anecdotes of friends, war stories ... But I hope this point of view has shed some light, from an artist's p

Re:Simple Solution

[Zoop]

The word you're looking for here is "monopoly".

OK, actually "cartel", but it's much the same. And then there's "supply and demand" coupled with "music is cheap or free".

To have a chance of getting "big," at least prior to the advent of MP3s, you had to sign up with the RIAA-affiliated record company and hope against hope that some no-talent hack in the front office would champion your disc and actually promote it.

The urge to make music for other people is frequently an obsession, so the record industry basically plays on it. Since they know you'll probably make music, even if you're having to put a hat on the street by the subway, that all they have to do is offer you lottery-like odds of getting paid. Just enough do to make it look attractive--and how many poor people go to 7-11 on even more remote hopes to play the lotto?

Partially, it's also a supply and demand problem. There is ALWAYS another musician to replace you. So you don't have a choice since the big companies have cartel-exclusive distribution deals with Sam Goody's, etc. but they can always get another boy band/hair band/whiny chick on a guitar. Increasingly, they don't even bother but simply hold auditions and look for dancers with nice teeth and bods that they can fake the music for.

There's also, quite frankly, an underappreciation on the part of the public of how much work it takes to be a musician. I used to handle organizing groups for a service our music school would offer, providing low-cost live music for local charitable organizations.

There's low-cost and then there's insane. I was frequently asked to provide a quartet on $50. Not per person, for everybody. I couldn't even get college students to give up their Saturday or Friday nights for $12.50. The rationale of the people was, well, we're only paying for a couple hours' playing so we're paying better than minimum wage.

Except that there's the setup and teardown, there's the hours of practice you put in the rest of the week, all leading up to those two or three hours on the gig.

So: consumers don't think music is "worth that," a bunch of slimy lawyers (but I repeat myself) have gotten a legal-on-a-technicality monopoly through a cartel, and there is always the kid down the block willing to play his Casio for free.

- an ex-musician

A response?

[Peristaltic]

You know what would be cool-

Use the same sites that've been used to generate Flash Mobs to organize some small groups of people around the nation to stake out some CD outlets. It doesn't have to be some full blown "protest", we could walk around in front of the stores for just enough time to get the attention of CNN, or the local 10 O'Clock news, but in many different cities across the nation, and at the same time...Make sure that someone has a sign showing a RIAA dragging a 12 year-old girl by the scruff of the neck....

...might embarass the RIAA mafia, might not, but it's worth throwing the idea out here...

Re:Wag the dog?

[Manic Ken]

That was my 1:st thought!! Listen, any 12 year old girl who says 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love', either is told by the riaa what to say, or doesnt exist...'don't want to hurt the artists I love'.
yeah right. Poor Britney...

Wait, I'm confused

[GuyMannDude]

yes, $2000 for a single mom with two children living in the projects. more like this is all they had in the checking account.

Maybe I'm getting senile in my old age but hasn't the RIAA already done a vigorous analysis and determined that each file shared illegally warrants a fine of $150,000 per song? The fact that they settled for $2K almost suggests that perhaps their initial number wasn't quite as solid as they originally claimed.

Either that or they are using a formula that factors in the "criminal's" age and socio-economic standing. Or perhaps that $150K number was just pulled out of their ass...

GMD

Re:Wait, I'm confused

[DeepRedux]

The $150,000 per song amount was determined by Congress. Title 17, section 504(c)(2). This is a maximum amount; the actual amount awarded is up to the court.

now if only ...

[superfast-scooter]

the remaining 260 people who got letters from the riaa would visit their local newspapers ... the young and the old ...the reaction i am sure would be soo intense, it wont get over in a day, not if the riaa hired 260 different lawyers

Music Makes Little Girls Cry

[_aa_]

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.

Re:Music Makes Little Girls Cry

[chris_sawtell]

And the next time you call yourself an "artist",
don't forget to put the prefix "con" in front of what you call your calling.

Rolling Stones?

[Zen Programmer]

What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones.

I seriously doubt she would be listening to the Stones. Brittany and Justin are probably cracking open a vintage bottle of Cristal for the occasion.

I'm ready for them.

[nolife]

I just downloaded the Fox in Socks mp3...

If they come after me they are in for one hell of a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle.

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:261 top downloaders?

[reboot_imminent]

Not only that - but how about the simple bandwidth necessary for her to be one of the top suppliers (and RIAA is supposed to be going after them)... how likely is it that a family on public assistance has a T1 line vs. a 56k or cable line?

So . . .

[vegetablespork]

. . . who's organizing the drive to buy this kid's family $2,000 worth of used or non-RIAA member CDs to replace what she agreed to delete? Or, better yet, donate the $2,000 in CDs to the nearest public library to her apartment. The scumbags at the Raping Internet Anally Always haven't bought enough of Congress to make libraries illegal yet, right?

It's not just the scare tactics...

[rynthetyn]

...it's that the girl and her mother are already poor and disempowered individuals--they live in a public housing project, for crying out loud! For the RIAA to go after little girls living in poverty is just sick and heartless. I didn't realize that even an organization like the RIAA had so little conscience. They're probably taking food out of that family's mouth. Sick.

emusic is amazing

[PiNSiR]

Thanks for the tip, I had never heard or emusic before but when I read, "free of DRM" I just had to check it out. This site is fantastic, as a rap fan I was impressed to see that they offer songs from artists like 50 cent, del, and mobb deep; all without DRM.

I thought that Itunes was revolutionary but emusic says that they have been around since 1998, what do ya know?

Re:emusic is amazing

[Apathetic1]

eMusic was bought by Vivendi Universal so you'd just be feeding money to the RIAA anyway. I was a subscriber for a year but axed my account after Universal screwed over some of my favorite artists at MP3.com.

Minors and Software Licenses/Contracts

[gizmonic]

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?

Re:Minors and Software Licenses/Contracts

[JeffTL]

You are quite right that the underclass cannot evidently enter into binding contracts in the US. However, there is no license on a music CD. There is just copyright law.

perhaps he's a dentist

[Sean Clifford]

perhaps 50 cent is a dentist?

maybe you wouldn't consider his work 'Art' with a capital A, but i think he qualifies for the moniker

Re:perhaps he's a dentist

[N1KO]

He provides people with entertainment, not art.

Re:ISPs required to keep logs?

[anubi]

Does the law specify what format the log has to be in? I think a hex dump onto toilet paper would be appropriate.

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?

Sure...

[MP3Chuck]

Slashdot wouldn't let me post the list (too few characters per line, apparently), but if you check here there's a listing of indie music sites. A couple on the list are indie band resources, but I think nearly every site on that list has free music to download. Any reference to "Free" Or "Not Free" on that list is in regards to artist signups.

Enjoy!

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[JeffTL]

I believe a certain Ari Deaubleigh or somesuch was the main artist who profited.

RIAA wonderful PR work

[borgesian]

For all of those who have silently solidarized with all the emerging talent openly exploited and ripped off by record companies, its fascinating to observe how RIAA is working really hard at antagonizing public opinion against them. This will ultimately hurt them big. Are they really the ones to give lessons in morality ?? We will need to briefly look at the way the have been overcharging for music that costs them proportionally little to produce. Should I feel sorry they can no longer inflate their bank accounts at rate they used to ?? Im all for artist support, but all against supporting the greed of parasitic middlemen. Keep up the good work RIAA.

Look for this article in a year....

[Darth_brooks]

You won't find this story. Strangely, it will have been replaced with a speech commemorating a fallen soldier named comrade Ogilvy.

(translation for those who haven't read 1984: Prove the RIAA actually sued a 12-year old girl, and that this story isn't a careful fabrication designed to spark fear amongst those who are downloading)

Re:Look for this article in a year....

[Ho-Lee-Chow]

Prove the RIAA actually sued a 12-year old girl, and that this story isn't a careful fabrication designed to spark fear amongst those who are downloading

That is ridiculous. Why would the RIAA disseminate propaganda that makes them look bad? Next you're going to tell me that rumours of George W. Bush's past cocaine use were planted in the media to improve his popularity in the crackhead demographic.

Here's a clue: nobody is impressed by a huge multi-billion dollar association beating up on a 12-year old girl living in the projects. A more likely candidate for fabrication would be the story of university student who was sued for several hundred thousand dollars for running a search engine for his university network. He subsequently settled, agreeing to give up his entire life savings. Of course, since the student in question discussed the details on his own personal website, the story's probably true.

Just because the media fabricates, misquotes and lies quite often doesn't mean they are not capable of telling the truth.

Re:Look for this article in a year....

[LesPaul75]

I think the reasons are obvious.

1) To strike "fear and awe" into the hearts of downloaders. "Wow! They sued a 12 year old! They wouldn't hesitate to sue my ass."
2) To make legitimate online music services look bad. "I'll never download anything online again!"

It makes sense. The RIAA already looks bad. It's not news to anyone. But, until now, they've looked powerless to stop file sharing.

Re:Look for this article in a year....

[Ho-Lee-Chow]

It makes sense. The RIAA already looks bad. It's not news to anyone. But, until now, they've looked powerless to stop file sharing.

Hmmm. Until now, they've looked powerless to stop file sharing, even when they sued a college kid, Jesse Jordan, and he agreed to give them his life savings ($12,000)? I still think that story is much better ammo for the RIAA. Supposedly, he wasn't even sharing files, only running a search engine for his university network. Apparently, this story has the added benefit of being undeniably true, unless you think his personal website is an RIAA front. I sure hope it isn't, since Jesse Jordan's already received a little over $12,000 in donations, and I'd hate to see those funds going back into the RIAA's coffers. But, considering he and his father have interviewed on CNN, it's probably a true story.

Okay, let's suppose the "RIAA sues 12-year old music pirate" story is wholly untrue. I don't think so, but anything's possible. Or, maybe the RIAA really sued a 12-year old girl, but they made up the part about the $2000 settlement; maybe the family doesn't have to pay anything. This scenario is much more likely.

It still makes them look bad. Before this story broke, we knew that the RIAA was suing hundreds of American citizens for downloading music. We knew that at least one college kid gave up his life savings rather than fighting the RIAA in court. We've all seen the RIAA's anti-music piracy propaganda spots on TV. Now you're telling me the next logical step is to beat up on a 12-year old girl living with her single mom in a housing project?

1) To strike "fear and awe" into the hearts of downloaders. "Wow! They sued a 12 year old! They wouldn't hesitate to sue my ass."
You imply that, in order to scare us, the RIAA wants us to believe they would intentionally sue a 12-year old girl. Then, when asked if the RIAA knew of the girl's age, why does the RIAA spokesperson say they have no personal information on those who are being sued? They make it sound like it they didn't mean to sue a 12-year old. By your theory, they should be claiming the opposite: that they fully intend to pursue all "music pirates", regardless of age, class, income, etc. If they really wanted to look like hardasses, wouldn't they say something like: "We don't care if it's a 12-year old girl or a 90-year old grandmother, we'll sue anyone who steals our intellectual property. Theft is theft, regardless of the perpetrator's age."

Re:Look for this article in a year....

[Ho-Lee-Chow]

Well, now it looks like a group called P2P United is offering to pay the girl's bill. Won't their faces be red when they realize she's a imaginary person constructed for PR purposes?

Mom should've known better?

[veg_all]

To get a glimpse into user's conception of the state of affairs, check out this NYT article (reg, blah, blah). See the picture of the poor mother after she "was informed of the lawsuit by a reporter," (Times-speak for injecting the correspondent as actor) and read in horror as she opines through apparent tears, "'Why don't they sue KaZaA?' Ms. Bassett added. 'Why are they suing the people? That's the part I don't understand.'"

No one is addressing this glaring disconnect between the conceptions of regular users and the situation as seen by both techies and the RIAA. Her son might have understood what he was doing, but he is a minor, and she is legally (and monetarily) obligated to cover the civil damages. She didn't even know it was wrong. Did she miss the full-page ads in National newspapers? Doesn't she read Slashdot? It doesn't matter (except for her). This is a case of miscommunication, and the reprocussions in popular media will only make the RIAA look like crass bullies. That is a good thing. This was a major misstep on their part.

RIAA has powers outside of the USA ?

[MarkTina]

Does the RIAA have any powers outside of the US ? Also (and correct me if I'm wrong here) are they tracking those nasty file sharing pirates by requesting from the ISP who was using the particular IP's at the time of the crime ? If so in the UK it owuld be a breach of the Data Protection Act for the ISP to give out the users name and address because the last time I asked the RIAA is not a govermental police force (at least not in the UK :-) but are funded by the music industry, who also apparently should only be producing music and not sponsoring vigilate action.

Useless

[quantaq]

So many intelligent people on slashdot...so many opinions about how wrong this whole situation is. I've become very disheartened that absolutely none of you are willing to really *do* anything about any of this. Personally, I think for starters, a good thing to do is start making people aware of the situation/ your opinions/ what might be done about it. I for one am going to quit reading these posts and take my own suggestion. Even if it's just something local (like my college campus). Get off your asses.

Oops - RIAA caught in yet another lie

[BanjoBob]

From the referenced article: "We're trying to let people know they may get caught, therefore they should not engage in this behavior," Sherman said. "Yes, there are going to be some kids caught in this, but you'd be surprised at how many adults are engaged in this activity." And... From the earlier article: Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals." So, they know about people being adults but they don't know about people being children. Ah... Ya right.

ah well

[toddhunter]

Lets face it, we had a good run, downloaded a lot of free stuff and burned a lot of CD's. Did we ever think that it would really last forever?
Sure we can fight the good fight, but I think it's time we redirected our efforts to the next scam. That way the general media can go on for the next 10 years about pirating music whilst we have safely moved onto something else.
Any ideas?

Re:ah well

[vegetablespork]

Yeah, I got one. I spend the rest of my life enjoying what I've already downloaded, plus buy stuff from non-RIAA labels. And I never put another cent into RIAA members' pockets. Ever. Amen.

Unsigned and Indies [Re:Consumers unite!]

[Sphere1952]

Buy directly from unsigned artists. Buy from Independent record labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't enough that they lose. Their competition must do well.

Why can they reveal her name?

[*xpenguin*]

If she's a minor (12 years old), why can they reveal her name (Brianna LaHara)? It just proves everything was made up.

Re:Why can they reveal her name?

[AceCaseOR]

IANAL, but I believe they can reveal her name because it is a civil case, not a criminal one.

Re:Why can they reveal her name?

[Little Brother]

The family probably gave permission.

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

[arkane1234]

The door told you not to.

didn't you hear it as it cracked?

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[Zork the Almighty]

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: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?

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[richie2000]

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.

That turkey won't fly, mister. Darl McBride says that you can't just release stuff without copyright like that, it's unamerican and only terrorists would even think about it. Now go report yourself to the nearest RIAA office for re-education and attitude adjustment.

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[psychofox]

> 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. Nonsense - there is a big difference between something being illegal, and something being a civil breach of contract...

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[axxackall]

Thank you Dun Malg, you are the very first person who understand my logical argumets correctly. I admit that my English skills are not enough and of course IANAL. But someby help me to explain it to other people: unless you sign something (or pressed the button agree) AND break that agreement - you did not break law by downloading any content from internet. And if someone is trying to bring special law like DMCA or whatever for another way around (breaking the concept of presumse of innocence) - then it's unconstitutional and must be defended in a higher court.

Re:Sharing vs downloading

[poofmeisterp]

It's a shame that the mother was so willing to pay up. What you said rings very true.

$2,000? What a bunch of monsters

[Ridgelift]

It mights as well be $20,000.00; that's a lot of money for a single mother.

I want to donate $5.00 towards paying them back the moeny the RIAA stole from them. They were quick to settle because they know it's bad PR. If we the ./ community all chipped in a couple bucks, we could send them a cheque for $2000.00 easily. Not only would we be supporting the poster child for corporate greed gone bad, but maybe even catch the media's attention and send the message that the RIAA's actions are just plain evil.

Who can I trust to take up a collection for these folks? EFF?

they will think of the consequences

[yajacuk]

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.

Re:they will think of the consequences

[Cheeze]

so if she shared the average of 1000 songs, and there are about 2 songs per cd that are wanted off of each cd, that means she would have had to buy about 500 cds at the new $12.95 price. That's almost $6500. The $2000 settlement comes to about $2 per song.

Inflated cd prices???? No Way....(sarcasm intended)

I wonder what they would have done to her if she had an ITunes receipt for each song. The mom should have gone out that night and spent the $1000 buying each song she could on ITunes. Sharing legal mp3s should give the RIAA lawyers a much harder time in court, especially with the 12 year old girl on the stand.

Re:they will think of the consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't steal anything. You people that equate copyright infringement with theft exasperate me. Either you're disingenuous or your just don't understand the concept that a probability of a lost sale is not the same thing as deprivation of a physical item. Posting AC because I'm not karma whoring.

~~~

Re:they will think of the consequences

[Anonvmous Coward]

"She stole something (copyrighted material from the Net), got caught (by the RIAA) and was forced to pay for it."

Your attitude would do a sharp 180 if you found yourself paying some big entity $2,000 because you broke a law you weren't aware of. You'd be thinking "Why didn't they send me a cease and decist?"

"That's how I see it."

How can you see while you're view is obstructed by your anus?

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:RIAA View Of Humanity

[Guppy06]

"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."

If they were to only stop looking in the mirror all the time...

Re:RIAA View Of Humanity

[ph43thon]

Unless you mean to suggest that the average internet user does not illegally download copyrighted material, your statement is ridiculous pig water.

Now.. I'm not certain about all internet users but most people I know do download music. And, I'd be willing to bet that the main reason the average user wouldn't download music is because they probably can't figure out how to do it.

Also, you aren't making the distinction between stealing from other people and stealing from corporations. I imagine some people see nothing wrong with "stealing from the haves" The question is... how many believe that..

Re:RIAA View Of Humanity

[Elbow Macaroni]

They only have that view of humanity because that's how they are. They do what they can to get what they want. Too bad they are so stupid.

Re:RIAA View Of Humanity

[mark-t]

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.

Unfortunately, this assessment is not too far off the truth. For the laws that people don't care about, it is *ONLY* fear of retribution that will keep the average citizen from disregarding it.

Examples of such laws are laws against speeding, laws against jaywalking, laws against certain types of narcotics, and laws regarding the strictly controlled distribution of copyrighted materials. When the ability to violate such laws is readily presented to the average person, and the chances of being caught are statistically insignificant, it is sad but neverless true that most people succumb to the temptation.

Re:RIAA View Of Humanity

[16K Ram Pack]

Analysis of the laws you mention...

Speeding. How many countries have identical speed limits? Some jurisdictions have none. Mostly, speed limits are based on stopping distances of cars from 40 years ago, and designed to raise taxes.

Jaywalking. No jaywalking law in the UK where I live, or in France. How come we don't view it as a morally bankrupt behaviour to choose to cross the road when it suits you?

Narcotics. Stupid 'war against drugs'. Governments deciding to legislate on free-market transactions between 2 people.

Mostly, laws work when they have general consent of the population. Busting industrial pirates seems to have consent, but many people see sharing as an OK thing to do.

Re:RIAA View Of Humanity

[16K Ram Pack]

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

But corporations who get involved in price-fixing do it because they know they won't.

RIAA can blow me...

[http101]

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?

MOD PARENT UP!

[rarose]

I agree totally... I doubt the little girl or her mother paid a dime.

Petition or something

[d03boy]

We should all sign a petition or something similar that we will never again buy another CD until the RIAA is no more. I'm sure there would be plenty of signatures to effect the RIAA's future decisions.

Here's what needs to happen......

[dubdays]

I hope one day these RIAA suckers go after the wrong person. Think about it... hacking into a computer system to see what songs Lil' Johnny has recorded off Sesame Street. Then, sue them for breaking and entering a private computer system. Here's even a formula for punititive damages: $2,000 / [Poor family's monthly expendable income] * [RIAA monthly profit] That'd really shove a broomstick up their sorry a$$es!!!

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

[malfunct]

I don't feel sorry for anyone, the RIAA is within thier rights to pursue people illegally distributing thier copyrighted material.

That said I want things to change in the record industry so we should fight this the correct way, a true boycott. In order to do that not only must we not buy cd's, we must not download the music either. As long as people are getting the music through illegal means the record industry and the government has someone to blame other than the people who have kept the price of cd's artificially high even after telling us that cd's would be cheaper than cassettes because they cost less to manufacture.

Re:$2,000? What a bunch of monsters

[Little Brother]

I'd like to pledge $10.00 if this gets off the ground. Sombody willing to set up a fund?

RIAA afoul of COPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the collection of evidence, usernames, etc. in order to track down these users. Could it be possible that the RIAA ran afoul of COPA (Child Online Protection Act)?

My understanding is that COPA is supposed to protect the personal information of a child under the age of 13. Infact, isn't it illegal to keep any identifying information on a user under the age of 13?

When the ISP turned over the name on the account, did they turn over the parents name and the girl was fingered because the mother didn't use Kazaa, or did they specifically release this girls name?

I think this should be investigated further..

Re:RIAA afoul of COPA?

[digitalgimpus]

It's Kazaa that's guilty.

RIAA didn't know who she was. She was just an IP address and username.

The fact that Kazaa collected the information is what's afoul.

But Kazaa isn't succeptable to US Laws... isn't it incorporated overseas?

Radio?

[Kircle]

Nowhere is it written in any constitution nor holy book that every citizen is entitled to music.

But you get to listen to the radio don't you? And you get to listen to it for FREE (heaven forbid!). How is downloading music, which RIAA has equated with "theft," different from taping music off the radio?

I am really and truly disgusted

[The Master Control P]

They buy the DMCA, use it to force information out of her ISP, and when they find out they are attacking a child they continue. Anything I say about this will be a faint euphemism compared to what it is.

And of course, guess that Brit Hume says at the end of the hour? "You must pay the price." Yeah... Nice example of empathy, there. A 12 year old girl and her single mother, who probably couldn't pay the damned cartel anyway, have had their lives pretty much ruined after being assraped by a senile, rabid dinosaur.

WTF?

[be-fan]

Who wants to bet that quote from the girl was also part of the settlement? Sounds a bit too well put-together for a 12 year old...

Not even as gifts....

[donnacha]

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.

Re:Not even as gifts....

[User8201]

Oh, your poor friends! Actually one of the reasons people like buying music is because they have a nice shiny case to put on their shelf in a "library". Don't laugh, I'm serious!

And books, unlike music that has fallen out of favor, actually WILL be looked at every so once in a while.

Re:Not even as gifts....

[AbbyNormal]

Dito, I just sent an email with that news link to all of my "less" techie friends. My Boycott starts today.

WRONG!

[Newer Guy]

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!

Re:WRONG!

[Politburo]

The example you provide is a total strawman. Please do not use such arguments again in this debate.

They do it all the time by using a loophole which allows laws to be enforced UNTIL they are proven unconstitutional.

While this practice can result in unconstitutional laws being used as threats until they are challenged, it is the proper course of action, and is not a loophole. If Congress was required to show constitutionality of a law before its passage, lawmaking would not occur. It is not the job of the legislature to determine constitutionality. The judiciary is already busy enough with cases which concern existing, in-practice, laws. They do not have the resources to even begin to hear debate on hypothetical laws. This debate occured during Congressional hearings on the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance laws. The right action occured: pass the law and see what SCOTUS does. What happened? SCOTUS heard 4 hours (!) of oral arguments on the case the other day. They will return a decision in a few months.

Why was campaign finance challenged immediately, and the DMCA has yet to be challenged? A few reasons:

1. Standing. One must be affected by the law to challenge it. This means that those truly against the DMCA must wait until those gray provisions are used to be able to do anything about it. While this has occurred, few have yet to seriously challenge it.

2. Money. The people that were affected by campaign finance have a lot of money to spend on legal proceedings

The problem is not Congress passing unconstitutional laws. The problem is that the cost of our legal system is very high. This results in many people choosing to take a safe bet on settlement, rather than challenge a law which may or may not be constitutional, where a loss would result in much more damage. However, we will be unable to fix this problem because the only logical fixes to it are considered socialist by American thinking. The fix I speak of is full, free, state provided legal defense. While public defender and pro bono lawyers exist, it is widely known that their quality of service leaves much to be desired. Furthermore, public defenders are only provided in criminal cases (I may be incorrect on that point). Proper legal research costs money. There is no way around it. However, proper legal research is what wins cases. Until we have a system where both parties are guaranteed near-equal legal representation, the abuses will continue.

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.

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rikkards]

Seriously, I haven't donated any money to a cause but I will easily donate $10 just to piss off the RIAA. Why doesn't someone do that. Set up a fund for this girl. Any extra money goes to her getting her postsecondary?

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rocca]

Paraphrased:

Seriously, I haven't donated any money to causes such as AIDS, food for children programs, cancer research, but I will easily donate $10, rather than actually buy my music, just to piss off the RIAA and ease my own conscious with the fact that I've stolen several hundred songs and didn't get caught, yet.

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rikkards]

Seriously, I haven't donated any money to causes such as AIDS, food for children programs, cancer research, but I will easily donate $10, rather than actually buy my music, just to piss off the RIAA and ease my own conscious with the fact that I've stolen several hundred songs and didn't get caught, yet.
and never will. I don't live in the US I live a little North where it is legal to do it :P
Trust me I don't feel guilty copying music. If the RIAA came out with their version of ITunes with good quality files (not MP3s though maybe AAC) I would pay for each song.
But in the meantime I am willing to pay the extra fee on cds.

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rocca]

I live a "little North" too, and it ain't legal here either. :-) Just because there isn't a law forcing ISP's to reveal the identity with a simple form, it's still quite possible for them to file a proper search warrant in Canada too in which case the ISP will hand over your identity. It's just easier to prosecute in the US currently, but that doesn't make it legal in Canada. I do understand the problem though, trust me, I've been waiting for one of the pay services to be available in Canada too but I fear that when one does become available that the people that have been stealing 'guilt-free' for years won't put their money where their mouth is and start paying for music legitmately. :-(

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rikkards]

I think you should read one of the main stories today. It is legal in Canada. It was decided when they imposed tarrifs on blank CDs if you are going to charge someone because of copying then you can't stop people from doing it this was geared more for home recordings but included CDR as well and due to the wording P2P is included.

But I do agree it is too easy to steal and when pay services do become available in Canada for music and video it may be difficult to compete.

OT: Netflix come to Canada PLEASE!!! I want an alternative to Blockbuster and Rogers Video where I can actually get a DVD that is older than a year and may not be one of the big boxoffice movies!!

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rocca]

Interesting article. I wonder if it's had any legal challenges?

I find it difficult to accept the authors interpretation though, particularly around the idea that a copy of a copy of a copy is still fine and the hosts are okay because it is the downloader making the copy.

There are a few other holes too, for example common-sense would indicate there isn't a 77 cent duty per CDR since I can buy CDR's for about 30 cents at any local or big-chain computer store. Another example is that the law says when copied to "audio recording media" which would be a stretch to include a hard-drive and specifically is not referenced in its levy list. Also, SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers of Music of Canada) seems to have a differing opinion as stated in tariff T22 (filed October 1999 in the Copyright Act, section 67) states that ISP's are liable for royalties on music files cached in proxy servers because they are now broadcasting the content. Perhaps the loop is home use in this case, but it seems like the law is definitely not clear.

None-the-less, I was surprised to see the legalization of private copy (thanks for the link), but I don't think this allowance would cover hosting in Canada since their providing of the files isn't for their own private use.

Hmm, found an answer on the 77 cent CDR tax, it's only 5.2 cents according to the link in the article. (I have no idea where he got 77 cents from). :-) ...maybe time to fire up my burner. <grin>

Re:Please, let's do this...

[rikkards]

I have heard it before with regards to copying but I think he is just connecting the dots with this.
FOr example: I am allowed to back up my data and I am allowed to lend someone my backed up data and they are allowed to copy it for personal use. Now if I happen to "backup" my data onto my hard drive and let a billion people borrow my data and essentially copy it what is the dif? I think the arguement he has is that since it is the downloader who is taking and I have allowed him to take it, it fits into the category. However I do think it is a bit of a stretch and will have to see what happens...

FOX presents: Saving Brianna LaHara

[Apostata]

The heart-warming story of a girl who turns from a life of crime to leave her depraved single-parent life, to follow a path of selfless righteousness and moral fortitude. God bless the RIAA.

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

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

[Ibanez]

I think it was mentioned in an article or some comments a while back that they would "offer" popular songs and record people downloading them. Not to mention they can search for the songs themselves and simply list all the user names that pop up in a search for a group/artist.

Oh, and er...you CAN search by username and pull up a list of the songs each username has for download. At least in most of them you can.

Blake

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

[DeepRedux]

I think that the RIAA is targeting sharing, not downloading. A P2P program, like Kazaa, can automatically put downloaded songs into the share directory. So somebody can be sharing files and not realize it. That may have happened with the kid in this story.

The RIAA can find sharers by just using Kazaa, etc., as a client and searching for things to download. When they find a something they download it and note the IP address of the server. With the IP address and the time, they can get the users name from their ISP.

If the RIAA wants to prepare a possible court case, and not just fire-and forget some cease-and-desist letters, they would want to actually download some songs and compare them to the real CD versions. They only need to download and check a handful for each user, not all that a user is sharing. It would not cost a lot to use some low paid assistants to check songs using a fast forward playback.

I do not think it is possible to hide the address of a server from a client when they are connected by TCP. Only the packet header information is needed, not the packet body. Encrypting a link does not had its IP address.

If they wanted to go after downloaders, the obvious solution is to setup their own servers and see who downloads. There may be some legal issues doing this.

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

[the-build-chicken]

Thanks for your answer.

However it still leaves me wondering...how can this constitute a legal argument. There is no direct evidence of sharing, only circumstantial evidence?

Offering popular songs...surely that has to be some type of entrapment

Searching for songs by names...who's to say they're copyright material?

Unless they have something else, this seems like an extremely flawed legal case (IANAL)...am I missing something here?

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

[the-build-chicken]

Thanks :)

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

[Spectra72]

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.

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

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Thing is, no matter how they want to act like it, the RIAA is NOT a governmental agency, so they are not subject to the same rules as entrapment and so on, especially in a civil case. However, (and they seem to forget this) they are not given the same powers as a police agency. The RIAA are still civilians, though they think they are royalty.

More like robber barons.

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

[TC (WC)]

I'll just point out that making a song available for download on, say, Kazaa probably isn't entrapment either. You aren't being enticed into downloading it. If you know you have no rights to the file, and you go out and look for it and do it, then it's your fault. Honeypots aren't entrapment.

Assuming prostitution is illegal in the area, a cop can wander around and try and get people to ask them for sex for money. If they're asked, the cop can then arrest the guy for attempting to pay for sex. The cop can't wander around asking people if they want to pay them for sex. *That* would be entrapment.

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

[vDave420]

...I do not think it is possible to hide the address of a server from a client when they are connected by TCP...

Now, it is true that you can see the source address in a TCP packet. However, your next statement is quite alarming. Let me repeat it here:

...Only the packet header information is needed, not the packet body...

This is quite true, at least to locate the source address. However, to be used as proof in a civil or criminal case? I doubt it! After all, the claim of wrongdoing is that the CONTENT isn't allowed to be sent, not that the SENDER isn't allowed to send a packet.

What about a scheme that has the sender send you essentially "random" ecrypted data, as encrypted via a third party, requiring the third party key to unlock it.

Certainly it would be unreasonable to give pretend "rights ownership" of said "random data" to a music company.

Which brings up another point.
Aren't there essentially limitless ways to encode the same piece of audio data? Are we as a society ready to give away "exclusive rights" to data (and all encodings) that can be encoded in infinite ways?

I hope to god not!. I for one, am not willing to, and will do everything in my power to prevent this. Alas, that which I can do is limited, but the combined efforts of hundreds of geeks will be noticed.

And so, I ask again: Which slashgeek is going to run for office this election? You will (probably) have my vote, just because you will be aware of technical issues, and not totally clueless of technical issues, or willing to cave into the first company willing to throw thousands of dollars at you.

-dave-

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Are you kidding?

[Cpt_Kirks]

No, the point is, "The RIAA is the Bad Guy, We are the Good Guys".

The Forces of Light will get the good press on CNN, etc.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Arioch of Chaos]

My thoughts exactly... I would much rather donate to someone who was actually fighting back. Even if donations would help the girl and her mother it would, essentially, be like donating to the RIAA.

Somebody please run for Congress to rein in RIAA

[h1b_indian]

High time some US citizen ran for Congress and demolished the RIAA through legislation. Another action that can be taken is to boycott ONE movie at a time in order to hurt RIAA members and keep them guessing which movie will be picked on.

Let's all stop bitching...

[el_flynn]

And do something about it, for god's sake. It's fine and dandy to sit here in the bully pullpit and scream obscenities, but it's another to go out there in the field and expressing your opinions where it matters.

1) Anyone written to their congressperson about this?

2) Anyone organized any rallies, flashmobs, etc outside the RIAA office?

3) Anyone did background checks on RIAA execs, staff etc to see if they or their 12-year olds are doing the same thing?

4) Anyone actually found out the artist whose music brianna downloaded, and perhaps wrote to them to ask how they felt about it?

5) Any more suggestions?

I don't know, but there's something... unamerican and unnatural about this whole thing. Going after a 12-yr old kid? That's just low, low, low.

By the way, it perhaps appears a DOS attack is underway on the RIAA's various websites. I tried getting there to see if the RIAA head has a contact point to push my views to him.

Instead of a Phish or NIN bumper sticker...

[Windcatcher]

Why don't you go get an anti-RIAA bumper sticker instead?

And for the RIAA droids, no, I'm not affiliated with the site, just making a suggestion >:)

Just Listen To Free Music!!

[makisupa]

There is terabytes of music out there that the RIAA has no claim on, support it!

I love attending live music events. A few years ago I took up the hobby of taping these events.

There are *TONS* of artists out there, many 'famous', who would love for you to (1) come see them (2) tape their performance (3) give them a copy and (4) give your friends copies.

They want you to spread their music for FREE.

Who are they? Here's the most comprehensive list I know of:

http://btat.wagnerone.com/

But that's only the tip of the iceburg. For every artist that the record industry has chosen to support there are another hundred that are just as good who are out there gigging every night. My experience is that, even if they're not on the list, they're open to taping.

Better yet, a lot of them would be happy to sit down for a beer or shoot the shit between sets.

These are the real artists people. If you're upset about this RIAA crap then they've already won because they've succeeded in making you believe that they hold the leashes of all musicians everywhere and that art and music is a commodity.

So, instead of going to Borders to pump another $17.99 into the pockets of these RIAA diamond merchants, take a turn towards a local bar or other music venue. Have a drink, say hi to the artist... that's whats real.

-J

Re:Just Listen To Free Music!!

[Spectra72]

Exactly. Everytime someone posts a comment to the effect that "The RIAA controls all music! We have no choice!", some fat executive in New York City lights up an expensive cigar and goes "Excellent", ala Montgomery Burns, while looking down on the huddled masses in the street.

You people were beat before you even knew that you needed to fight.

Re:Just Listen To Free Music!!

[appleLaserWriter]

But that's only the tip of the iceburg. For every artist that the record industry has chosen to support there are another hundred that are just as good who are out there gigging every night. My experience is that, even if they're not on the list, they're open to taping.

There may be some excellent artists out there, but you can't tell by listening to them. In music-industry funded Manhattan, venues have excellent sound systems and no shortage of name brand acts. Even the minor acts get some radio time before appearing on stage.

In grunge-fest Seattle, even the best acts sound like ass, as they are pumped through the aging lo-fi systems installed in clubs throughout the city. The music here is either painfully loud, or bad, or both.

I don't like the way the RIAA conducts their business anymore than I like the way indie bands record their music.

Since moving to Seattle, I've switched almost entirely to techno, as the laptop producers finally have the production values to make decent recordings. Too bad it is just blips and squeaks.

Re:Just Listen To Free Music!!

[Theaetetus]

I've heard this cry many times before, every time this topic comes up. Yes, there are good indie bands. Yes, there are good local bands. Yes, the RIAA doesn't control all music.

But, you know what? I happen to really like Linkin Park and Disturbed's music. I also like quite a few others that are distributed by RIAA-member labels. Just saying "don't support all that commercial music - it's all crap" isn't really an answer. No matter how awful Brittney might be, there's also a bunch of great bands (even though they're commercial).

-T

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.

Re:They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[ediron2]

Step one to boycotting any RIAA-affiliated band:

Top 100 non-riaa albums.

No disclaimer needed; I have no affiliation with the site. I just like tools that let me find good music while boycotting RIAA. Also, check out CDBaby and Michael Crawford's recent kuro5hin article.

On a side note, I struck up a conversation this evening with the local mom-n-pop video rental guy. He has a tool to polish scratched discs (CD's, DVD's) and I asked how rental lifespan varied between tapes and DVD, and if polishing made a difference. He got a disgusted look on his face, said some nasty things about the cheaper plastic being used DVD's, and that he'd pay the extra buck for the original materials. Then he held up a (already scratched) Sleeping Beauty that someone had bought today and already needed polishing, saying "Disney's policy is that the market lifespan of these discs is 15 playings. Hell, my kids watch it that many times the first week I get a new movie."

My take: they're back-dooring the slimy old limited-life divx marketing scheme.

Re:They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[FrankNputer]

You know, poor or not (and I'm not sure where you got that assumption from) the real failure here is the mother's. She "bought" KaZaa, thinking that $29.95 was enough to pay for all the junk her kid was downloading, and apparently never taught her kid that just because something is available on the internet doesn't mean that you have a right to take it.

I have a teenage daughter, and my wife & I have taken the time to at least explain the concept of IP to her, and to make her aware that there are people who created music, software, etc. to make their living. Obviously we cannot control her - but we give her the knowledge to make what we hope are the right decisions.

I'm no big fan of the RIAA & what they're doing, and I feel some sympathy for the mother & daughter, but the real problem here is the mom's ignorance - and ignorance of the law is simply not a valid defense for breaking it.

Ignorance and the Law

[Mystiq]

The law doesn't accept ignorance as an excuse.

Yeah, but the 10 O' clock news does.

It's image. If the RIAA looks like a bully with a select few of these lawsuits, that's the image they'll get. The power of the media is surprising and all it takes is a few buttons pushed to give the RIAA bad press with the press.

I usually hate stories like this but I have to eat my own words here.

Re:Ignorance and the Law

[adsl]

Who says it's the Law? This young Lady MAY have broken the Law, or she may not. The issue never went through Due Process. This was denied her (and her mother) because they were facing extortion amounting to perhaps $100K or more, IF they did not throw themselves on the mat before the RIAA and admit "guilt" and pay $2K to the RIA. An amount this family obviously cannot afford. But worse they cannot afford a bankrupt existence which was the choice the RIAA apparently promised IF they contested this charge. i.e. this family could not afford the Legal Fees to properly consider a defence. It matters not whether you THINK they may have broken the IP Law. This poor family was DENIED their Right to DUE PROCESS because the RIAA had unlimted power and unlimited money to swamp such individuals. Is this the kind of Law we want? The Law per the RIAA and any such Corporate outfit which can break individuals w/o due process? So much for everyone being EQUAL. The RIAA now can destroy poor families at will without Due Process. Scary.......

The NMPA can kill independent artists easily.

[yerricde]

Umm yeah, lets start with www.cdbaby.com all independednt artists

What happens when the independent recording artists whose recordings are made available through cd baby, vitaminic, etc. get sued by major music publishing companies for writing songs that are "substantially similar" to popular songs? Even if it's an accident, it can be a six- to seven-figure accident; just look at what happened to George Harrison.

I wonder if they'll take food stamps.

[irabinovitch]

I wonder if they'll take food stamps.

I'm sick of these pirates [NB: pirates == RIAA]

[gacp]

I just can't stand these bloody pirates, STILL throttling the connection between artists and their public, and stealing ransom money out of BOTH creativity and the love of arts. The RIAA, MPAA, and other spawn of the devil are nothing but protection rackets. Just revolting, these pirates, looters of the spirit, plunderers of the mind >:-(

Not one cent from me!

Define "wrong"

[yerricde]

but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong

Deep ethics question: Define "wrong." Many people define "wrong" as what will get them in "trouble", where "trouble" is formal negative sanctions.

Service is access to musicologists

[yerricde]

Don't forget you're talking about a greedy middleman that ensures artists get pennies on the dollars for their music.

Well at least getting pennies on the dollar and access to musicologists is better than going independent and inevitably getting sued by a music publisher and losing for seven figures.

So what would YOU have the RIAA do?

[Eric Damron]

Let me play devil's advocate. A lot of you are screaming about how terrible the RIAA is and how what they are doing is horrible.

Okay. If you were in business selling music and a bunch of college/high school students started trading your music without paying you a dime what would you do?

Just turn a blind eye as they made your business irrelevant? You own the copyrights and have a right to dictate the terms of your music's distribution but a group of people are flipping you the bird and distributing it for free without your consent.

What would you have them do?? You bitched when they went after the P2P technology and not that they are going after the infringers your complaining about that. So stop pissing and moaning and give them a REAL option. You know an option that doesn't include ?Fuck off and die!?

Re:So what would YOU have the RIAA do?

[Little Brother]

Create a reasonable way to register the rights to a single song, somewhere in the range of three times what the artist gets for the sale of one album divided by the average number of songs on an album plus the cost of a stamp. Mail the user a cirtificate that gives them rights to listen to said songs on any media. Whatever money is left over after the cost of ink and paper, split evenly between the artist and the RIAA.

This should be fair because the RIAA claims that the costs of CD's include the cost of distribution. As in a file-swapping scheme the swappers pay that cost themselves (when they pay for an ISP) the cost of creating the cd and distrobution should be cut out. The Artists who the RIAA is so upset about file-sharing hurting would get at least as much money as they had before, and the RIAA would get their cut for "promotion." The only companys that would loose out are the companys that actualy burn the CD's and why shouldn't they loose out if their service isn't wanted or needed?

Fairness, mmmmkay?

[C10H14N2]

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?!?!?

Re:Fairness, mmmmkay?

[nacturation]

I'm not sure of the exact details, but isn't that just for the replay license? You'd still need to go out there and PURCHASE all the CDs you wanted to play online. After all, when you sign up for a license, they don't ship you a starter pack containing thousands of CDs that you might want to play.

Re:Fairness, mmmmkay?

[C10H14N2]

If you licensed 1.3 MILLION "performances" -- the physical maximum at 300kbps for an entire year -- and received no income from that, the fees payable to ASCAP would be no more than $1,742 per year.

Schedule A $ 624.00
Schedule B $ 949.00
Schedule C $ 1,742.00

My whole point in this is that, ignoring for the moment some of the absurd scandals in this arena, ASCAP does offer performance licenses based on both income generated and number of performances that are VERY cost effective even for the average user, even if significant income is generated in the process.

Remeber, we're talking about lawsuits listing five or six offending tracks, which presumably the offending parties very well might have purchased -- but then, remember, that purchase is for the media itself (CD, LP, tape, 8-track, whatever) and does NOT include any license to distribute by any means.

The web license do restrict to streaming media that cannot be saved (a BIG difference from P2P obviously). However, the fact that they DO offer internet broadcast licenses that are so inexpensive and so similar to radio licenses draws a rather huge question into the absurd distinction that is made between the "fair use" that has been applied to all broadcast media -- e.g. you can record from radio or television broadcast anything you want for personal use -- and the vast left-wing conspiracy that is destroying the entire music industry.

The point in bringing this up is that the RIAA is making a blanket case that anything Peer-2-Peer is flatly illegal and there is no case to be made for legitimacy when in the terms written by the actual licensing body (ASCAP) it is fundamentally a technicality that could easily be remedied and just as easily begin generating revenue at the rates already set by them.

I mean, look, to operate a radio station, a blanket license for the entire catalog for any station earning less than $50,000 is $6,200 -- for a format completely incapable of controlling listener behavior and capable of transmitting over 8,000 hours of content, or roughly 150,000 tracks of music.

All I am saying is that they have licensing structures in place for distribution. Offer people a legal island at the existing rates and SOMEONE will still have to buy the fricken CD's, but they would have a constant revenue stream from everyone regardless of if they buy a damned thing.

Domino Effect...

[MoeMoe]

I think this action was a bad idea for the RIAA, even worse then going ahead with filing suit against this little girl... If this one case was held as an exception, why couldn't all the other 260 people use this to their adavantage to get away with only a $2,000 fine as well? After all, they are all being sued for the same reason/damages aren't they? (I'm sure people have downloaded more, but the charges would have to be reduced drastically, regardless)

To be honest, I think this can be taken a step further... Who's to say that anyone being sued by the RIAA for these same circumstances shouldn't be penalized to the same extent as this little girl?

As a matter of fact, I have an idea that can stop all these suits altogether... We just have to-

Hold on, someone's at the door...

Re:2k! She's a Kid

[canajin56]

If you send out a search to the Kazaa network, their machine TELLS YOU that they have that song, along with their IP address. What are they wire tapping again?

The truth is Copyrights are dead

[zoid.com]

There is no protection for copyrights anymore. Things have changed. The big change is that there is no longer a cost to distribute copyrighted material. With the ever increasing speed of broadband internet connections this will continue to be a problem. There is nothing that can be done to stop it short of revamping the whole notion of copyrights. What is this revamp? I have no idea.. It's really strange that books are still partially protected due to the fact that they are delivered in a type of media that is hard for the general public to copy an reproduce easily. In the past the copyright laws were enforced due to monitary distribution and manufacturing restrictions. Now the restrictions have been lifted and it takes only one or two people to break this model........

So we now what the problem is, ehat is the answer?

what next?

[Trejkaz]

Look out, 90-year old wheelchair-bound grannies are next.

no. YOU are wrong

[KalvinB]

Kids get arrested all the time and their info is taken.

You can hate it all you like but the DMCA has nothing to do with this. If someone commits a crime their info is up for grabs for those looking to persecute irregardless of age. The age limit laws have NO RELEVANCE in criminal situations. If some kid assults me, I have a right to their information for prosecution. The laws the Slashdrones are vainly trying to apply only apply for collecting personal information for data mining for marketing purposes.

Slashdot is just once again vainly grasping at straws trying to vindicate the criminal and villinize the victim.

Like it or not, the RIAA has done nothing illegal and nothing that any other media company hasn't done. Nintendo et al were gathering information on snot nosed teenages hosting illegal ROMs and other warez LONG before the RIAA showed up and joined the fight against the digital black market.

Ben

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

[trompete]

Throw all your CDs into Boston Harbor...yeah!!

The parent post is the correct answer to all of this mess, but unfortunately, it is just plain infeasible. Perhaps it will be feasible when more people get sued for sharing music.

Have you seen the High speed internet ads?

[acomj]

The new ads on TV say for comcast high speed cable advertise

"Download music with amazing speed".

I'm sure the RIAA is loving this..

I do really like Itunes though.. 10 million songs sold so far. Its a little too easy to use. . When it hits Windows things will get interesting. This seems like an ideal time to release it.

They will if we tell them to

[Sycraft-fu]

And by we I mean a substiantial majority of the US population. If the consitutians care about it enough, it will happen. However it can't be a small group that cares a whole lot, it has to be enough that they understand it is "Do it or we will replace you with someone who will."

Never think that the voters can't ultimately make a difference. The problem is that usually enough of them don't care to override the special intrest groups.

Re:$2,000? What a bunch of monsters

[BrainInAJar]

$5 from me. someone set up a paypal account, find this womans' contact info, and make it happen.

Suing someone who doesn't *USE* a computer.

[Kircle]

Come on, I'm waiting for someone who doesn't *OWN* or *USE* a computer to get sued.

Wait no longer! A quote from this article (emphasis mine):

The first crop of lawsuits included a Texas grandfather who didn't even know he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press. Durwood Pickle said his teenage grandchildren downloaded the music onto his computer during visits to his home.

"I'm not a computer-type person," the 71-year-old Pickle told AP. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"

suits with swords-vengence plays well?

[naota-kun]

i won't play jurist...legal doesn't always play as just. i worked in a chain record store for eight years. we caught shoplifters weekly(on weekends..daily). the standard gig was "give me the cd and get the hell out" there was a civility there. the press of law is best served to the dangerous. i feel foolish now, i could have asked for savings, for college funds, for MONEY. had i, in my arsenal, a riaa badge i could have cut a path of vengence on the vicious kids that dared try to feed upon the hard-working artists that make our lives worth living. there is theft, i've been robbed at gunpoint, and then there is the coveting of bits. the guy who pointed a gun at me payed less than what the riaa threatens to take from downloaders. yes there is legal WRONG, and there is wrong by simple defintion. an orginization such as the riaa should keep that within thier sights.

Re:$2,000? What a bunch of monsters

[Ridgelift]

Great! There's $15.00 right there. Only $1985.00 to go. Seriously, anyone know what the best way would be to go about this? For those of you who think "what a bunch of suckers! This could all be fake"...so what? I spend more renting a movie on a friday night.

[SOAPBOX]
I'm willing to roll the dice that this single mom and her daughter are real, and that they really can't afford $2000.00. Her daughter didn't commit some heinous, evil act by downloading N'Sync. The RIAA is sending a message that "no one is safe". Slashdot can send an even louder message, that people do care and that Recording Industry Association of America ought to be ashamed of themselves. Standing behind a single mom and her 12-year old daughter's a good place to start.
[/SOAPBOX]

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

[darkewolf]

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.

Any NY Geeks in the house?

[imag0]

here's a listing of all with last name of LaHara in New York state that I could find. I'm sure if you have a phonebook and a good knowledge of the area you can narrow it down more as to where that little girl lives...

from whitepages.com

Let's get together and help the little girl out, guys!

Re:Any NY Geeks in the house?

[ZenJabba1]

312 W 114th St
Manhattan, NY 10026
(212) 280-2739

That is the area where the housing estate is

Why isn't file sharing like radio?

[PourYourselfSomeTea]

OK. Some worthy slashdotter tell me why this doesn't work for the RIAA (philisophical rants about why music should be free aside). Sharing a music file is roughly equivalent to playing it on the radio. You share it for awhile, and people download and listen to it. Downloading a file and saving it to your harddrive is just like recording it to tape -- come to think of it, I remember a time when I recorded all files from my computer to tape... You don't AFAIK have to have a special license to play a song over the radio, you just have to pay a small fee whenever you play it. Since a file being shared is shared for a finite amount of time, and an unlimited number of listeners can download that file with their computer, just like they would listen to or record it off their car stereo (and the majority of encoding-of-your-choice files out there are roughly the same quality). So why not a flat fee of say .01 cents per song per 3 minutes of sharing that song (assuming the song is three minutes long). Not an entirely unreasonable price to pay. Could even payed by subscription to KaZaa which might pay the record companies, evil as their sorry asses are, monthly for the average number of RIAA copyrighted files on their service, thus distributing the cost of file-availability to all users. Anyone know why the RIAA hasn't thought of this? Anyone know anyone who's going to try the DJ argument in court?

hypocrites

[darsch ash]

Why is she having to pay them anything.. according to the RIAA article... http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/090803.asp " In response, the RIAA has decided not to pursue users who step forward before being targeted for past illegal sharing of copyrighted works. Instead, those who want to start fresh will be asked to sign a declaration pledging they will delete all illegally obtained music files from their hard drives and never again digitally distribute or download music illegally. Detailed information on how to apply and qualify for this amnesty is available at the web site www.musicunited.org. "

that's cool how they put words into her mouth

[blah-Hipo]

Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

bullshit. sony/universal/emi/the riaa put those words in her mouth. so check it out:

this corrupt association of record companies bought a law called the DMCA. that happened largely due to the efficient functioning of democratic forms in the united states (something like 57 million people download files, right)? that is, because we live in a democracy, these corporations were able to buy a law. corporate lobbying undermines the possibility of a functioning democracy. what a beautiful politcal system to force on the rest of the world with guns and other fabulous killing technology like smart bombs and the joint air-to-surface standoff missile. but back to the main point...

so next, in our democracy, these corporate entities filed lawsuits based on information they subpeoned from internet service providers. keep in mind they didn't have to get a court order for the subpeonas. this is because in the united states, corporate entities have the same rights as human entities. one of the lawsuits is aimed at a 12 year old girl. her mom wanted to get rid of all the extra stress and attention that the lawsuit would bring, so she settled for $2000.

the next development: the superpower formed by corporate entities adding all their money together (RIAA) used their influence over other corporate entities--which, collectivley, can be called the american media. the corporations fed the corporations this STUPID statement that a 12 year old girl said. this is probably what the phone call sounded like:

collection of corporations #1: uuh, yeah? collection of coporations #2? yeah, hi, this is Mr. Reject over at collection of corporations #1. we settled a multi-corporation lawsuit for $2000. you see, the 12 year old owed about $600,000 to Sony, $1.2 million dollars to EMI, and about $6 million dollars to universal records. we settled all those lawsuits for $2000. then, upon reflection of our corporate aims and, of course, what is Good (tm) and Just (tm), the 12 year old girl said "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

collection of corporations #2: oh, wow collection of corporations #1. that is a tremendously insightful and quotable statement that 12 year old girl said. we'll go ahead and uncritically pass it on to the entire american population, representing it as her words.

i am troubled deeply by what sony/emi/universal/the riaa is doing in your country. incidentally, i live here, but i do not feel allegiance to this corrupt hell hole. that makes it your country, not mine. but i digress. a bigger problem underscores and makes possible what the record companies are doing: our corporate media. these monkey fucks are bought and sold, and we digest their feces as truth and objective reporting. its a lot like how we morons digest the idea of our government as free and democractic. why are we so stupid? the media is being used in this entire shennanigan to pass on the riaa's threats. a bunch of corporations(the recording companies) are abusing our legal system, and then paying a bunch of other corporations (the media) to distribute fear and and propaganda to our populace. 261 targets is nothing out of 57 million. if i lived in a country of 57 million people and 261 of them were murdered, i wouldn't feel threatened. there is no reason for file sharers to feel threatened. the reason we take this seriously is because the riaa and the media are cooperating to brainwash the people of the united states.

i see a lot of cries for boycott on this issue, but its always directed against the recording companies. "get cds from indie labels, etc." that's all well and good, and i support that. i would rather stick a fucking knife in my mouth than by a stream of bits organized with artistic integrity by britney/christina/metallica. i cry for a boycott of corporate media. why do we listen to these fucking idiots? why do we accept their agenda uncritically? the media is bought

Are you high?

[rjh]

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.

Are you high?

The information was retrieved under subpoena, not under search warrant. The Fourth Amendment doesn't talk about civil litigation, only about criminal litigation... not only that, the Fourth Amendment nowhere mentions the necessity of it being a judicial warrant. The Fourth Amendment, in its entirety, reads

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No mention of a judge anywhere.

So in the first place, you're on crack because you think the Fourth Amendment includes words it very clearly doesn't; and in the second place, you're on crack because you think the Fourth Amendment covers writs of subpoena.

Writs of subpoena come to us from the English Common Law, and have never been repudiated by any court. Heck, they're even mentioned in the Bill of Rights (indirectly, where it specifies criminal defendants will have the right to "compulsory processes" to procure evidence).

If you're going to rant about the law, you should probably learn what the law is and what it is not.

Re:Are you high?

[Mike Hawk]

Amen!

Please everyone, know what the Constitution says before you spout off. I mean, you want to EARN that +4 modifier you are about to get for your rant by being factual don't you?

What?

[jchaos]

I'm suprised, they didn't sign her up? Didn't make her the next pop diva, *cough*indebtedservent*cough*, until she paid pack the ,*cough*millions*cought*, money she owns the, *cough*fatcat*cough*, RIAA?

After all under age, *cough*sexedup*cough*, artists seem to do so well.

Excuse me, must go clear my throat somethings bothering it....

The answer: fewer theives, more BOUNTY HUNTERS!

[PseudoThink]

Here's some awesome FREE music that may help you decide to get off your ass and do some anti-RIAA bounty hunting:

MC Chris - Fett's Vette (lyrics)

MC Chris, you rock! Sorry if you get slashdotted... ^_^

17 USC (Copyright law)

[Merk]

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. -

1. In general. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider
   (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

Re:17 USC (Copyright law)

[digitalcowboy]

So, put out some bait. If you can get the RIAA to force your ISP to take something you own down, then you can sue them for having done that, and they have to pay your attorney's fees!!

They have to pay your attorney's fees, huh?

You've never been in an American court room have you?

I have been. More than once. Most recently today. What goes on there is nothing resembling justice and has very little to do with the law.

It has a lot to do with the mood the go^H^H judge is in that day.

Want some perspective on the "American justice system"? Just try and tell the "whole truth" in a court room sometime. It's not allowed anymore.

(Notice that the lawyers aren't sworn in like the witnesses they call.)

hehe

[Kircle]

Sounds a bit too well put-together for a 12 year old... well, she is an honor student. :)

Allow me to translate . . .

[CleverNickName]

For everyone who is shocked to hear such eloquence from a 12 year-old, and rightfully doubts the veracity of her statements, allow me translate her quote back into the original vernacular.

IM SORY FOR WUT I HAEV DONE!!!1!111 OMG LOL I LOVA MUSIC AND DONT WANT 2 HURT TEH ARTISTS I LOVE1!!!!!! WTF

HOW TO REALLY SCREW UP THE RIAA

[popo]

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!

Re:HOW TO REALLY SCREW UP THE RIAA

[h1b_indian]

I have a simpler solution. Run for Congress. At the least the Congressperson will be scared of losing his/her seat and come over to your side.

They need to sue Kazaa

[Anonymous Coward]

By charging a fee Kazaa has given the impression that their service is legit when it is not. I think poor innocent people should try to get their money back by suing Kazaa for giving this false impression.

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

[malfunct]

Yeah, I agree its infeasable, luckily I dislike enough of the music produced today that I haven't purchased a cd in a couple years for that reason alone. I will continue to advocate the solution though, because if it ever got going it would work. America is a country where a vote with your pocket book is worth far more than a vote in the ballot box.

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[stephenhawking]

No artist profited from this. The money goes to fund more litigation. The RIAA will not be passing on any of the money from these suits to any artists.

MTV Cribs

[qoa]

Ever turn this on and watch artists show off 2-10 brand new Cadillacs? I don't feel bad.

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

Re:RIAA & SCO - Amazing Parallels

[qoa]

I'm glad that I'm not the only to notice this.

What about the service provider?

[agendi]

They must be cringing at this PR.

A single mother that pays monthly for their service gets done over by RIAA and pays more! Fantastic service you're providing there fellas.

The Rolling Stones?

[telstar]

"What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones."

• The Rolling Stones have diseases 4 times as old as Brianna. What the RIAA did was take $2,000 that probably would've gone towards food, clothes, or education. Way to go RIAA.

It's a message.

[twitter]

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.

The message is, "We don't care how big or how small you are, or how insignificant you think you are or how bad a place you think you live, or what you think you are entitled too, We're going to come get you and make you pay what you don't have."

It's going to backfire. Threatening a 12 year old girl goes down wrong everywhere. The days of those idiots packaging and selling people their own culture are over. People are going to make and package their stuff without the middle men.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[southpolesammy]

Absolutely. Used music is the best deal around to get what you want that someone else didn't want. And like the poster said, it's completely out of the RIAA's hands. During the early 90's I purchased the overwhelming majority of my CD's from a number of local resellers near the Ohio State campus and I still own and listen to just about all of them. By far, the best deal around.

bite the hand that feeds...

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Actually, they are not going after the downloaders...

They are going after the people who are sharing, those who are actually broadcasting their list of files to others and allowing them to download. All the RIAA would have to do is begin to download a file, and follow the trail back to the offending PC. That is why they are going after the sharers... to go after the downloaders would require much more digging, and would probably violate some laws pertaining to wiretapping and trespassing (since wiretapping applies to government agencies, but trespassing applies to private citizens).

Re:bite the hand that feeds...

[the-build-chicken]

ok...but in that case, is it not impossible to _prove_ they were open for sharing...for instance, if you have a purchased mp3 sitting on an unsecured ftp site, is that illegal, and if so, why....if so, why would putting a cd in an unlocked car not similarly be illegal. The same could be said of kazaa...you're using the network to share the files between two of your computers, while only listening to it on one at a time...if someone else uses this unsecure network, is it your fault?

I'm not flaming or crusading...I'm actually quite interested as to whether the above makes sense to other people, it seems like a logical defeat of the RIAA argument. (by the way, I'm not in the U.S., so I know very little about their laws)

Re:bite the hand that feeds...

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

unfortunately, the problem is that mp3s are not 'corporeal' so to speak...

If you leave a cd sitting in your car and someone comes by and takes it, that is theft. That is the fundamental differenece between music sharing and theft. With sharing, there is no physical media exchange. While on one side this really punches holes in the RIAA's arguments about sharing being shoplifting, it also allows different rules to be applied. If you have a file available for mass download on your computer, and you do not have it secured in some way, then they can nail you.

If you own the cd this might be beatable in court, but no-one has actually gone to court over this. Everyone has settled because no one can afford to have their entire lives ruined over this (as if the fines don't screw their lives up enough).

Sux when laws about technology are made by people that know jack about tech.

If they want respect, it may be too late.

[dacarr]

People, figure this. If the RIAA really wanted soem respect, they would have researched their facts instead of filing suit with a 12YO girl. That was just a fscking scare tactic.

Setting up a fund for this girl

[roe1352]

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.

Schrodinger's Mp3

[Kenny Austin]

I've still working out the details for the following experiment, so please bear with me.

Parts sealed in a metal box:
- Laptop "A" running WinXP, sharing teenrock.mp3 via [insert favorite p2p app here]. The sound has been removed from this machine.
connected via an ethernet crossover to
- Laptop "B" running [insert your favorite linux distribution].

A twelve year old girl is placed inside the box with directions on how to copy teenrock.mp3 from Laptop A to Laptop B so that she can listen to it. There stands exactly a fifty percent chance that she will understand the provided directions (pretend with me). The twelve year old girl is removed from the box after one hour has passed.

The question: Did the bank account of any member of the Recording Industry Association of America just lose $150,000.

Bonus question: In addition to the possible $150,000 she might owe the RIAA, does she now owe Darl McBride $699?

where the hell i morbo when you need him?

[blah-Hipo]

Ha ha ha ha!!! Puny human males sued a puny human female and settled for $2000. Morbo would have torn off her arms and eaten her alive.

Who's next? Why, Rick from Casablanca!

[eco2geek]

What if Ilsa used Rick's computer? (With Sam's help, of course.) Bear with me...

Headline: RIAA Sues Richard Blaine

Rick sits alone at a table. There is a glass of bourbon
on the table directly in front of him, and another empty
glass on the table before an empty chair. Near at hand is
a bottle.
[...]
Sam sits down at the computer and music starts to play
softly.

RICK
Of all the P2P apps on all the computers in all the world, she uses mine. What's that you're downloading?

SAM
Just a little something of my own.

RICK
Well, stop it. You know what I want to hear.

SAM
No, I don't.

RICK
You downloaded it for her and you can download it for me.

SAM
Well, I don't think I can remember its name.

RICK
If she can stand it, I can. Download it!

SAM
Yes, boss.

Sam starts to download "As Time Goes By."

Rick just stares ahead as the streaming music
slowly comes from his computer.

- eco2geek

This Whole Thing is Just a Silly Scare Tactic

[popo]

Let's remember something here... the RIAA has spent very little so far. This is a *scare tactic* people.

The cost of suing everyone in the filesharing community would exceed the GNP of the United States. They are hoping that a small handful of suits (Only 261 shows how expensive it actually is) will have a widespread impact on filesharing activity.

But if you ignore them, the *will* and MUST go away because there is no financially viable alternative for them. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive, and the plaintiffs in these cases are college students with NO MONEY.

Therefore this is a money losing proposition for the RIAA. If you want to beat them, CALL THEIR BLUFF.

-- Keep on trading in the free world.

Re:This Whole Thing is Just a Silly Scare Tactic

[mark-t]

The solution that *WOULD* work for the RIAA, although it would require a repealing of civil and human rights, would be to re-legalize slave trading. If a person illegally downloads or distributed copyrighted materials, and they do not have the financial wherewithall to pay the fines as dictated by the law, their entire financial resources are liquidated, the family is split up and the RIAA then sells these people as slave labour to sweatshop factories around the globe.

Now that would solve the RIAA's problem.

Except that they'd find that there wouldn't be very many people left over here to buy the RIAA's stuff.

As for the issue of people not standing for such treatment, if such regulations were backed by the military, I'm afraid there would be little anyone could do.

And people would comply because they are so terrified of getting caught, or would be so incredibly secretive about it that the RIAA wouldn't realize just how prevalent it was anymore.

Re:This Whole Thing is Just a Silly Scare Tactic

[Cliffy03]

Except that they'd find that there wouldn't be very many people left over here to buy the RIAA's stuff.

That hits the nail on the head. Haven't we all heard reports of the billions of dollars teens have to spend?

Well it seems that RIAA is targeting their main audience. This study shows "young people in the US, ages eight to 21, have annual incomes totaling $211 billion as of June 2003, representing an annual spending power of $172 billion. The interesting part of this is that by the age of 13, "parent supplied" income drops from 87% to 37%. As well online spending by "young people between the ages of 13 and 19 spend at the greatest rate of any other age group in what Harris refers to as "Generation Y," with a rate of $94.7 billion annually." Wow, that is a lot of money RIAA seems to be ignoring.

The other problem for RIAA is that they seem to be ignoring some of their customers, those over the age of 36. "It's important to note that this group of mature consumers represents 45 percent of all CD sales". The report points to the problems of the big chains pushing the popular stuff and not carrying the music the older crowd would want to buy.

Re:12-year-old Brianna's home address

[popo]

In case anyone cares (sending money to cover the settlement costs?), Brianna's address is:

154 W. 84th St. Apt. 701
New York, NY 10024

The name of her mother, the person who'll have to write the $2,000 check to the RIAA I suppose, is Sylvia Torres.


Yeah..... Suuuuure.....

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!!!

Why does it matter?

[Darth_Burrito]

Why does everyone here think that family should not have been sued? Why is it ok for a 12 year old girl to engage in massive copyright infringement online when it isn't ok for me to do so? Does the fact the the parent is a single mother somehow magically reduce her responsibilities under the law? A crime is a crime regardless of social bias in favor of or against the segment of the society to which a criminal belongs.

Sure I hate the RIAA and its members, but I don't see how this is different than any of their other lawsuits. I sent my donation in to the EFF two days ago.

Re:Why does it matter?

[rdn2]

What make this case different in my mind is:

1. She is 12 years old for christ sake... Sure her mother should be watching what her daughter is up to but if you have a 12 year old you know it's sometimes easier said than done. Now when mine is online yes I know what she is doing where she is doing it and who she is doing it with. But I have been working with this technology for a while and therefore have a bit of an advantage as far as monitoring and limiting access goes over the average Joe and so does most everyone else on this site.

2. They are living in public housing which last time I checked meant you don't have much money. I'm not aware of these peoples actual situation but I don't like the idea of corporate america kicking someone while they are already down...

3. I've always assumed that my greater success in this country meant I had a greater debt to pay to it. You might disagree thats your right. Besides I have generally been aware of my legal standing surrounding my online activities and I think most of the rest of us here are also.

4. To me it is very obvious they are trying to scare people otherwise they would have researched who they were suing and only gone after the deep pockets. (Why do you think SCO picked IBM?) At least in my mind it's all a mind game. They are trying to change the public perception of p2p...

All I know is I am done buying or downloading music by artists who are under a RIAA members contract. I guess I'll find something I enjoy from the independant artists. Or listen to a lot of talk radio and my old disks...

Ron

Re:Why does it matter?

[Darth_Burrito]

1. She is 12 years old for christ sake... Sure her mother should be watching

It sounds like you are trying to say that a 12 year old is above the law. Besides according to all the articles I read, her mother knew exactly what she was doing. She just claimed she thought it was ok.

2. They are living in public housing which last time I checked meant you don't have much money. I'm not aware of these peoples actual situation but I don't like the idea of corporate america kicking someone while they are already down...

So now poor people are above the law? The RIAA may be kicking these people while they are down, but just remember these people kicked first.

3. I've always assumed that my greater success in this country meant I had a greater debt to pay to it.

I pay greater taxes and contribute in other ways. The idea that laws meant for everyone should not apply to people without much money goes against the foundation of this government. Justice is supposed to be blind.

4. To me it is very obvious they are trying to scare people otherwise they would have researched who they were suing and only gone after the deep pockets.

Yes of course that is what they are doing, but what of it? How many people have thought, they won't go after me, I'm just a kid. The RIAA just sent a clear message that this is not the case.

All I know is I am done buying or downloading music by artists who are under a RIAA members contract.

Me too, for a while now, sort of. I'm glad to see you are no longer downloading songs by these guys. One of the big issues I have with people who download and distribute mp3s is that they are boosting the popularity and therefore sales of the people the hate the most. It's like a pressure release valve that keeps the same people at the top.

The tile should say Uploader instead of Downloader

[ChaseTec]

It's the RIAA just going after people that are sharing songs? So all these lawsuits are because someone forgot to check the box that says "disable filesharing"? Yeah, I know it's kill p2p and that but what I want to know is if anyone is aware of the RIAA setting up p2p servers with bogus files and tracking users that download from them? Any lawsuits from that yet?

Re:Method to Circumvent RIAA

[popo]

It is true that unlike software EULA's, music has no "single-user" or "single-seat" requirement.

But, a copyright isn't ultimately about ownership. Its about "the rights to copy, distribute and/or publish". While a group of 1000 users *could* indeed share ownership of a CD, in order for them to truly "share" it, they would have to create multiple copies of the content thus violating the copyright.

Check out my post titled
"HOW TO REALLY SCREW UP THE RIAA"...

Peace.

I wonder if you could...

[vsavatar]

Instead of just bowing down to the RIAA I wonder what would happen if you fought it till the very end, including all appeals and if you lost just declare bankruptcy so that nobody walks away with a damn thing. You can't get blood from a stone and you can rightfully say by the end of it that you can't afford to pay the RIAA what you owe them. Therefore if you declare bankruptcy the debt should be discharged. Of course, you'll screw your credit rating for 7 years, but settling for tens of thousands of dollars might force you to declare bankruptcy anyways. Just a tought.

A New Idea?

[ChozCunningham]

Let's see. Warrant, Air Supply, lousy music has been around and overpriced forever. Napster came and went years ago, and now people suggest boycotting? Bo Diddley claimed royalties equal to the stree value of the stuff that grows in my shower tiles, and now people suggest boycotting? Ice T is threatened by his label and censors his own album due to contractual obligations after it's release, and now you suggest boycotting? The last major label CD I purchased was in 2000. Now I purchase underground music, minor label and indy bands.

The most exciting record I can buy is not the one that is getting shoved down my throat on every radio and TV station. It's the homemade, duplicated on burners CD I buy at the warped tour from a kid half my age with 5 lousy songs and one gem! That's about twice the quality of the average RIAA release.

Even Better, I spend about 33% of what I used to, and I have a constant supply of new exciting music, I gave a guy $5 for his CD the other day in front of the local grocery store. He told me about his baby daughter it was dedicated too, and the new project he was working on. And this guy was really damn good. Really!

I've got broadband and find good stuff on iuma.com and even mp3.com I'm up to my ass in almost free music and have to take time out to just catch up. Oh, and everyone I talk to is happy to have stuff put on p2p networks and only don't cuz they aren't computer types. They want to be stars, not rich.

The RIAA and it's "music" churning system is dead. If it's inertia wasn't measured in dollars but in contribution to society, we might have noticed. How Unamerican.

And now you talk about boycotting? Why weren't you already?

Mod Parent Up

[the-build-chicken]

Excellent information...exactly the kind of stuff I was after.

Thanks

An alternative...

[NiTRiX]

This discussion came up in conversation the other day, and I have a simple solution for an organization that obviously can't find a way to cope with technology, and is far from embracing it.

The RIAA has access to something the rest of the world does not; recording studios. If they wish to create a means by wish to have some sort of attainable profit, I suggest the creation of an all-powerful mp4 (or other aptly named codec) by which can only be created by the RIAA and other joint factions.

If the RIAA were to create, and copy-write, previously said codec, then the rest is all business. This particular codec would be written to eliminate *perfectly* the access information not needed in digital music, and even have a proprietary compression algorithm. It doesn't matter how they would do it, but once they had, then next step is to have software industries such as Roxio, Ahead, WinAmp, and every other audio software and hardware company pay nominal fee's, perhaps on a units-sold basis, much like the music industry. The benifits of the codec would be supperior music from the mp3, smaller file sizes, which means the Pionneer system you purchased would be able to read *more* music.

Now I'm not entirely sure how you would prevent 3rd party rebels from creating their own mp4 encoder, as I am not a software developer, but something about the foundation of the mp4, the studio, would mean that it would be impossible to a degree.

Just my thoughts, but once such royalties are being paid, they can let the music flow for free. So essentially the music itself wouldn't cost anything, but the only way you can listen to it is to have a device or peice of software that has paid the necessary dues.

Thoughts?

Re:While you're at it

[Sj0]

Apprently stealing is legal so long as you don't like the people you steal from.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use?

[SCUBA Instructor]

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?

Re:Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use?

[NightEyez]

Single mom, probably couldn't afford an attorney. Like the article said, the RIAA rushed to clean the matter up. Probably knocked on her door and intimidated her to settle out of court. Bunch of cunt lawyers and thieves.

Re:Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use?

[gerardrj]

You do not need a criminal case to proceed with a civil case. If something is illegal but the government attourney's refuse to bring charges, one can still file a civil suit. That's what happened here. There may still be criminal charges to come later.

Since the girl is a minor, her actions are the responsibility of the parent. There's strong precent for parents being held liable for the actions of their children.

The RIAA would not need a search warrant to enter a dwelling. The Bill of Rights only protects you from search and seizure by the government. The RIAA is a private party and as such as MUCH greater leeway in what they can do.

Re:Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use?

[hyphz]

> The RIAA would not need a search warrant to
> enter a dwelling. The Bill of Rights only
> protects you from search and seizure by the
> government. The RIAA is a private party and as
> such as MUCH greater leeway in what they can
> do.

That's ridiculous. The RIAA have no more right to go around barging into private houses than anyone else does. But since they've never done this I'm not sure what the point was.

Re:Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use?

[gerardrj]

The government (via the police force) is specifically restricted from searching your home without probable cause and a court-ordered search warrant, or your permission.
The RIAA, not being a government entity, is not thusly restricted. They are however bound by private property and tresspass laws.

I didn't say the RIAA has the right to search your home at will, just that they have greater leeway in when and how they can gain access.

It's really too late for me to write out a long explination at the moment. Suffice it to say a private investigator could masquerade as someone else (telephone repair, janitor, etc)and enter the home. Any "evidence" gained would likely be admissible in civil court as long as the entry was not otherwise illegal. If a police officer did this without a warrant the evidence would be inadmissible in criminal court, even if you let the officer in, since there's no search warrant.

50 Cent is not an artist.

[defstro]

Uh.... and you're not a troll.

Re:50 Cent is not an artist.

[Politburo]

The sad thing is, he probably isn't. It is a common geek mentality to not consider certain types of music to be the same caliber as other types of music. I myself used to be guilty of it.

The Law. Vs. Fairness

[Frobozz0]

Okay, what she did was illegal. Anyone that tries to spin it another way is blinded by their disgust of the RIAA. I, like the vast majority of you, hate them too. However, ignorance of the law is not a defense. This is how our legal system, as antiquated as it can be in situations like copyright law, is designed.

On the other hand, just because it was legal to persue this girl doesn't mean it's moral. It's wrong. Anyone that has a heart should be able to see mitigating cirumstances were potentially at play. While I do not know the details I think it's safe to say that the mother had no idea what he daughter was doing was wrong. Most children of that age, unless they are techno-geeks, do not know that it's illegal. To COMPOUND THIS PROBLEM, Kazaa got paid $30 by these people, which they erroneously misinterpreted as being payment for unlimited commecial downloads. So what are we left with here? My bullet-point list: :-)

1) The RIAA has their head so far up their a$$ they haven't seen the sunshine of humanity in 3 years.

2) What the 12 year old did was, in fact, illegal.

3) Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

4) The letter of the law and the practical application are, unfortunately, up to bastard lawyers. I'm not condeming all lawyers, only the 80% that are rat bastards. :-)

5) The RIAA will lose their battle because they are defending an antiquated business model. They will go the way of the dinosaur or evolve. My guess is this is the first chapter in their PR laden death.

6) Charging someone $2k for damages when it's obvious it's bad PR does NOTHING for your image or your cause. It actually damages it. They spend much more than $2k hunting this person down.

7) All they had to do was say they had legal ground to do this and SCARE THEM. They didn't have to take it that extra step and actually sue. Not in this case. Use judgement. It's that little voice you hear called your concious and the less you listen to it the more you chuck your karma out the door.

8) What the hell role does Kazaa play in all of this? Is it possible to seek damages on them? It's obvious people are getting the wrong impression from Kazaa.

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?

[saden1]

There is no respectable television news anymore.

What about News Hour with Jim Lehrer or Nightline with Ted Koppel?

Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[Daengbo]

It was balanced when it was The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour. They lost a lot when it became just Jim Lehrer's show.

Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[VVrath]

In the US, you're probably right.

Luckily, here in the UK, we can still (generally) rely on the BBC to offer unbiased news reporting.

Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[Psychotext]

I can totally agree with that statement, and anyone that has watched hard talk can tell you that strong interviewers are still alive and well.

Just not in the US.

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:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[hackstraw]

"Thank God for the ratings," Safer added. "If it wasn't for the ratings, we wouldn't all be millionaires."

60 minutes is the longest running TV show since there has been TV. So yeah, I think higher ratings by putting Jerry Springer trash on there will help improve the show and its success.

Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

[5KVGhost]

Except, of course, when it comes to reporting unpleasant truths about themselves. That's when they develop a sudden desire for cautious discourse and great concern for the possible mental state of certain reporters accused of falsifying their stories. Being a government media monopoly is such fun.

Who's going to learn a lesson about what?

[Anonvmous Coward]

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

I think the RIAA's going to learn that most corps don't pull this kind of shit because they fear they'll be boycotted.

People who prey upon 12 year olds

[TheDarkRogue]

People who prey upon 12 year olds
-Catholic Priests and other Pedophiles
-The Tobacco Companies
-The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

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

[AvantLegion]

Well, Einsturzende Neubauten has the benefit of name recognition (within the "underground" music community they exist in) and an established career.

It would be significantly harder for a new unknown artist to pull off something similar.

Which isn't to say it's a totally unworkable idea. We do have to recognize that the unestablished band faces a different situation than the established artist.

Re:Copyright isn't broken

[arkane1234]

LOL
All of that wihout the balls to put a name to the song-n-dance.

Try-before-you-buy, baby. It's the only way.

You'll take that away once my hand drops cold and lifeless from my keyboard.

David Vs Goliath

[phorm]

'Cept in this case Goliath said, "shit you know, this isn't working quite as I planned and now I've got a huge fricking headache... cut it out with the rocks and I'll settle for a small cut of your land and then go invade your neighbours instead."

And David just goes home, chugs a beer, and thinks about how he's sure lucky he got off on this one.

I would like to see these bastards go up against something religious... it's one of the few things that might give people backbone. Confidence in our legal/government systems backing 'em certainly won't.

Re:David Vs Goliath

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Well, most hymns are copyrighted...

Re:David Vs Goliath

[soulsteal]

I would like to see these bastards go up against something religious

Let's sneak some mp3's onto RMS's computer and share them with KaZaa. Then we sit back, relax, and wait until he gets sued.

Then the hilarity ensues.

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.

RIAA's self-proclaimed "War on Consumers"

[superfast-scooter]

i hadnt read this earlier, but this just sums it up about the RIAA's mentality.

anywhere in the world, no one would be able to release this, for sure!

http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/roseletter.h tm

these people get millions to talk like uneducated crass. wonderful!!

enjoy...

Re:RIAA's self-proclaimed "War on Consumers"

[superfast-scooter]

i also realized that the ones who use the words "tech-savvy" are the biggest idiots.

I'm just not

[KalvinB]

so stupid as to try to rewrite the law everytime I do something wrong. If I do something wrong I'll freely admit it's wrong. The Slashdot community should stop turning itself into a laughing stock and admit that stealing music is wrong.

If the EFF hands out a dime to someone who has stolen music or anything for that matter to reimburse them for the fines incurred for their crime, any credibility they have in the legal community will be gone. Especially considering they're around to protect those who are stolen from and can't afford to fight back.

"B) you are still boycotting the RIAA by buying a movie"

Oh yes, every dollar I don't give to the RIAA is an act of boycotting them. I've been boycotting pretty much every company on the planet then including Slashdot since I havn't given them a dime.

Ben

Re:I'm just not

[robogun]

Seriously, if you feel so strongly then knock yourself out buying CDs. Unfortunately, I won't, and here are the reasons. I've probably bought, by conservative estimate, $8,000 to $10,000 of music recordings over the lsat 25 years, but no more. They've lost that, and that's just one person.

Lately, not just the RIAA but businesses in general seem to think when conditions change and things no longer go their way, they must try to sue everybody, even paying customers. I cite Rambus, SCO and others familiar to the "laughing-stock" Slashdot crowd. Excuse me if that doesn't entice me into doing business with that type of people.

Your argument would have more merit if the RIAA was suing the thieving downloaders. They are not. They are suing the sharers.

Why just send her money?

[KU_Fletch]

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).

Why not?

[phorm]

If a few funky colours can qualify as visual art, why not a mismash of audible crapulence? You wouldn't catch me listening to this stuff, but then you wouldn't catch me buying an "abstract" or "period" painting that looks like it was drawn by my 8-yr-old cousin...

I wonder if you could build up a hitlist of artist popularity based on the amount of visible kazaa users with their material? Of course, the only problem with that is that those that get nailed for stupid things like sharing out 1000 songs are the same ones that listen to this crap... I don't think Aerosmith or Pink Floyde fall within the same audience...

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

[4minus0]

What is the great good done for society having its citizens to spend a huge percentage of their income on music and movies, making a few artists, and more importantly Mega-Media houses, obscenely wealthy?

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this issue. Why is it that we(society) pile heaps of money on people with natural talents?
Why do people that can "just do something" get paid so much more than the poor schmuck that actually busts his hump digging the drainage ditch on the side of the road?
Why do we reward someone for being born with the gift of being able to carry a tune or run really fast versus the person that has overcome a learning disability (minor or severe, doesn't matter) to become a teacher? How can you put a price on what value a teacher adds to society? Why are cops and teachers and firefighters and ambulance drivers paid such paltry salaries?

The best example of this lop-sided economic situation that I can think of is professional athletes vs. police officers (note I am not a cop or a professional athlete, heh). Think of what a cop does, ok, think of what Shaq does. A Senior police officer in Houston Texas tops out at US$44,500.04 (must have 12+ years experience), in Houston, home of the 5th Ward. Shaq made US$19,285,715 from 2000 to 2001 that's nineteen million dollars, basically because he was born with "tall and strong" genes. Who offers society more value? The cop that you expect to save your life in the face of any danger? Or Shaq who can dunk a basketball? Loaded question I know, but that's what it boils down to.

The sums of money that RIAA artists and pro athletes make is patently obscene.
If you have the time and/or inclination one day, flip to MTV and watch Cribs. It will make you sick to your goddamn stomach. That program is an inside view of the actual Decline of Western Civilization.

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

[darkewolf]

I agree totally.

With a mix of local touring, web presence and some form of 'genre sorted' music P2P I suspect an unknown band could do reasonably well.

There is a local perth (western australia) punkish band (not really my cup of tea but they arent too bad) that are starting to get a bit of ear time with people through local promotion, free downloads of their music and a bit of advertising on Livejournal.

The RIAA Bargaining Table

[jetkust]

Mother: Okay, so what do I owe you?
RIAA: Let me see...$150,000 [click click] times 951 [click click]...carry the two...Comes to...$142,650,000 dollars.
Mother: Did you say 142 MILLION?
RIAA: Yes.
Mother: I'm leaving.
RIAA: Wait! Wait!
Mother: What?
RIAA: I mean 142 million in make-believe money.
Mother: Hmm... Still sounds still a little steep.
RIAA: But everyone has unlimited make-believe money.
Mother: But 142 million is too much.
RIAA: Okay. Then how much can you afford?
Mother: $3000 maybe.
RIAA: Thats all? Well....Okay...We'll do $3000 I guess...
Mother: But my makebelieve purse is in the car. So can you loan me $3000? In make-believe money of course.
RIAA: Why not just pay me in make-believe make-believe money?
Mother: [thinks] Okay here.
RIAA: [quickly stashes $1000 of it into pocket] Well this settles it then. You are free to go.
[One Hour Later]
NEWS: Slashdot: RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Dowloader for $2000.

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!

Re:I Will Never Ever Buy Another CD!

[Lars T.]

Well, it's close to being the same music. But the difference becomes larger with time - the quality of the recording on the tape degrades each time you play it and over time. Unless you damage the CD (or it damages itself), the music on it stays the same for AFAIK decades. So you probably never have to re-buy a CD, while it was quite common that you had to re-buy a record or tape if you played it often.

the battle of irrationalism

[QuantumG]

It's funny that you mention "consumer irrationalism", as irrationalism in general is a pretty hot topic at the moment. After all, most of the "terrorism" we hear about today is a direct result of religious irrationalism (or "traditional" irrationalism). With the rise of globalisation it's become clear that other countries are full of people who think and act rationally to consumption, and Americia and other "western" countries do not.

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."

Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

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.

Re:Justifying theft

[SammysIsland]

This is not necessarily justifying theft, but rather a redefinition by society. Here's the way I look at it: (Keep in mind that I do not believe in intellectual property. Once you tell something to someone they own it too. Basically, you can't tell someone a secret.) In order for something to be stolen, there must be a theif and a victim, where the theif gains something and the victim loses something. There is nothing being lost in this case. These companies are not really losing money, because they haven't earned it yet. They are simply failing to earn it. The services they offer are obsolete. Artists can make their money by touring. So what if concert ticket prices skyrocket. There is no way to steal a live performance.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

We don't have the right to declare that it's just as well for a particular band to make $$$ by touring. Perhaps they're not willing or able to for some reason, perhaps their style of music doesn't lend itself to live performance.

And the last thing we need is for concert prices to skyrocket. Not everyone has a lot of disposable income in this economy.

The only legitimate way society has to redefine what's legal is by changing the law. Until that happens, we need to stick with current regulations, except in very rare cases where things like civil disobedience may be called for. If you care about this, then do what you can to elect candidates who see things the way you do.

Re: Justifying theft

[gerardrj]

"...(Keep in mind that I do not believe in intellectual property...)

Then please post your SSN, PIN, bank account numbers, any and all plans or ideas and all other personal information here.

What you mean is that you don't believe in intellectual property when it's protecting someone elses property from your free use.

You are also arguing the wrong topic. These suits are not about lost money, they are about lost rights. By copying music without the copyright holder's permission, you deny them of that sole reserved right. THAT is what these swappers are being sued for: for violating copyright.

Re:Justifying theft

[mic256]

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? The truth is, if you are not self employed, you don't own your own work. Your boss / company does. Think about it - the copyright law prevents you from using your own work. If you come up with a reusable module or any decent invention, your company fires you, you find another job and you are asked to do the same. You are forbidden. You have to write the same thing over again, but make sure it is different from your first solution - your experience works against you. This is why I try to avoid writing any truly reusable software at work - I don't want to limit myself in the future. What is truly scary is not the copyright law itselft, but the way it is used. Rarely nowadays do people really own their creations. This is not Madonna or Eminem suing people, but an organization most people even doesn't know exists!
I would much rather have copyright laws abandoned, that what is now. Then I would truly write software the best I can, not worrying that in some near/far future I might be infringing stranger's (ip is transfarable - who knows who might own your work in the future) copyrights by using my *own* creations.
I think this is the reason why Linux has picked up - you can write the best you can to the benefit of others. You can then reuse the code you commit to open source projects over and over, no matter who your boss is at the moment. It is usually the only way to make sure you have the rights to your creations!!!

Re:Justifying theft

[elpapacito]

As the guy before me said, you talk like you own your song/intellectual work ; you may actually be the inventor, but the exploitment rights are no longer yours and you probably sold it for little money. Granted that you don't take the risk of producing and selling the product , but you would not have anything competitive or anything at all to sell without the inventor as well. The way it seems to be, there are a few huge industry and a number of medium and little industries that only add overhead expenses (read, they leech money) without adding any real innovation value. If it's an invention, it may cost more when it's first sold, but in the long term it must always cost less otherwise the company is just amassing unjustified extra-profits (read, they're squeezing every dime out of your invention while sitting on their fat asses). Leechers.

Re:Justifying theft

[Monty67]

To begin, on the surface, I agree with most of what you say but there are some "other"
things going on here that need to be addressed. BTW, I have dial up at home so you know
I'm pulling down millions of songs a day. ;-)

--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" ?
then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?--

One of my first points is the theft part. I always remember how Lars explained that downloading
music was equal to him going to a fans house and taking their VCR. This proved to me that
he doesn't really understand what is going on. A better analogy would be he goes to the fan's
house and somehow makes a copy of less quality from the original VCR thus avoiding the high cost of buying a new one. When someone downloads music, the original CD remains in tack.
The law is very clear about this, its not stealing/theft. That is defined as such, "To take
(the property of another) without permission or right." The law broken has to do with copyrights.
And given that most artists do not own the rights to their own songs, you are not "stealing" from them.

--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?--

Again, if you look at the history of the entire recording industry, the actions taken by
this group has lead to a very poor consumer relationship. Not to mention the industry
itself can't keep its facts straight. Are we buying the rights to a song, or are we buying a copy?

--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.--

The numerous bankrupt artists, the prices being fixed, the controlled air waves playing the
same rotation. You are absolutely correct, there are victims. The artists and consumers.
People have been trading the Dead for years yet they still made millions. Metallica once
allowed concert taping just like the Dead. Then they stopped allowing it. Why? Lars
still refuses to answer this question. And if you look at the RIAA's own numbers,
illegal duplicates/copies being sold as original makes up a far greater pct% of loss
for them yet nothing is being done. The economy has also been greatly slowed in the
past years yet with all the additional competition for the consumer dollar (movies, DVD rental, video games, etc) the RIAA expects growth at the same rate. So yes,
someone is losing money, the execs of the industry who control the system. The same ones
who have been found guilty of numerous charges.

--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.--

Agree on not buying. I only buy from Half.com, local used places and direct from artists.

--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.--

With this industry's long and unlawful past, I can see why its very hard for people
to push aside all they have done wrong and respect their "rights". The RIAA
are now multi millionaires (maybe even billion) even though most of their actions
that got them there are considered immoral and in some cases illegal.

--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.--

A friend once made me a copy of Fair Warning (VH). I played that tape so many times
it

Re:Justifying theft

[ratamacue]

I don't understand the overwhelming sympathy for those who steal

Have you considered the possibility that most people DON'T consider music (or thoughts and ideas for that matter) to be property? After all, nobody did until the concept of "intellectual property" was forced on the people by government. The fact is that intellectual property rights were NOT a product of natural social evolution, as traditional property rights are. Perhaps this has something to do with the public's perception of sharing music and whether it's right or wrong?

Re: Justifying theft

[frankmanowar]

Then please post your SSN, PIN, bank account numbers, any and all plans or ideas and all other personal information here.

First off, SSN and bank account numbers certainly don't fall under IP since you don't 'own' them! The rest of your retort is ridiculous as well - all other personal info, c'mon! I don't know necessarily why he doesn't believe in IP, but I do know that Intellectual Property is a VAGUE term that doesn't describe anything legal. I don't believe in IP either, but I do believe in Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents, which are all different things for Good Reasons.

You are also arguing the wrong topic.

Is he really? I'm actuallly relieved to see his post that points out that there is more going on here than cut and dry legality. I would actually refer you to this other post that is more relevant than yours on said topic: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77865&cid= 6919786

Re:Justifying theft

[Hillman]

It`s legal in canada, that`s why we pay a levy on cdr

Re:Justifying theft

[ratboy666]

"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, it *is* perfectly legal. The interesting thing is that most people have been brainwashed into believing that its not.

My read of US law would indicate that a first generation personal copy is perfectly acceptable. Second+ generations not. Look into the US laws regarding DAT tape.

In Canada, it is legal without any "generation" problems. Copy, burn, and give away. The government takes a slice from the purchase cost of blank media, and feeds it back to the recording industry -- so you have ALREADY paid for it in Canada, EVEN IF YOU NEVER DO IT.

Ratboy666

Re:Justifying theft

[Frobozz0]

Most of us are NOT justifying theft. We're boycotting the purchase of CD's that, at any point, passed through RIAA's greedy hands. I buy my music online to protest through the iTunes Music Store. Granted, I'm sure the RIAA get's something, but my voice is heard on digital distribution.

People who justify theft are lashing out in anger, just like the RIAA. I don't think most smart people condone this. I know many, but I'd hope a society of theives is not what we are heading towards. By not purchasing music I am indeed hurting the artist. They will either find a new profession or complain to the RIAA. If our protests are heard we will have artists making MORE money on the dollar than they do now.

Re:Justifying theft

[aziraphale]

I disagree strongly. I think most people have a very strong sense that creators - authors, composers, inventors, poets, artists, programmers - have some sort of 'ownership' over their creations.

Imagine if I stood in the high street of a town, with a bunch of photocopies of Harry Potter books, and handed them out to anyone who wanted one. I think most people would think that was wrong - that I was taking advantage of the work of J K Rowling. Most people would expect me to have sought Ms Rowling's permission before carrying out my generous act. Why would it be any different with music? If I was handing out burnt CD copies of Madonna's last album, wouldn't people assume I'd have to seek Madge's permission before doing so?

Copyright, and patents, are a mechanism for ensuring that the general moral concept that you ought to get someone's permission before you do something with their idea has some legal force in law. They're not perfect, sure, but they're the only way society has found to express that morality in a legal framework.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

A ringer or apologist? RIAA's not my favorite organization, I'm disgusted at the still-high prices of CDs after all these years and am very happy about the proliferation of iTunes and other such services.

Just because I agree with RIAA's legal justification doesn't mean I have to approve of their tactics. You're right, they could've found a better approach. My guess is once they find how the first 260 suits go they'll modify it for future ones.

Re: Justifying theft

[gerardrj]

As you stated the term "IP" is a vacuous term without further explination. Many think it to be anything you know, others anything you create, other just anything that you write down.

And yes, they re two different arguments all together.

On one hand this root article was discussing the settlement between two parties. One party was thought to be infringin on the rights of another. The plaintiff approached the defendant via a vehicle known as a summons or suit in civil court. The defending party then agreed to pay the plaintiff some damages in liu of a trial.

On the other hand in your refererenced comment we have discussion of things that thr RIAA (and others) have done that are of questionable equity to the another party. Questionable, but legal actions can't be justification for illegal behavior against a person or company. If that were the case then vigilantyism would be a good thing, as it stands it is illegal.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

IANAL, but this doesn't sound plausible.

I could send copies of a copyrighted material to 10 or 10,000 of my dearest friends as long as they're all first generation copies? And rather than 'sell' them I could have a PayPal account for 'donations'?

Admittedly here's a case which vexes me: How do I legally make a CD compilation for a friend/relative of music I own without having to purchase a dozen full duplicate albums? iTunes and such may provide a way, but I'd want these songs in normal uncompressed high-fidelity form.

Re:Justifying theft

[ratamacue]

I think most people have a very strong sense that creators - authors, composers, inventors, poets, artists, programmers - have some sort of 'ownership' over their creations.

Most people don't consider ideas (including music) as real property that can be "stolen". That's why so many people participate in the P2P music networks (believe it or not, I'm actually not one of them). Like the example that was mentioned earlier, law-abiding individuals don't decline to shoplift because of a fear of getting caught. This assumes that people are dishonest with criminal tendencies by default, and that's absurd. They decline to shoplift because they know that by shoplifting, they are committing real theft (in general terms, initiating force) on somebody else. They make a moral decision not to shoplift, because they know that by doing so, they will be harming others, and they simply don't want to cause harm to others.

Music sharing is already illegal, and it's been illegal for a long time. But still, a lot of people do it, way more people than the number of shoplifters. Why? It's not because it's easier to do without getting caught. It's because they don't consider it an initiation of force. It's the same reason why most people speed a bit on the road, or do the "rolling stop" instead of coming to a complete stop at the sign when the cop's not looking. It's also the reason why, despite decades of violent drug prohibition, people still use drugs. They don't consider it to be an initiation of force, because it's not. It's just a violation of some arbitrary law imposed by government.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

Nah, I don't own jack. Usually my hiring company would own anything I write.

But what does RIAA being leeches have to do with an entitlement to steal from them? It's a non-starter of an argument.

Re:Justifying theft

[Rich0]

Look up the American Home Recording Act. If you use royalty-paid media (ie CD-R's labeled as "audio" CDs and not data CD-Rs) and make 1st generation copies and give them away, you're fine. Technically you need to have paid royalties on the burner as well, but if you send a one-time payment of $5 or whatever that is to the appropriate fund you'll be cleared there as well.

If the copy is an analog copy, you're clear with any media - you're allowed to make as many genreations of analog copies as you want.

The only restriction is against using professional-grade recording equipment (ie mass duplicators). As long as you have to stick a disc in the drive for each copy you can make as many as you want.

The whole point of the AHRA was to balance fair-use. Digital first-gen copies are legal.

I doubt your "donating" 10,000 copies would get you far in court. If you could prove you didn't get any compensation you'd be fine, otherwise they'll burn you.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

Property can be given or sold, but not taken. That doesn't change when we dislike the owner or when we're envious of their wealth.

I'm glad you liked Fair Warning and followed up by patronizing the band, but it's still not up to us to decide that it's okay to give someone else's property away for free.

Re:Justifying theft

[vDave420]

us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

Yes. I, for one, am.

...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

I think this is how you are using the word take:
Take:
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

Appropriate:(v)
To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Exclusive:
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

Remove:
1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
Believe it or not, it's true.

Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

"The truth is, if you are not self employed, you don't own your own work. Your boss / company does." Of course! That's what you agree to when you accept their employment.

"This is why I try to avoid writing any truly reusable software at work - I don't want to limit myself in the future." There's no reason to write awful code on purpose. In one case where my new company wanted to use software I'd written at my previous company, they just drew up a contract and purchased the rights for a nominal fee. No biggie.

You've already found the solution that works best for you, pursuing open source projects. That's great, but don't assume that everyone should be forced to do the same.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

Okay, sorry for replying to my own post. Just remembered that you can negotiate to include in your employment contract such things as intellectual property ownership, non-compete clauses, and the like.

Re:Justifying theft

[Monty67]

I totally agree with your statement regarding property. But property is not being traded online.

We are talking about copyright infringement. There is no theft. Theft only applies to an object, such as a cd.

If I were to steal a cd from a store, that would be theft. Plain and simple. If I were to sneak into your house and make a copy of one of your Cds, what have you lost? Nothing. No property was taken.

As for me getting to preview VH, I'm thankful for that, given the number of CDs that are a complete waste. Funny how you can return almost everything in life, including a car (lemon law) but you cannot return a CD. At most you'll get to preview
2 songs from the radio.

On the note of CDs, you do realize that for every
blank Cd you buy, a portion of the price goes to
the music industry. I go thru a good number at work and they are never used for music. I wish I could have that money back. To me they are stealing from me.

I guess its all relative.

Thank you for your time and your opinion.

Re:Justifying theft

[BlueBiker]

Thanks for the clarifications. I did just now look it up [getting a headache in the process], and I think your points are valid although it's not clear that "fair use" includes the ability to give digital copies to someone who doesn't already own a legal copy of the material. I guess the law means whatever the courts interpret it to mean.

Re:Justifying theft

[Rich0]

There should be a wealth of info online. The purpose of the law was to address questions like:

1. Is it illegal to copy my CD to a tape so I can listen to it in my car which lacks a CD-player?

2. Is it illegal to copy my wife's CD so I can listen to it in my car as well (on a CD player)?

3. Is it illegal to copy my CD and hand it to a friend?

4. Is it illegal to press 100,000 copies of a CD and sell them for $4.99 on the street?

The recording industry hates the law, but it strikes a balance between industry and consumers. The law states that you cannot be prosecuted for infrigement for casual copying, and established a system by which the music industry is compensated for expected copying by adding a tarrif to audio CDs. The law does not address mass-distribution online - only on physical media. It also does not allow the use of mass-duplication equipment. It was felt (and in my opinion rightly so) that if the copies are made casually using consumer-grade equipment, it wouldn't be possible to execute piracy on such a scale that it would seriously hurt the recording industry.

AFAIK the law hasn't been tried in court. The RIAA probably wouldn't go after somebody for copying CDs one-by-one and handing them to a friend anyway. First, it is virtually impossible to track people down for doing this. Second, their case would look really weak - not only is the law against them, but we aren't talking about hackers on the fringe making billions of copies online, we're talking about a guy giving his best friend a copy of a CD - everyday stuff.

The law also prohibits the industry from establishing technical controls which would prohibit legal copying of digital media under the guidelines of the law. Whether current copy-protection technology violates this is uncertain - if it kept you from attaching a stereo CD player to a stereo audio CD burner via a digital cable and making a good 1st gen copy, then it would violate the law. The law does not address computer-based CD readers since they were not considered audio equipment under the law - it was geared more towards dedicated CD audio recorders that look like fancy tape recorders.

Not really.

[Inoshiro]

"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.

This just makes a market for better P2P

[Symbha]

It'll be a long battle, but they really can't win. All this strong arming is dependent on users identities. Well we are the ones with the nerds in our camp. Come on, how long before there's a P2P system that effectively hides their users identity? Not long. This is only round 2. Smarter peeps are coding away as we speak.

Come & get 'em

[washyourfeet]

RIAA? If they come for me, I'm broke. But I bought all their CD's & their records. If they come here, I'll just say "Go ahead, take 'em away". They can sell them on Ebay, pay off their lawyers, buy a casino, whatever... Artist? I'll see you at the show. Come to my town & play, & I will give you cash for the CD you sell there.

We've already succeeded this far

[TyrranzzX]

The RIAA has been screwing us over for awhile, and as a result they've had a drop of 15% in CD sales. It's enough to make Universal Cd's basically say "We're sorry, we'll be a good monopoly, please stop keep on buying our stuff (so that we don't get small enough for the Supreme court anti-trust crusher).".

The blood is in the water; they can ruin the lives of few filesharers but hundreds of thousands will still spring up in their place. It happened before, and it's happening again. The dinosaurs will be crushed at the hands of the vigilant youth. In 5 or 10 years, when the RIAA is gone and music is free what'll be our next battle is the question? Mabye the RIAA is all an elaborate scandal or some kind to cover up the other horrors awaiting us; the news doesn't cover it, lord knows it's owned by 5 major corperations who are heavily intertweined. A lot of 3rd party news sources are springing up, hopefully rantradio, the one in my sig, will get big enough in the next couple of years to do some damage before they hosts get arrested for corrupting the youth or some such bullshit.

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[whitefox]

Here's a partial list published by CNET:

• Bobby McFerrin, "Don't Worry, Be Happy"
• Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
• Eagles, "Hotel California"
• George Michael, "Kissing A Fool"
• Paula Abdul, "Knocked Out"
• Green Day, "Minority"
• UB40, "Red Red Wine"
• Ludacris "Area Codes"
• Marvin Gaye, "Sexual Healing"
• Avril Lavigne, "Complicated"

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[gregfortune]

Of course not, but perhaps the association with an organization like the RIAA is deserving of such a label...

No, you shouldn't buy any music...

[bninja_penguin]

You should buy music, just not RIAA.

How about this? Stop buying any and all music. If everyone were to stop buying all music, then, just maybe then, would all artists understand the bullshit the RIAA is shoveling on the world. If you think the voice of 50,000 geeks around the world won't get their ear, how about 50,000 artists? Whether or not they are members of the RIAA, they are all potential members, of which the RIAA could get a hellacious amount of money from.

As an aside, if the law applies equally to all citizens, then, by God, the RIAA should only charge $2,000 to any person they are suing. Selective pricing for the same crime smacks of a complete snowjob. Fuck the RIAA, and any greedy corporation, and especially the politicians.

Re:No, you shouldn't buy any music...

[lonesome phreak]

Actually, I think that might cause the smaller record labels to just collapse. Then those bands would be in serious trouble, while Britiny and N'Sync waited the boycott out.

No, I think I will continue to support my independent music.

That's a very interesting point you make about the $2,000. I think I will ask a lawyer friend about that...precidents now set and all. Very good idea bninja!

If the RIAA owns the copyrights...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the RIAA owns the copyrights to the music then how did she break the law by allowing them to download it. Isn't it lawful to give someone a copy of something they already own the rights to. And without any proof or evidence that she shared these files with anyone else how can they win this case against her or anyone else?

As we all know file sharing programs offer every user the control to decide who can and who can't download from them. In all of the instances the RIAA has documented they are examples of people allowing the RIAA to download music which the RIAA legally should be allowed to download. Where was the documented crime in all of this???

Re:If the RIAA owns the copyrights...

[gerardrj]

So according to you if an under cover police officer purchases drugs from me I can't be procecuted because the officer is allowed to do that to enforce the law?

There's also the fact that since these are civil cases, not criminal the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the burden of proof is "purponderance of the evidence", and not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt".

Defending against a civil case is very hard if the plaintff has anything near a reasonable case. 50.001% of the evidence will win the case for them, not the 99.5% for criminal cases.

In each of the cases, the operators of the servers did not set up the server so ONLY the RIAA could download the songs, the servers were apparently set up in a manner that allowd anyone to get at the content. Since the RIAA was able to download the song, so was anyone else. Seriously, what are the chances someone would accidentally allow file downloading to only the IP addresses that the RIAA were secretly using to locate servers? About zero.

Re:If the RIAA owns the copyrights...

[redstoner]

RIAA doesn't own any copyrights, the artists and record labels own the copyrights. RIAA is a trade group for the music industry and it's purpose is to represent and defend the interests of it's members. While I don't agree with their tactics, they have the right to enforce the copyright holdings of it's member companies. This is why RIAA is fronting this entire lawsuit as opposed to each individual record label filing it's own law suit.

I emailed CNN and TechTV

[poppageek]

I've email CNN and TechTV asking them to try and get word to the family of Brianna LaHara that if they will set up a Paypal account that there are many of us who will help pay the $2000.

1000 of us at $2 each would be one song each she was fined for.

Re:I emailed CNN and TechTV

[generic]

Please mod this up. I think this is a great idea. Where are my moderator points?

In the words of Lewis Black. . .

[Excen]

Goddammit!
Jesus Christ!
Holy Fuck!!!

I knew those fuckers would settle before this turned into a true PR nightmare. If only a group somewhat concerned with personal rights had gotten to her first.

Now that I have a troll rating. . .

Why didn't someone contact the EFF or a similar online rights organization about this case, or rather why didn't they contact the girl and her parents?

classical music listeners

[rpete]

Admittedly I don't know what alternatives there are for other genres if one wants to get away from RIAA labels, but for classical music there is Naxos. Virtually every single one of their releases come out at a $8 MSRP. Go out and buy an armful of these recordings and never look back.

The truly remarkable part about this...

[raehl]

Is that the Slashdot headline wasn't...

"RIAA Extorts $2,000 from Single Mother of 12 Year Old Girl."

eMusic

[ParadoxDruid]

I just checked out the free trial at eMusic... and I was getting very impressed. A wide selection of music I enjoy, incredily fast downloads, very geek savvy.

But I always read the legalese.

And eMusic's terms state that you cannot sell the music you buy from them-- in effect, you are not buying the music at all, you are licensing it.

I find that unacceptable, personally. My biggest problem with computers is the concept of licensing (sadly, even Linux is licensed, though its license is fairly open-ended).

Whenever possible, I only pay money for things I will OWN. I don't want to subscribe to eMusic and RENT music. I want to OWN music.

*sigh* and eMusic looked so promising.

In the ring

[Dumbush]

wow, it's match between two 12 years olds. Game on!

I dunno if anyone tried this but...

[Zakabog]

Can't someone being sued stand up to the RIAA and say

"I'm sorry for what I've done, please let me pay the artist directly the amount of money I stole from them."

It'd be great, it'd show how little the artist actually receives and it'd be a fair punishment. Lets say you have 1,000 songs, that might be around 70-80 albums, each album gets the artist $0.02-$0.10. At most you'll be paying $8.00. Even if they say "well each song spread to 50 different people", which is a lot of people to download one song directly off of one person, you'll only pay $400.00.

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[nacturation]

I'd love to get the list of songs and publish
which artist 'profited' by suing a 12 year
kid.

Apparently she was big into Frank Sinatra. Damn his dead and buried corpse for suing a 12 year old kid! How dare a dead guy sue a 12 year old kid?!?

I just can't do it.

[lord_paladine]

Anything I think of to reply to this just can't make it past the lameness filter... Then again, I think that pretty much says it all.

600+ score 1 comments, hope someone reads this:

[herrd0kt0r]

i've got an idea re: how we can screw the RIAA. well, maybe not totally screw them, but just kinda mess with their heads. i hope someone reads this amidst the 600+ posts here and will comment on it. here it is:

i'm a bad singer.
i'm a poor guitarist.
i make really bad songs.
years ago, i decided that i will only use my god-given powers for good. and thusly, i hereby declare a RIGHTEOUS WAR upon the RIAA. here is my battle plan:
1. create several anti-RIAA songs. these can have catchy titles like "A RIAAL PAIN IN MY ASS," or "Fuck Tha RIAA," or even "The RIAA Took My Crack Money - All $2000 of It!"
2. offer them on p2p networks as "Metallica - King Nothing Style Song By Herr Doktor," or something similar. the songs will have some identifying tag in their names, or artist field.
3. make tons and tons of copies of these songs, naming them as different songs of various RIAA-affiliated artists.
4. ask you, the public, to always search for and download one of these crap songs every time you p2p.

perhaps some will be daring enough to host huge caches of these crap songs with fake titles. and maybe the RIAA will try to persecute us! and then we can win in court or something. something big. i think it's a money-making scam waiting to happen!

seriously, though. we're all waiting for the RIAA to bust the wrong guy, so why not make up a bunch of us as wrong guys for them to bust? trade in legitimate mp3s, but try to sucker the RIAA into prosecuting legal traffickers?

we should be taking the battle to THEM. ya, you know: the one being fought in the STREETS. of the INTARRNET. peezout, yo.

Re:I think you

[Dun Malg]

It's theft. It's sad that it took the RIAA prosecuting people to wake up the mass market to the facts even after years of telling people it was theft.

Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT THEFT. "Theft" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was lawfully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal. You can argue that it's "as bad as theft" all day if you want and I won't care, but claiming copyright infringement is the same as theft is moronic. This stuff is all defined by law, and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT. What don't you understand about that?

RIAA sucks

[panic911]

Jeez, these people are terrible. Do you think that girl actually downloaded 2000 dollars worth of cds? I mean, it's not unheard of, but usually not a 12 year old girl. RIAA now is getting 2000 dollars which probably won't go to any of the artists and from that girls quote it sounds like she has been brain washed into thinking what the RIAA says is right.

EFF should set up funds like these?

[AmVidia HQ]

to help out ppl like this poor family? and the rest going to themselves like you said?

EFF can also give legal aid to all those getting sued. Perhaps a special legal fund for this as well?

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[mad_dog3283]

Not so fast. I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the artists that the RIAA "represents" are against this whole "let's sue our fans" thing. Michael Jackson spoke out and denounced the RIAA's actions, yet I remember seeing several of his songs listed in a subpoena. Dashboard Confessional also thanked their fans for sharing their music, but I don't know what label they're on (I have heard them on Clear Channel and MTV). Remember, this is a fight against the LABELS, not the artists, and NOT the RIAA (without the labels there would be no RIAA, but there would still be artists.)

Amnesty?!?

[AaronBaker2000]

You'd think that a 12-year-old girl would qualify for the Amnesty Program. Aparently, they were just kidding about the amnesty thing.

Best idea yet

[Stonent1]

Download the music you like without getting caught, and then cut a $12 check made out to the band. Send it to their "fan club" address. Enclose a note saying you appreciate their work and would rather they get the whole 12$ rather than the meager pennies left over by the "man"

Re:Best idea yet

[Unknown Poltroon]

thres a website www.musiclink.com, can send them money through paypal/credit card.

Re:Best idea yet

[poot_rootbeer]

Download the music you like without getting caught, and then cut a $12 check made out to the band. Send it to their "fan club" address. Enclose a note saying you appreciate their work and would rather they get the whole 12$ rather than the meager pennies left over by the "man"

It's a nice "feel-good" maneuver, but totally pointless. The band's fan club representatives have no legal authority to accept payment for the band's audio recordings. In most cases the artist doesn't even own them.

Best-case scenario here is that no one tries to cash your check. Worst case is, the label gets an admission from you that you took a copy of their content without paying them for it and goes after you.

Re:How appropriate, you fight like a cow.

[slaida1]

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

He's projecting his own morals onto "most people". That's so typical mistake when trying to assume moral highground ther's no excuses for it. He sucks balls and he knows it but denies it anyway. Little piece in a larger machine, easily replaceable...

You know, most people don't kill stupid RIAA assholes because they fear they'll be arrested.

<whine> Everyone's doing it! </whine>

[kiddailey]

Of course you don't believe in Intellectual Property!

<sigh>

"This is not necessarily justifying theft, but rather a redefinition by society."

... translation ...

"It's stealing, but because everyone is doing it, it's perfectly okay."

"Once you tell something to someone they own it too."

... translation ...

"Nobody has any right to profit from their own ideas."

"These companies are not really loosing money, because they haven't earned it yet. They are simply failing to earn it."

... translation ...

"Because I can copy this MP3 with a click of a button, I'm not stealing."

Nightline = nada

[poptones]

Just more mainstream crap. All too often presents one side, and that rat on Ted's head drives me to distraction.

And Jim Lehrer doesn't count... it's PBS. But even if it did count, it wouldn't count all that much. It's often just as one-sided as Nightline, and they appear waaay too lazy in matters of basic research.. or they're jsut too pressed for time. They like to say they're "in depth" but most /.ers ned only look so far as the Lessig "debate" of a month or so back to see how factual those claims are. Their coverage of the FCC ownership rules was every bit as superficial as that given on the CBS evening news - they just spent five times as much time telling the same two viewpoints - neither of which represents the interests of the public. They're just as self-serving as FOX and ABC, only they're driven by elitism instead of commerce.

Better late than never: emusic = RIAA and blows

[dpille]

For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account

Um, no. Vivendi Universal, owner of emusic, also owns Universal Records, an RIAA member. In fact, the first label I recognized on that RIAA membership roster, 4AD, also appears on emusic. For that matter, the label for the box set you mention downloading is also an RIAA member. You may not be landing as much cash in their pockets, but it's not "RIAA-free" by any means.

To add my own rant, I should mention that emusic is the only company that has ever flatly stolen my money. (Partial details here if you're interested.) As much as I liked the service for 3 days, I'd say you should be wary of these guys. The Better Business Bureau record on emusic pretty well supports this point, but (to my mind) it doesn't really emphasize the point enough.

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:Better late than never: emusic = RIAA and blows

[FurryFeet]

If you really want to give emusic a bad name, stop linking to that exchange. They sound perfectly reasonable, and you sound like a crusading, bitchy wimp.
Not trolling. Mods, read the linked conversation before modding me down.

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

[pmz]

You took a feedbag to the all-you-can-eat buffet...

Ahhh, buffets. Those porkers would pull a chair right up to the serving area, if they could, with a fork in each hand. The buffet owners could set up a liposuction clinic right at the exit using the gold mine of natural resources to open up a home-made soap store at the entrance.

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

[dpille]

1800 files in how many days

The number later changes to 1500 in further correspondence. Not that that affects your point, but it at least suggests there's no reason to trust their numbers. Anyway, why is that unreasonable in my first three days of service? Surely you can understand I would be browsing this as-yet-unexplored site and think, oh I'd like to listen to that someday, why don't I add it to that huge download list they let me keep?

You had to have been running an automatic downloader.

Nope, in fact, I was using their supplied downloader.

However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.

Yes, patiently retaining my money and trying to explain why it's not fraud or theft. Speaking of ad absurdum arguments, it appears you believe that some unvalued good (an indefinite number of files) can be substituted for a identified service at a precise cost. If I've hired (and paid) a lawn service to cut my grass for 3 months, could they realistically say, sorry, we've already cut 1,500,000 blades of grass on your lawn, we're walking away after a week and we get to keep your money? What you ignore is that I may very well have found the modified service perfectly acceptable, but that the very first company response on the issue told me sorry, even if you don't like it, you're on the hook.

I'm not saying I didn't get a decent deal, but that doesn't make them right.

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

[Saeger]

I also agree that it is not yet feasable, but as copyright becomes increasingly impossible to enforce -- as I believe it will be in the absence of a totalitarian regime needed to police ALL communications -- a system based on something other than artificial scarcity will naturally emerge to fund the creation of certain scarce NEW WORKS.

That system will probably be a mixture of voluntary payment for previous work, Street Performer Protocol, and maybe a bit of Return On Investment as incentive for smart/lucky patrons who "invest" in the right art production, as per the parent posts suggestion.

--

Re:12-year-old Brianna's home address

[weg]

I've just mailed her $10.

$2000?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Send the money to her congressperson...

[Nic-o-demus]

The question of where to send money has come up on quite a few threads now. The /. investigators must be on vacation or something because I haven't seen an address yet. May I suggest that someone gets the address of her congressperson (I'm going to bed so I'm delegating to some other timezone where people are awake still) and posts it so we can send a check with a little note saying "Please give this to the 12 year old I've heard about. BTW, this is what I think of the RIAA....." First, it'll be real hard for them to ignore the letter with the check. Sure, they might just send it back, but it'll get their attention, especially if there's more than a dozen or so of us (come on everyone :) Second, the money might acually get to her and her mom. Anyway, it can't hurt.

The RIAA's Next Step

[JackpotMonkey]

Next thing you know we will be hearing about how they crashed a bunch of teen slumber partys because the hostess didn't have legal rights to publicly play the cd's.

Re:So what you're saying IS...

[NanoGator]

"2. Copy CD to electronic medium."

Not sure if you're trying to be funny or not, but copying the CD would mean opening it. It's gotta be unopened before you can return it.

Sorry to be a spoil sport but I don't want people thinking Im suggesting that.

Green Day?????

[donnacha]

I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the artists that the RIAA "represents" are against this whole "let's sue our fans" thing. Michael Jackson spoke out and denounced the RIAA's actions, yet I remember seeing several of his songs listed

I'm just shocked to see Green Day on that list.

IANAT (I Am Not A Teenager) but I seem to remember them being relatively left-wing/anti-corporate, didn't they speak out against this bullshit too?

It looks to me as if the RIAA are deliberately including the work of objecting artists in their "relatively short list of files", perhaps as a PR defense against those artists making further noise i.e. the RIAA will be able to say "but look, we've caught all these who actually downloaded your work, we are merely your servants protecting your interests, attacking us is hypocritical".

Or perhaps the RIAA is playing an elaborate game of chicken, daring artists to stick their necks all the way out. Very few artists with a contract really want to risk losing corporate patronage, not even Michael Jackson. There is at least one artist with real balls that I know of who made sure to stay clear from all that bullshit right from the beginning, hopefully we'll see more of that independent artistic spirit re-awaking in the wake of Enron etc.

Re:Hmmm... Justice?

[binary paladin]

You're focusing on the wrong part of the story. There's two problems that have gotten out of hand, not just one. That's the worst part of this. Artists should get paid, I agree. However nailing a 12-year-old in the projects for $2000 doesn't solve anything.

Treating the symptoms of a disease instead of the cause will never cure anything.

The recording industry is another just another screw everyone organization. They screw the people the buy their music, the people the make the music and everyone in between. I'll use the simplest label I can here, they're bad. That's one letter less than "evil." They're that too.

And did she steal their property? What is the definition of theft? What is the definition of property? Did she think her actions were wrong? Was there any mens rea?

If it's theft, shouldn't it be pursued in a criminal matter and not a civil matter? If they really feel they're being stolen from, why not charge people with a crime as opposed to this civil bullshit? Because it's easier to step on people in the civil circuits, particularly for corporations and such.

These questions will never get answered because a huge corporation has the power to take these things to the courts and a single mother in the projects is at the mercy of corporations and our lovely, corporate government.

I bet you won't see the RIAA come after anyone with money or prestige enough to fight back. Nope, they're going to make examples out of people they can step on. It's called unequal enforcement.

Do I have pay some sort of fee when I listen to music on the radio or hear a friend of mine playing a song? Do I have to pay a fee whenever I play it back in my mind? Am I breaking the law if I replay a song in my head that I didn't pay for?

If not, why not?

"It was the girl who was in the wrong, not the 'recording artist' or the RIAA" This really is a matter of perspective, isn't it? Right and wrong are such subjective things. Following the "law" rarely has much to do with "right" or "wrong." Nazi Germany is a good example, but the list goes on.

It's wrong for an organization with that much money and that much power to simply step on a poor family like that. It's wrong any way you slice it (according to my rules and perspective anyway which really isn't "any way you slice it" but whatever). There was no harm. There was no theft. The recording industry didn't lose anything, including bandwidth.

We're in the process of dealing with the growing pains of entering a new era and discarding an old one. This is an example of it. It'll be nice when the internet and digital distribution of text, sound, video and other mediums finish destroying these worthless middle men. Unfortunately their white collar, bean counting, paper pushing, space wasting, blood sucking asses won't go down without a fight.

Now if we can just enter an era which begins the extinction of bureaucrats and lawyers.

Do you hear that Mr. RIAA? That is the sound of inevitability, the sound of your death.

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[in7ane]

"I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the artists that the RIAA "represents" are against this whole "let's sue our fans" thing"

I'll take that bet, and remind you of the RIAA commercials they keep on flashing during news reports on this with Britney, Christina, etc. saying that 'stealing music is wrong' (and apparently some of the stuff she had was by Christina - BBC news)

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but most of the 'artists' are there purely for the money.

A beautiful tactic.

[immanis]

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.

Re:I think you

[hmccabe]

Okay, it may not be theft, but you're trying to start a semantic argument to divert attention away from the fact that the act of duplicating and distributing music is inherently wrong. Even before you get into the lost revenue argument it feels like you're trying to get off on a technicality.

Sorry man, but there's no free lunch. The more people use this argument, the more corporations push for legislation like the DMCA to protect their interests. If you have a problem with the RIAA, I can understand. They suck. But nothing productive will come of the RIAA and music fans being horrible to each other.

Now, on the issue of lost revenue, although it will forever be impossible to prove, I don't see how you can truly believe any business can compete with a service that offers the exact same product for free with home delivery. Unfortunately, all the money that went into (hypothetically) studio time, instrument rental, artist royalties and the like is lost when people choose not to pay for the recordings. They may still sell millions of CDs, but with so many slashdot posters claiming they no longer purchase CDs, I don't know how you can claim that lost revenue is a myth.

What happens if I tape the radio?

[bs_02_06_02]

Do I get to tape the radio? Can I then listen to that song as much as I want? How about my friends? Do they have to cover their ears? What happens if I used my computer to tape the radio?

Re:What happens if I tape the radio?

[gerardrj]

That's not what these suits are about.
To continue your analogy, these suits are about taping the song from a radio, then making hundreds or thousands of copies and giving (or selling) them to anyone who asks you for one.
You are distributing the content without the author's or rights-holder's permission, thus violating their right (to copy in this case).
The copyright holder has the right (under U.S. law) to seek damages and an injunction against the offender.

If you were to do any research in to copyright law (written and case), you would easily find the answers to your questions. yes, yes, yes (as long as you don't re-broadcast it - they must all listen via "open air" from the same device", or charge for the performance), no, no difference.

Turn Pirates into Online Merchants

[edonaldson]

Here's my latest million dollar idea. Copyleft 2003. Patent not pending.

If there were software that would make it relatively easy to set up an online music store you could turn a "bunch of pirates" into a legion of online merchants selling music. Such software would not be trivial, I know, but we're talking about changing the world. ;o)

It seems to me that the vast majority of musicians would prefer a market where the "cream rises to the top" rather than the promoter-driven, sexy-packaging market that exists today.

With the proper software, thousands of online music merchants could specialize in specific genres, artists, eras, whatever. Imagine online music utopia. It would be great for everybody but the RIAA, the dishonest, disliked, obsolete, greedy middle man. What fun!

No one likes to get gouged. The artists are ready, the consumers are ready, the RIAA sees the handwriting on the wall.

All we need are a few good coders to give P2P users, a.k.a. music fans, the tools they need to change from music pirate to music merchant. I'm not a coder, but someone did a pretty good job creating MP3.COM. What if that web template were available to anyone for $500 a pop?

Revolution, bay-bee!

--
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side and it binds the universe together.

media companies hard up

[geoff lane]

If the media companies are so hard up as to need to extort $2K from a kid, perhaps we should start up a new charity to help them out?

Why not just install irate for your music?

[ctellefsen]

Tons of free, legal, independent music is available using irate. You get random tracks, rank them, and then irate uses your rankings to decide what the next tracks you get will be.

Precedent Set?

[clickety6]

If it costs this girl $2000, how can the RIAA push for more with other offenders? Surely anybody on the list can now offer $2000 to the RIAA and not have thme threaten their life savings any more?

Re:Come on. . .

[Cliffy03]

Man, am I glad I called that guy.

/Billy Madison

RIAA - EFF

[instanto]

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.

Re:So what you're saying IS...

[LilGuy]

It's called shrink wrap. Yeah its a trick of the pro's, I know... not too hard to get ahold of one of those machines..

They've built the culture they do business in...

[Chordonblue]

...Now they have to live in it. In a musical era where we have 7 year olds mimicking 'gangstas' and baring belly-buttons ala Brittney Spears, is it any wonder that the music industry's distain for morality has finally caught up to them?

The music industry has always liked to push the envelope encouraging the kids to be rebellious and not to 'take it' from their parents. So now they want to be the heavy? Heh. Doesn't that beat all?

Ever see what happens when a kid hasn't been disciplined through life? When the kid hits 14 and the parents start flipping out because little Zack is doing drugs and ripping off cars? Ever see them try to wrest back control of the kid's life? It's almost impossible by then.

When you've been raised under a certain set of rules - that's the reality you understand. When you build, condone, or at least promote a culture that shows how cool it is to be a gangsta, don't be surprised when those same trained kids rip that gangsta's music; after all, he be in that '64 yo - he don't need the bling.

It's too late to stop what they started already. The rebellion is visiting them now for a change and not just from the kids. Two years ago, very few outside the industry even knew what the RIAA was. I assure you that today, a lot more do now.

Re:So what you're saying IS...

[JoeNotCharles]

I used to be able to return CD's because I didn't like them. But I dunno if that would fly now. My thought was this: find out how much of the purchase price normally goes to the shop owner, and how much normally goes to the RIAA. Then shoplift the CD, leave the store's cut on the counter and mail the the rest direct to the artist, including a note with both explaining why. (Of course, this still screws the government out of its share via taxes.)

Needletime isn't free and the playlists are closed

[hughk]

Your radio anlogy fall down because regrettably many 'local' radio stations are essentially just running centrally generated material from negotiated playlists. You want needle time, you join the queue and pay for it. The end result is that a lot of good music gets left out because smaller companies can't afford the payola.

Having the media yourself reprents choice, you can choose what you want to hear and when.

She can sell herself and drugs on the streets....

[hughk]

and that way she can make $2000 faster. It might be illegal but as long as the RIAA can get their money. If she wants to know what to do, just look at some of the recent music videos for lessons.

MOD 6918910 UP !!!

[Matrix2110]

He has two points of interest with the web site and the possible boycott.

EMusic tip

[26199]

If you don't like the buggy proprietary download managers (and they'll try and insist you use one)... simply use a perl script instead... much easier.

Sympathy aside...

[Viceice]

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.

Re:Sympathy aside...

[ponxx]

If that's a publicity stunt it's the worst one i've ever seen...

Whatever she says, they sued a 12 year old, surely not the kind of heavy user with a lot of criminal energy they say they go after...

Re:Sympathy aside...

[milo_Gwalthny]

Unless you're seriously of the "any publicity is good publicity" school, I have to disagree. In New York City, the major tabloids (Post, Newsday) ridiculed the RIAA. One headline called the girl a " 'Thief' " (in quotes, that is)--implying that the RIAA has misrepresented the ethics of what she has done. This is the kind of publicity that even congresspeople take notice of. If there is enough of a public backlash, even our 'representatives' will have to come out on the side of the people.

Complete fiasco, from the RIAA's point of view.

The New York Times seems to be on the side of the RIAA, WSJ seems to be neutral. Interesting that the conservative papers (ie the Post) are anti-record industry while the liberal NYT is pro-industry. Is there a political sea-change occuring that nobody told me about?

Re:Sympathy aside...

[Viceice]

Exactly. If i were PR, I'd make this all go away as quickly as possible, as painlessly as possible. The fishy thing here is that settelment was everything but painless, yet, it worked out for the RIAA pretty ok.

No, /. should pay them NOT to settle.

[fleppir]

There are just too many valid defenses for them to settle. This would be an opportunity for the Libre Crowd to deal the RIAA a bloody nose. Somebody step up to the plate and get a defense fund going. I'm dirt poor (university student) AND a non-US citizen, but I would part with 10$ to see this girl DEFENDED.

Re:Hmmm... Justice?

[_aa_]

If you wish to continue to believe that what they sell is art, I won't try to stop you. Though I have to ask if you have ever encountered a true work of art?

I'd like to make some corrections to your statements. Theft and copyright violation are two different crimes. Violating a copyright does not constitute a theft. The girl received and distributed relativly low quality copies of copyrighted materials. This does not make her a theif.

A trade, as you say, is for one item of value for another item of equal value. A disc of plastic does not cost $15. The record producer charges more than the mere cost of production in order to PROFIT. A fair value for a CD would account for production costs, and give a fair salary to those who worked on the recording. And that value would decrease with every copy that was sold. But that's not what happens. This is what I like to call, unfair.

I stand by my statement that art is priceless, and that is not absurd. Truly benevolent works of art carry no value, cannot be posessions, and are made for many, many reasons, none of which are profit.

I do not believe that I ever implied that the RIAA did not have the right to demand compensation (I don't think copyright violation is a prosecutable offense, because it's not criminal, rather litigeous, though I may be wrong) through litegation. Just that it is a despicable and childish act to do so.

A side note

[master_p]

Song swapping is not illegal. Copyrighted material swapping without the copyright owner's permission is illegal. We should not forget that.

Better contact Arizona Republic (or AP?)

[martrootamm]

Arizona Republic picture of the girl

Arizona Republic Contact Page

AP contact address

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

[oxygene2k2]

we have that "genre sorted p2p" - it's called http.

and for downloads, bittorrent became pretty popular recently (and it's long term usable if there's a stable seed node, unlike those warez torrents)

Stop buying CDs now

[Lispy]

Sorry, but has anybody ever thought of getting rid of the RIAA? I mean, just stop buying CDs now and forever. I did two years ago. All Im saying is musicians WILL continue to make music, wether they have their giant publishing network or not. Spend your money on your local bands, join their concerts, buy their vinyl because its beautiful, wear their T-Shirts and promote them to your friends. And they will be happy with you downloading their free music from their homepage. If you stop buying commercial music now we might get rid of one of the worst witchhunts in modern history. If you are what I call a sane person you dont share via the internet anyways. Your friends might fit your taste of music much better, share among them, its legal btw. ;-)

just my opinion,
Lispy

Technical info

[mic256]

Their site is pretty slow, because they use Amazon Web Services. This means, every time you submit, they probably connect to amazon to check you query. I remember Amazon had restrictions on connections - no more than one per second. Anyway, sometime ago I developed a desktop application to browse the Amazon store - both in C# and Java. I think I could easily adapt it to finding, if a given record is released under RIAA. It works much faster, than the website of course, since there is no proxy. Just tell me, if anybody is interested (I can release the source code under GPL or BSD) You can find pictures of it at the bottom of this page

So who do we write to..?

[GodziSmurf]

[reposted with my user id]

Been looking on the RIAA's website for someone to write to and tell them what I think of these actions.

This is outright disgusting.

Yeah, that 12 year old was really denting their income. Now given her family's situation, guess who's gonna get jack for christmas?

As a parent of a kid of similar age, this is making me irate. I've already not bought a CD for several years and I'll be damned if I ever do it again. RIAA sponsored ones.. thanks to the people posting links to other bands not part of this company that's abusing their rights to ruin some kid's life.

So, anybody has some email address to write to? And no, Im not in the US so I cant write to my local representative...

Where are the EFF when you need them?

[Zone-MR]

You would think that with such an important and PR-intensive case, one of the priorities of the EFF would be to at least step in and help cover the fine, sending the public message that they are willing to help against unjust lawsuits.

In fact if I remember correctly, just yesterday the EFF sent a strong warning to people NOT to accept the amnesty settlements from the RIAA, because they would simply be admitting guilt. I think this is a crucial case which should have been fought. If there is any case the EFF should have stepped in to help, it would have been this one.

Re:Where are the EFF when you need them?

[gerardrj]

This wasn't a "fine", it was damages. The lawsuit was not unjust.
Pleas explain to me what is "unjust" about using the laws and suing someone who is violating your rights.

Re:Where are the EFF when you need them?

[Zone-MR]

What the girl did might well be illegal. This does not however mean that extorting damages of $2000 was just. Law, justice, and morallity are often three entirely different things. I, and the majority of the EFF supporters strongly believe that people involved in file sharing should not be considered criminals. There are many legitimate applications for P2P - conveniently obtaining a copy of music you own onto your PC, a decentralised backup of all the music files in case the originals become damaged, just to mention a few.

Of course if you share a file on P2P networks, many of the people who download it will not own a legal copy - but thats thir business. I belive that individual P2P users should never be held responsible for the actions of those who download from them. Shops are permitted to sell VCRs, firearms, tape recorders, whatever - each item can be used for good and bad purposes, for legal and illegal purposes - but this is the responsibility of the person who obtains the items. It is impractical for the RIAA to go after people downloading music without owning originals, so instead they hold everyone SHARING the music to be responsible! Yes, I believe this is unjust, and I believe that the EFF as a group predominantly are against the mass lawsuits against filesharers.

Re:Where are the EFF when you need them?

[gerardrj]

There was absoloutly no charge of criminal behavior in this case. The case is completely about the violation of covol rights.

Your set of examples of products is flawed. Shop owners and manufacturers re regularly sued (and pay out) for the way in which others use their products.

In this case, I've read that the girl was found ot have songs on her computer that were downloaded from the Internet. She apparently does not own a license/copy of the music. She seems to admit that she downloaded and played music without paying the copyright holder. She is the person who obtained the goods, and the one you yourself say should be held accountable.

Re:Where are the EFF when you need them?

[Marc2k]

You guys are BOTH nuts.

Re:Where are the EFF when you need them?

[gerardrj]

I don't understand what is "nuts". Is it that I have a firm grasp of facts and apply them to the situation without an agenda?

This is sick

[vandenh]

$2000?

If I drive my car at 250 km/h I only have to pay 500$ if they catch me. How on earth can somebody get away with $2000 of fines for "stealing" music? How many CDs is that? 200? So does that mean that the RIAA thinks that all file "stealers" would have bought 200 CDs during the last couple of years? I dunno... I barely have collected 100 CDs during the last 15 years.

Not bad... maybe this is a good way for the fat RIAA people to finance their big cars.

Re:$29.99 for all you can download

[Technician]

If the RIAA would simply offer that deal on the internet... They would get about $25.99 more per month then I spend now... Due to the price of CD's verses DVD's, games, etc. my CD purchases are only a couple per year. All this publicity has been great. I've been show lots of sources of Free non-RIAA stuff on the internet in the last couple weeks. I hope the RIAA keeps up killing their stuff so the alternitives get more free publicity. The move into DRM that invokes the DMCA liabilities to use on my RIO has also slowed my purchases. No compact disk logo simply means no sale. It's amazing the amount of stuff without the logo. Non-RIAA MP3's generaly have no DRM and DMCA worries.
It kinda reminds me of the MS product activation stuff sending people to find and try alternatives. Is MS and RIAA attending the same business schools?

Where is the book industry

[GrootMonster]

Believe me, downloading books is not uncommon. It is very easy to download an average size library worth of books from O'Reilly, MSpress and what have you.

So far I've only downloaded free material (buddhist stuffand philosophical essays mainly - yes, I'm one of those, that's om mani padme hum for you :) ). Yet the amount of copyrighted material is staggering.

Especially computer book publishers loose money on this, for nerds and geeks (hello, that's me, too) have less of a problem reading off a monitor or print it (on a company printer - totally free).

So, to wake a sleeping dog that has a much harder time making money, where is the book publishing industry. Why don't they have a problem. Quantity of losses, less money for laywers, common sense. Fsck if I know.

Re:So what you're saying IS...

[krilli]

Of course, this still screws the government out of its share via taxes.

Put extra money in the parking meters.

Or tip policemen.

Mod parent up, please. [nt]

[krilli]

Mod parent up, please. [nt]

Re:Blank Audio CD's

[Technician]

OK, I didn't get an answer last week, so I'll try again. I have a couple boxes of blank Audio CDR's. Since they had a Royalty paid on them, Just what does the payment provide for me?

Does it mean I can copy one of my CD's and sell the copy? (A royalty has been pre-paid!)

Does it mean I can borrow your CD's and copy them? (I know it's OK in Canada, but I'm in the USA)

Does it mean I can record off the Radio, XM or Sierus radio, cable TV music channels?

Can I use them to record the band playing at the club down the street?

Unfortunately none of the uses that are legal or not are listed on the packages. The only hint is they are for music use. They certanly can't be just for my singing in the shower so the songwriter gets paid. So far I have been using them for MIDI files to pay the songwriters while not copying someone's performance. I've also used some for copies to play in the car. At current prices, there is no way I'll risk loss of an original in the car.

RIAA just does not get it

[Ath]

Carey Sherman's statement that people do not shoplift because they are afraid of being prosecuted is a perfect example of how the RIAA does not understand things.

Laws are meant to reflect society's values and the rules we want to live by. Prosecution and punishment for violating laws serves two primary purposes: 1) as a deterrent against people who would engage in the behavior and 2) as a punishment for people who engage in the behavior.

The act of shoplifting (which is actually the general crime of larceny) is illegal because there is a general consensus that the behavior is wrong.

But I would argue that the purpose of this law is almost entirely to serve the punishment purpose of laws and not the deterrence.

Most people do not shoplift because they feel it is wrong to take someone else's property. This is our shared value. We don't refrain from doing it because we are scared to go to jail.

The problem for the RIAA is that they have a legal protection through copyright but they do not have the consensus anymore regarding the behavior. They are at serious risk of society eventually desiring a change in the law. I think the RIAA knows this and why they want to "change the attitude" of people.

Currently, the behavior is clearly illegal. But many people in society now feel that the property right over copyrighted music should not be so absolute. The RIAA, however, insists on keeping the status quo and therefore will not change its business model.

I suspect what will happen is that in 10-15 years, the current music industry will be radically changed. Maybe songs will be licensed. Currently, you buy the physical media which contains the music. Many people want more flexibility in what they can do with the underlying content. The RIAA does not want more flexibility. One side has to change, and I think the RIAA will be on the short side of the stick...eventually.

Suing your consumers will speed up the process. I am actually glad the RIAA is doing it. I feel sorry for the people being sued, as most probably do not have the resources to defend themselves or even pay a settlement. But the overall effect will be to alienate its customer base and further the process of people demanded changes.

Abuse of children, minorties and all else

[theolein]

I haven't bought a CD in over three years. Simple. The reasons are the following:
I am gettting older and the vast majority of one hit wonder singers who couldn't write their own music if their lives depended on it simply do not impress me.
The fact that most modern "stars" are more important for their looks and their public misbehaviour (Shakira, Spears, Williams) than for their musical ability.
The fact that if you're a western minority, blacks, latinos in the US then the role model should be either women who act like sluts or men who abuse women and revel in a life of crime.
The fact that sexuality of teens is blatantly exploited for financial purposes.

I'm just sick of it. We already have a porn industry and I don't see why teens should be abused for this. I have nothing against teen sexuality, but I oppose kids getting exploited simply for the fucking money cause they don't know better. I oppose the fact that poverty is exploited to make a life a crime an admirable thing to do. What the hell happened to bands like Livings Colors that could actually make music? Even Public Enemy's radical message got abused by the pimps in the recording industry. I feel anger when I see Robbie Williams blowing $1million in one night in a casino.

And I feel double and treble the anger when the same blood sucking industry starts a campaign to rape their audience of their every last cent so that they can continue to their disgusting lives.

It is a monumental pity that teenagers, the main target group of the recording industry, are mostly incapable of realising what is being done with them.

My RIAA complaint is that it's used to separate

[goldcd]

the large multinational labels and they artists they represent from the people who being prosecuted. I cannot imagine a single artist turning up on the doorstep of a housing project, walking in and taking $2000 from somebody who can little afford it before climbing back in their stretch and heading back to their penthouse. The PR would be disastrous - but it's OK for the RIAA to do it. They're just a big faceless kill-joy.
I'm not going to start saying we should boycott the labels of all artists represented by labels who fund the RIAA, but a good start would be those who've been pro-active in their support for them. (The only flaw with my plan is that all the artists appearing the anti-piracy adverts are shit and it's hard to boycott something you weren't going to buy anyway).

Not a single mention on the RIAA website

[GrootMonster]

Search for LaHara on it or just browse trying to find it there.
Nothing. What is that all about? What does it signify? Probably that they rate p2p hunting higher than keeping up their website.
Or..... they think it's bad publicity.

Wanna make somebody think they're being sued?

[Brento]

I whipped up a fake news release using Yahoo's story yesterday, just for yuks. It looks like this:
http://www.brentozar.com/breakingnews/riaa.aspx?ex =10600&Language=EN&&partner=GOOGLE&Refer=5

The names in the press release are dynamically generated, though, so you can put in a friend's name & occupation and point them to the site, making them think their name was in the press release. (Okay, so I've got too much spare time.) You can set them up here:

http://www.brentozar.com/breakingnews/

Re:Wanna make somebody think they're being sued?

[MImeKillEr]

Dude, you're evil. I like evil people.

Had I seen this last night, I'd have posted your link on Fark's "What have you done to someone in revenge" (or something like that) thread.

Re:Wanna make somebody think they're being sued?

[Brento]

Heh - funny, of all the coincidences. I see you've got GlassUser rated as a friend - I know the guy, we both live in Houston. Odd!

Re:Wanna make somebody think they're being sued?

[MImeKillEr]

Houston? I'm sorry. :-P

I live in Round Rock. Literally 5 min north of Austin.

Pure Evil(tm)

[eugene_t00ms]

Am I the only one that sees this as final proof that the RIAA is an organization of pure evil? How could anyone take money from a single mother and a 12 year old girl that loves music? This should be on the national news. Everyone should see this girl crying on camera in front of Tom Brokaw...blubbering about how she just didn't want to hurt artists...i bet that would really help the RIAA's image...

The very idea that the RIAA can invade these peoples lives and steal their grocery money just because some girl downloaded her favorite pop songs...

When is this going to stop?

Think about it for a second

[EmagGeek]

I know I'm going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but does this actually make any sense?

The stories published yesterday said these people a) paid for a service that we all know doesn't charge, b) the kid, who allegedly lives in low-income housing, is an honor student and either didn't know or couldn't figure out what was going on.

This story is a flash in the pan, and I think that it's conceivable that none of the people involved do indeed exist. RIAA "had no personal information about [the defendant]" yet was still able to file a lawsuit? How the hell does that work? How do you serve papers to someone if you don't even know who they are?

I smell a LFUD (Lies and FUD) campaign...

Re:Think about it for a second

[MImeKillEr]

The stories published yesterday said these people a) paid for a service that we all know doesn't charge, b) the kid, who allegedly lives in low-income housing, is an honor student and either didn't know or couldn't figure out what was going on

Some points:

a) Some website somewhere might be scamming and selling KaZaA. Someone not that technical might not know the difference

b) She's 12, and may be technically naive. I'd hope not, but we have no way of knowing.

How do you serve papers to someone if you don't even know who they are?

Easy. There are lots of lawsuits where they group 'JOHN DOEs' together. You file a lawsuit, then start the process of investigating to find out who people are.

The RIAA might've contacted her ISP, who wasn't immediately forthcoming with the name. As such, they file suit and inform the ISP who in turn contacted the account holder. The mother calls some friends who tell her to go public. She does.

I smell a LFUD (Lies and FUD) campaign...

By who? The RIAA? I'd like to believe they utter morons, but I don't think even they'd be dumb enough to pull a stunt like this.

Re:Hmmm... Justice?

[hyphz]

Not quite.

First of all, there's good evidence that she was entirely misinformed. In all their statements the parents have said that they had the impression that their ISP service fee was a subscription which entitled them to download this material off the internet. They might be wrong, they might be stupid to think that, but it seems that's what they thought.

Secondly, it also seems that she wasn't deliberately making the music available for others, and it's entirely possible that she didn't know Kazaa did that.

The first example implies that she didn't have the intent to download music without paying (she thought she had paid already). The second example shows she didn't have the intent to distribute it (she didn't know Kazaa did that automatically).

A lack of intent WOULD have been considered in court. If "justice" is so far with the RIAA, why does it keep dodging courtrooms via the "settle for $2000 or go to court for $15m" trick?

Also, you cite the "recording artists" as those with justice in that area. But the RIAA - in spite of their name - aren't recording artists, they're publishers. The recording artists probably aren't going to see a dime of that $2000.

RIAA member list

[localusr]

Here is the RIAA member list for your viewing pleasure: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Next they'll be....

[Craig3010]

...burning her teddy bears and ripping the heads off her dollies to make sure she learns her lesson! The Stones suck.

Where does the money go?

[mwing]

Does anyone have any idea where the $2000 goes? To the artists? Don't think so..

Adjust your AFDB

[87C751]

I also agree that it is not yet feasable, but as copyright becomes increasingly impossible to enforce -- as I believe it will be in the absence of a totalitarian regime needed to police ALL communications...

Now there's a thought! Could the copyright jihad be part of a multi-pronged approach to advance a totalitarian regime, alongside CAPPS II and the War On Some Terror?

Seriously, though... why is it that downloading a song does not count as a "performance" for the purposes of mechanical royalties? Why does the music industry, as personified by the RIAA, insist that p2p distribution and webcasting are somehow fundamentally different from radio and TV broadcasting of that same material? As the post above pointed out, ASCAP royalties are actually reasonable (and we can probably assume that BMI and SESAC are in the same range). But as soon as you transmit music over the net, it somehow becomes thousands of times more valuable? Shit, what is the industry going to do when digital radio finally rolls out? GNURadio + streamripper = never have to buy a CD again, unless you want slightly better reproduction or you're really interested in the filler surrounding that one popular track. And there's nothing... nothing that the RIAA cartel can do about that.

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

[Spad]

It doesn't matter whether you download music or not. The RIAA doesn't actually have any quantitative data about how many songs are downloaded, they just make the assumption that every $1 that their profits decrease by is someone downloading a song off the net.

If nobody downloaded music, but they all boycotted CDs, the RIAA would still blame P2P piracy for the drop in sales - you know they would.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses,

[kaiidth]

On the activist front, here's a suggestion for a protest chant:

Hey, hey, RIAA, how many kids did you sue today?

I know, I know. They actually sued her mother. But I don't think the general public will make that difference.

Keep The Comments

[Goo.cc]

"What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones"

I don't know why it is done but the write up for these stories need to be more even handed. Witty, pro-stealing comments on the stories are not needed.

Re:DISGUSTING

[NeXS]

I also feel disgusting this kind of think... We're comming back to that old time when Robin Hood was necessary :) RIAA is taking hard earned bucks from the single mother of a young child, takes 95% of this money and turns backs 5% to artists who don't know what to do with all the money they already have. And don't forget all this is decided by a private company and backed by the government... DISGUSTING!

Somone needs to just say NO

[nurb432]

Is ANYONE going to stand up and fight this? It will only take one to stop this insanity.

Geesh..

Re:Somone needs to just say NO

[dentar]

That's why they're picking on someone (a 12 year old girl) that does not have the knowledge or ability to pay for a lawyer and fight. RIAA is looking for -victims- to -exploit- for -profit-.

Who are they kidding?

[xenoweeno]

Wasn't the RIAA going after the "big time" filesharers?

Am I supposed to believe a 12-year-old girl living in a housing project had a 100gb archive of the latest dreck from RIAA member labels?

another irony.

[eshefer]

The RIAA talk about P2P and child porn, but they are the ones scruing 12 year old girls.

pathetic!

[Anonymous Coward]

"she doesnt want to hurt the artists"

12year olds download JLO,Eminem,...-kinda music,
what else would you expect from them after showing them off your big mansions in MTV Cribs?

Anybody wonder

[AbbyNormal]

if because of the press they settled extremely quickly? Huh. And there was no negativity on the part of the mother blaming the RIAA or cruelty or anything?

Me sniffs a very quiet settlement, were the mother was paid off to keep her yap shut to the press. I'll bet the $2000, was simply a way that the RIAA could keep face and show they are "tough" on downloaders. I would love to see some settlement papers on this one..on the books and under them. RIAA had a PR disaster on their hands 1 day, and the next. POOF. Gone.

kiddie porn

[hankaholic]

Can't we try the RIAA under statutory rape laws?

They're tried to rape a 12-year-old girl, but opted to rape her mother instead...

Maybe the EFF

[MImeKillEr]

or some similarly-minded group should find this girl and ask her mother if she'd like to be the posterchild for the evils of the RIAA. (If not her, then some child model like they use in clothing ads). Offer to pick up the $2000 tab.

Picture this:

A crying girl, behind bars. In prison garb.

In 48pt font (or larger) over her head:

"This is the face of music piracy."

Blow the picture, in smaller type:

" In September of 2003, 12-year-old Brianna LaHara found out that she was a pirate. Brianna didn't know KaZaA shared her music by default, and her mother was forced to pay a settlement to the RIAA in the amount of $2000. Brianna, her mother and brother live in government-subsidized housing.
" $2000 settlement so that the members of Metallica can afford that 12,000 sq ft mansion instead of the measly 9,000 sq ft one. $2000 settlement so that Britney Spears can afford another set of tits. $2000 settlement so that an industry so out-of-touch with its audience can continue to strong-arm copywrite protection down the throats of the American public.
" Take time to contact the RIAA and voice your opinion on this matter."

And then list all known addresses and phone numbers for them.

Anyone?

Ok, it might be lame, but I've not had any coffee yet and its not even 7AM.

How much to the RIAA really know?

[@madeus]

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.

I think you're spot on. I've read about a couple of people they are after now, they both seemed to have been subcribed to the same site.

It sounds a lot like a recent crackdown on child pornography that the police did in the UK. They just stumbled across a single site in the US, and got all the user subscription details for that site and then went door to door and then claimed it was a 'big investigation', even though it clearly wasn't.

I think all they have done is found a list of subscribers to a single web site or service and decided to go down the list of users.

unhappy artists

[Hittite Creosote]

I was watching the TV last night (on the BBC), and heard this comment from David Bowie -

"Once corporations start suing their customers, they're really on a slippery slope,"

I'm thinking of starting a political party for it

[Quizo69]

I'm an Australian citizen, but sadly our country is headed the same way. We even have Cary Sherman on the news (all of them carrying the same press release story fed to them by ARIA, our RIAA) saying how they are getting screwed over by pirates.

I'm getting so sick of it all, I am tossing up whether or not to run for politics myself and try to introduce major copyright and digital rights reform.

I would use all current technology to promote the issues - bulletin boards so Australian citizens can comment on the issues (and I'd be there reading them and replying), I'd encourage email and not paper letters (save some trees) which I'd read as opposed to most politicians just ignoring email, and I'd advocate a return to a 14 year copyright, or even less in a world whose pace is ever increasing. I'd look seriously at completely abolishing copyright altogether, because I don't believe in maintaining artificial scarcity where it is no longer viable as a business model. If you can reproduce something (ie a song or movie) for no cost to the original maker (in reproduction costs), it no longer has real value. The value needs to come from other ways, such as paying for a cinema ticket to enjoy a 50 foot screen and a subwoofer that would be illegal to have at home because of noise laws. You get the idea.

Of course this sounds irrational, and you may say I have no hope of ever succeeding against entrenched interests. But you know what, if I try and then fail, at least I will have tried to do something about it. So be inspired, and run for politics yourself! If enough do it, some are bound to coalesce and actually make it all the way. From there you have a platform from which to begin real change in society.

Where does the money go?

[BreckinridgeLong]

So this woman has to fork out $2,000...I'd love to know how much of that actually goes to the artists involved. Perhaps we could get a list of the songs she allegedly took, and then formulate a letter to each artist to see if that artist received the portion of the money that he/she/they are owed.

Pirate CD's to pay the fines

[CaffeineFreak]

Just think how many CD's this poor girl will have to pirate and sell on the streets to try to raise the money to pay her fine.

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.

Karma to burn

[LittleGuy]

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

print Comment.ObWinonaRyder

Re:Are you shitting me?

[kmarius]

You're right. I bet they even have radio, perhaps a TV too, they sure have money to spend.

What's great about the evolution in the computer industry is that you can use an old PC and still get the work done. You don't need a 3GHz Pentium to download music. You can get older computers for a very low price. Perhaps the computer was even given to them by a family member. If an average MP3 is 5 MB, you only need 5GB for a thousand songs.

$2000 is a lot of money for someone in their situation. Chances are that the girl didn't even know this could happen, and the punishment is far greater than the crime in this case.

Anecdotal evidence

[kiwimate]

I first read of the settlement this morning in my newspaper. I live in the Philadelphia region, which, to give some perspective to those outside the U.S., is the fifth largest city in the United States. For all intents and purposes, there is one morning newspaper in our area, the Philadelphia Inquirer.

This story was on the back page of the business section, bottom left, perhaps three column inches. Six short paragraphs. Or, to put it another way -- it was buried.

So, what do we have? A story about an extremely quick and low-key settlement on an issue that's potentially very embarrassing to the RIAA -- and it gets stuck in some out-of-the-way spot in the paper that hardly anyone will see.

But to really get the full import of this, you have to know what sort of paper the Inquirer is, and realize that the Inquirer generally would be all over this. Stories about poor little 12 year old girls being attacked by big business? I'd expect to see a front-page article continuing on to page 4 or page 6 with pictures of the girl and her mother.

No...when I found this article in the paper, my immediate thought was, "why would the Inquirer, given who they are, bury this? Who are they in bed with?"

Re:Oh please.

[I_M_Noman]

No one cries fowl when a child shoplifts from the local department store.

Ah, you're just chicken. (Sorry, couldn't resist the nitpick, but when you serve up a softball like that one...)

Just Say No...

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

What's next?

[ScottyB]

The RIAA going after kids' lunch money? What, are elementary school bullies going to be on their payroll? How many twinkies is the new Britney Spears album worth in copyright violations (say $.50 per twinkie maybe, 10 songs, that's 3,000,000 twinkies)?

"I see you decided not to use your allowance to pay for music. I hope you like working at McDonald's after school. If all goes well, you'll flunk out of that honors school and never get your high school diploma."

So much for helping the poor.

SB

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

[ddimas]

We do that because we have an instinct to reward the lucky SOB with good genes. That's also why groupies follow these people around and have sex with them, the idea (on the genetic level) is to get those genes into our gene pool. Celebrities have always had this response. In times of high morality the process is slowed down a little, but the risks of disease and jealosy are much reduced. The fundamental response does not change.

The problem today is that middlemen have figured out how to make scads of money off this response. First you need a high visibility excellence, actors, atheletes, musicians,industialists, financeers, and politicians provide this; scientists, police, engineers, accountants do not. Second you need a relativly powerless group, that leaves out politicians, financeers, and industrialists, they really don't need you. Third, you exploit them until they start to become self sustaining. Fourth, move on to the next victim (previous victim is now able to force you to share the profits).

I do agree that Western Civilization is in Decline, we are increasingly paralyzed when it comes to necassary action on the local level, the people are increasingly disenfranchised and are being forced into, for lack of a better term, "debt serfdom", and they are starting to exhibit the charachteristic passivity of the serf (do you really think 9/11 would have happened if the passengers had beat the crap out of those guys?), and last but definatly not least we are seeing the growth of an aristocracy that is above the law (well technicly not, but they usually buy their way out of comlying with the law, usually by buying politicians).

Sad. Mod this post a -5 Ranting and Raving.

Apple should donate a computer to her

[jocknerd]

Then she could legally download music through iTunes.

I for one am willing to donate $10 to her as well.

Re:Apple should donate a computer to her

[shark72]

I'm not sure if that was a hindrance to her before -- buymusic.com is PC-friendly and has a similar catalog of music.

Re:Oh please.

[Vesuvius_2]

this isn't theft- it's copyright infringement. if a child draws mickey mouse do you want them to pay big $ to Disney as well?

Re: Everyone's doing it!

[SammysIsland]

My reasoning has nothing to do with everyone doing it. I would have the same belief with or without the masses feeling the same way.

Insurance is the answer

[cat_jesus]

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.

Sometimes I wish ...

[Kombat]

... that there was some kind of "-1 Self Righteous/Redundant/Pedantic" hybrid mod.

It seems that whenever someone says "stealing mp3's," someone else jumps out and says "It's not 'stealing!'"

Notice they don't deny that it's wrong, or that it's taking something without paying for it, or acquiring something they didn't earn and don't deserve - they just want some props for picking up on a ridiculously trivial legal technicality.

It just gets a little tired, seeing the same stupid thing, over and over, you know? You see a few do the same thing with the word "pirate", too. And of course, there's the devoted fanatics over the semantics of the "hacker/cracker" pair. It never ceases to amaze me how every time one of them posts, they seem to sincerely believe they're the first person to ever try to explain the difference.

The bottom line is that these people really have nothing of substance to offer regarding the underlying debate, so they resort to ranting about the language. In my book, they're just one small step above spelling/grammar flames.

Re:Sometimes I wish ...

[JonBovi]

You're one of those people who say "Meat IS Murder," aren't you?

Re:Sometimes I wish ...

[Palshife]

Hear hear.

Re:Sometimes I wish ...

[Dun Malg]

It seems that whenever someone says "stealing mp3's," someone else jumps out and says "It's not 'stealing!'" Notice they don't deny that it's wrong, or that it's taking something without paying for it, or acquiring something they didn't earn and don't deserve - they just want some props for picking up on a ridiculously trivial legal technicality.

Argh. It's not a "trivial legal technicality". It's the crux of the greater copyright battle. Copyrights are, as stated in the freakin' constitution, suposed to be a monopoly on the right to copy a work for a limited time. Attempts to frame copyright infringement in terms of "theft" and "stealing" are an effort to justify the perpetual extension of copyright. Ownership rights to real property do not expire. Copyrights do expire (or they SHOULD, at least). Equating copyright with property right lends legitimacy to the perpetual extension of copyrights, which I think is wrong. Look, I'm sick of the whole back-and-forth of this argument too, but I see it as an important distinction. Accepting the "theft" word in debate on the issue would be like accepting the term "filthy vicious foreigners" as legitimate in a debate about immigration. The words people use are important. As long as people spout the "copying=theft" line, I'm going to continue to correct them because they're wrong and I think it's an important issue. I'm sorry it bothers you.

Re:Sometimes I wish ...

[Politburo]

Yeah I suppose the difference between securities fraud and shoplifting is just a pesky detail to you as well. The "trivial technicality" has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Please see my post above.

Re:Sometimes I wish ...

[Sj0]

Sometimes *I* wish there was a -1 Get a sense of humor moderation. Then we could avoid silliness like your page-long rant about how people who are convinced that stealing a CD is a worse offense than downloading 20 songs are st00pid.

On CNN This Morning

[waxdaddy]

I saw that several people noted yesterday how Fox News was the only major outlet offering news about this girl's situation. However, you can always rely on the Cafferty File, eh?

Jack Cafferty spent a few minutes on CNN this morning lambasting the RIAA and record companies for suing a 12-year-old girl, and, I quote, "Maybe they'd sell more CD's if they'd stop putting out so much crummy music."

Bold statement from someone whose paychecks come courtesy of AOL Time Warner.

Sidenote: I'd really like to see Cary Sherman on the Daily Show; that'd be damn funny.

-waxdaddy

Re:On CNN This Morning

[Hassman]

Dude, lay off the crack...it is altering your perception of reality...

Re:While you're at it

[koa]

Hey, can we get a text filter for threads dealing with **AA?

Example:
When someone submits a story that has the word "theft" in it, it is automagically replaced with "infringe a copywrited work" ?

No Lunch For You, Brianna!

[Greyfox]

Lets see, lets assume that lunch runs you about $2 these days, that's a bit over 3 years worth of lunch money they just took away from Brianna. I wonder if they pulled her pony-tails on the way out...

I'm glad!

[LordSkippy]

Now maybe Avil Lavigne can afford the really massively big jacuzzi, instead of the just really big jacuzzi. Oh wait, it was just $2000 - sue the kid again! /sarcasm mode off

Why Boycotting Works

[f0rt0r]

If done by enough people, RIAA goes out of business, or at least doesn't have the funds to keep all of its lawyers on payroll anymore. PLUS it would definitely get lots of media attention.

Re:Why Boycotting Works

[jcast]

I didn't think the RIAA was in buisiness---I thought they were just an industry group (i.e., a cartel/guild), not an actual productive force. As such, I suspect the RIAA would be the last person hurt by an effective boycott.

Also: does anyone happen to know what the RIAA's membership fee structure looks like? I wonder if their revenue is even affected by CD sales...

Re:Are you shitting me?

[s3ntry666]

you are an idiot!

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

[Syberghost]

The problem with your argument is that you're arguing "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" in a capitalist society.

The reason people with natural talent make more money than people doing a job that anybody can learn to do is simple supply and demand.

Shaq does something most people cannot EVER learn to do as well as he does it; the cop does something that 19 year old kids are routinely trained to do.

Also, both teachers and cops are paid by the government. Government never does anything right; that's why you're supposed to only let government do things that nobody else can do. Private-sector teachers get paid better.

I'm not arguing for private-sector cops; I think only government can do that properly, but with that you have to accept that it'll cost more than it would in the private sector, and leave less for the employees.

Sympathy for RIAA

[Get Behind the Mule]

Please allow us to introduce ourselves
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
We've been around for a long long year
Stole an industry's soul and grace

We were 'round when Brianna L.
Had her moment of fear and shame
Made damn sure the lawyers
Took her money and gave her the blame

Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane

We hung around on the Internet
When we saw it was a time for a change
Killed Napster and its administrators
Sean Fanning sued in vain

We wrote a hack
Into the Britney tracks
When the downloads raged
Now it's on your Mac

Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane

We watched with glee
While our attorneys
Fought for a hundred grand
From every music fan

We shouted out,
"Who killed the Dead Kennedys?"
When after all
It was us, you see

Let us please introduce ourselves
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
And we've laid traps for the file swappers
Who get sued before they press Escape

Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane

Just as every kid is a criminal
And the corporate thieves are saints
As heads is tails
Just settle our lawsuit, sir
Cause you're in need of some restraint

So if you meet us
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Obey all our well-paid politicians
Or we'll lay your life's savings to waste

Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane

Whoo whoo ... whoo whoo ...
Whoo whoo ... whoo whoo ...

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

[emptor]

Simple. Lotsa people can become cops, very few can become pro basketball players.

Thank Adam Smith.

Look at the other site

[daniel_yokomiso]

A recent article about legal music downloads. Lot's of independent stuff there.

Re:Are you shitting me?

[helpfulcorn]

Indeed. I once knew a girl who ran napster on a P90 with windows 95, which you could get for about $10 (not including shipping) on Ebay or really really cheap at a yardsale. And as for internet, it doesn't cost that much, infact maybe her grand mother or something paid for it.

Is that site for real?

[Dog and Pony]

Just wondering, because everytime I try it, all I get is that frontpage. Never managed to actually complete a search of any kind - timeouts or never returns. Feeling an itch to blame it in the server software... ;-)

So, anybody actually got it to work - because I see many people reaping easy karma with that link around slashdot. Would be really fun if it was a hoax. :D

If the concept is sound, can someone please provide the guy with a real server? Or preferrably, copy the concept without ASP.

Re:Oh please.

[helpfulcorn]

Or sings "happy bithday to you".

Just a top level reminder

[Rogerborg]

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).

Re:Oh please.

[helpfulcorn]

This is probably one of the most intelligent and logical posts I've read so far. I'm glad to see someone has actually looked and analyzed the facts in the situation instead of attack this girl ranting about how she is "stealing".

Re:The Best RIAA Quote (on a shirt!)

[gosand]

There's no honour among thieves and all that.

That would look great on a T-shirt , don'tcha think?

Contact MTV Cribs!!!

[goosegg]

That would be a great show! Have the cameras pan through the "crib" of the 12 year old pirate and her single mom then switch over to any one of homes owned by a name on an RIAA label.

It shouldn't be legal to steal from someone just becuase they are rich but who is more wrong?

copyright infringement = wrong
monpolistic behavior = wrong

It would certainly make an interesting comparison....

Be Careful When Donating...

[tbase]

Before you send any money to a "fund" for this girl and her family, check it out first. I'm sure there will be dozens if not hundreds of PayPal accounts set up to scam money out of this

Don't get me wrong, I think setting up a fund, especially one where the first $2000 goes to the family for their settlement, and the rest goes into a scholarship for the girl, would be a great idea.

But you do have to ask yourself whether helping this one family would be best, or if your money would have more impact supporting a foundation like the EFF that would help more than just one family.

Donations through paypal?

[Skull_Leader]

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.

Perfect chance to show the RIAA they're bullies

[FSK]

If you really think the RIAA is in the wrong, you should donate money to her family to pay off the settlement. If the money raised went over the 2,000 as I'm sure it would the remainder could be given to the EFF or put into some kind of fund for the girl. Image if just 5% of the /. Community donated $1.00. More important then the money it would send a clear message to the RIAA that suing minors is not in anyone's best interest.

Re:Perfect chance to show the RIAA they're bullies

[MrRogers2]

Has anything like this been set up yet? I'd give $5 to that.

Lets get the RIAA where it hurts....

[Kenny.EXE -P666-]

Has anybody thought about sicking the BSA on the RIAA? Could lead to interesting results........

Re: I think you

[Black Parrot]

> refused to use it for so long you've sufficiently brainwashed yourself into believing you're somehow nobel for stealing other people's works.

FWIW, I don't download the RIAA's music. But I despise them, and I think it is well worth waging this kind of PR war against them for completely different reasons.

It's the RIAA that's stealing other people's work. And money. They're simply robber barons set up in a position where they can artificially regulate supply and artificially create (or destroy) demand, with the result that both artist and consumer gets screwed and the RIAA rakes in huge sums of "monopoly money" far out of proportion to what the contribute to the process. If they didn't have a stranglehold on the distribution system most of that money would stay in the consumers' pockets, and most of the rest would go into the artists' pockets.

That system needs to be broken up, and if I can contribute to that end by sending a stranger $10 that she probably doesn't deserve, I'll be glad to do that.

Re:Oh please.

[jedidiah]

Genuine theft is a well understood thing. It's quite a bit easier to determine when you are or aren't doing it. Genuine theft is something that has been well understood within world cultures for 20 times longer than our current society has even existed. 99% of Americans haven't even been aware of what might contitute software piracy for as many as 20 singular years.

And the fact that everything is "virtual" can muddle the issue. Listening to an album via album oriented radio stations is remarkably like p2p file sharing or sattelite radio to most people.

R. Kelly?

[Bizzarobot]

Like that would do too much to many of these artist careers? Remember who you're talking about here. Many of the same people who you would assume to be outraged by this will probably continue to buy R.Kelly albums long after his multiple kiddie-problems...

Re:So what you're saying IS...

[ralatalo]

I used to know someone who would...

Buy Cd, copy CD...
Scratch CD ... exchange CD for new shrink wrapped CD ( due to scratch )

Return shrink wrapped CD for money

The googlefight comes out differently...

[MarsCtrl]

Too bad she didn't settle this via GoogleFight.

Results:
riaa: 1 630 000 results
versus
12 year old girl: 2 840 000 results

The winner is: 12 year old girl

Re:Embarrass ...

[ichimunki]

Why not make the fines proportional to income? This, however, was a "settlement". As in "we'll take $2,000 and your crying face on TV telling the world how sorry you are in exchange for not doing our level best to destroy your lives forever." Apparently the family weighed the odds of winning against the cost of hiring a lawyer good enough to at least keep them from paying punitive damages, and decided that $2,000 was a bargain. After all, it will cost them $2,000 to just get the case going with a lawyer.

Whats the big P2P dealio anyway?

[goosegg]

My wife just checks her music out from the local library...just a hint people, just a hint.

Re: I think you

[Black Parrot]

> Okay, it may not be theft, but you're trying to start a semantic argument to divert attention away from the fact that the act of duplicating and distributing music is inherently wrong.

"Inherently"??? I thought it was wrong because some human lawmakers said it was.

Some people think smoking tobacco is inherently right and smoking pot is inherently wrong, but the real distinction is that a group of humans subject to the influence of money and voting pressure groups decided that it was in their best interest to categorize the two substances differently in their laws.

Intellectual Property is a legal creation, and we should demand IP laws on the basis of what's good for society rather than on someone's ideological notion of inherent rights and wrongs, or on what lobbyist donations and voting pressure groups demand.

I'm not saying fileswapping should be legal; I just want to make sure the arguments pro and con are grounded in legal reality rather than preconceived notions of "inherent" right and wrong. If you want to say that file duplication and swapping is illegal, or is not in the best interest of society, go ahead and make those arguments. But condemnation on an appeal to inherent wrongness is factually incorrect, and won't get you any mileage except among people who already agree with you.

Buy CD's, but not from RIAA

[ShaniaTwain]

Just because the RIAA sucks is no reason to stop enjoying music or even buying CD's.. Just don't buy CD's from RIAA member companies.

Check out RIAA radar to find music that doesnt fill the coffers of these thugs..

I also just started using iRate Radio which looks very promising - it scours the web for legal MP3's and uses a peer rating system to find you music you'll like. Not to sure about how RIAA free this option is, but at least it doesn't put money into their lawyers pockets, and if you find good stuff to buy you can doublecheck it "purity" on RIAA radar.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to wash my hands of this RIAA crap and go scream at Jeff.

Re:Buy CD's, but not from RIAA

[rob_benson]

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

Re:Buy CD's, but not from RIAA

[bhtooefr]

Setup a site with links to resources, set up mirrors of the other sites, spread the word to your friends, etc., etc.

They're trying to scare us

[jayackroyd]

More to the point, they're trying to scare the parents. From the front page of today's NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/technology/10MUS I.html

Tamara Amey has tried to instill solid values in her daughter on everything from schoolwork to sex, but what Kyla Amey, 16, did on her computer was up to her. Or at least until Ms. Amey heard that the record industry was planning to sue Internet file swappers. Last month, Ms. Amey ordered Kyla to delete the software she used to download popular songs without paying for them. But in their debate about online sharing and stealing, Ms. Amey sometimes feels more confused than confident. "The Internet is so gray when you come to these kind of areas," Ms. Amey of Shelby Township, Mich., said after the lawsuits were filed. "When I was a kid, we used to tape music off the radio. You never heard of record companies suing people for that."

HOWTO needed

[hey!]

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'm completely with you on this one. However, moral outrage vented in private ain't going to accomplish anything.

What we need is to organize a boycott and the necessary political theater that goes around it. The problem is I have no idea how to get that started.

Re:HOWTO needed

[d34thm0nk3y]

Then again, I bet most of the people here thanks to P2P haven't paid for CDs for years and unless forced to will never do so. Wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them are the ones calling for the boycott.

calling for a boycott, sounds to me like they are boycotting...

Our $2,000

[totallygeek]

If this person lives in government-assisted housing, then it is our money that paid this $2,000.

marijuana store

[calabs]

This whole RIAA raiding stuff would be a lot like having a marijuana store and arresting anybody who went in to buy something. They are going after the wrong people.

They see it coming

[Kircle]

The RIAA should have worked with Napster (like they do with radio) when they had the chance rather than killing them off. Instead of losing money as they are now, they'd be raking it in. But how could they forsee their situation becoming this bad?

Right now, they should be finding some other way other than suing (AKA killing off) their customers. But how could they forsee that suing their customers would lead them to bankruptcy?

One thing's for sure. They can't say they didn't see it coming.

Re:I think you

[Sj0]

First of all, I don't know why everyone thinks because I don't think it's right to sue an individual for millions of dollars for a trivial offense, I therefore must be stealing music. I stopped giving the RIAA the privilege of my mindshare over a year ago. I haven't spent a penny on new albums in even longer.

Secondly, I am not slashdot. Stop addressing me as if I am a collective mind.

Thirdly, Intellectual property cannot be stolen. It's a physical and legal impossibility. If this fact were otherwise, this little girl would have been charged with grand larceny, NOT copyright infringement. There is a differentiation between the two at every level of law. If you take pictures of a plan for a top-secret tank, you will get a different sentence under a different law than if you steal said tank. This is because, unlike you, the government realizes that physical property is handled differently than intellectual property. Had this girl stolen 2000 singles, I wouldn't be saying anything. The fact is, she didn't. She downloaded some songs. For years, personal infringement (as opposed to commercial infringement) has been completely unenforced, and all of a sudden, they're suing kids for $150,000 per song. Like I've said before; This crime is about as serious as jay-walking. You're just blinded by the propoganda. Make no mistake, there is some on both sides, but only one side of this equasion is having their lives destroyed. In my eyes, that's true theft.

Re:Oh please.

[Choobius Gothicus]

If Disney required it, yes, she should have to pay it if caught drawing Mickey Mouse. However, Disney would be required to announce this ahead of time and warn people of the consequences. Fortunately, this is not the case. The RIAA has warned people that stealing music is an offense. They've been fairly adequate on getting the word out. Only the truly ignorant would not know this when downloading music they do not own yet.

Greatest Quote Ever

[coinreturn]

I have a new hero - Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill):
"Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" Durbin asked RIAA President Cary Sherman during a Senate Judiciary hearing.

That is one hell of a sound byte!

Re:Oh please.

[Choobius Gothicus]

Another thing...the child you describe is expressing him/herself by recreating a derivative of Mickey Mouse, which will most certainly not have the exact characteristics of the original. You can create your own song with the same title as other songs from before (happens all the time). However, there is nothing expressive about pilfering other people's work. Only a knucklehead would consider an analogy between the two. I feel stupid for even initially responding likewise.

Actress? Call her and find out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Research, people! Brianna Lahara's mother is described in the Post article as Sylvia Torres, whose info is:

Torres, Sylvia
1373 Washington Ave
Bronx, NY 10456
(718) 992-7550

Sheesh! Let's try to keep our conspiracy theories credible.

Nah

[siskbc]

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.

That occurred to me too, but I convinced myself the effect is minimal. I mean, it's not a new car where you're worrying about resale value - no one says "And when I get tired of this candy-coated tripe, I can still get $3 for it!" when buying a CD.

I think the secondary market helps the RIAA little or not at all. Although I do still favor the theory of spending money on vid games. ;)

Re:Copyright isn't broken

[Cecil]

Nice try, Troll, but nowhere did I say that I download music (I don't.) Not that I don't have the opportunity. I've got a big internet connection for hosting websites. However, I prefer independent electronica, and you can't find that through P2P. And even if you could, I actually listen to ARTISTS that I like, not just songs that I like. I support the artists I listen to, and am proud of it. I buy their CDs, and would go to their concerts if any of them ever happen to drop by my neck of the woods.

I support those who do download music, though, because copyright for eternity is wrong. Copyright was intended to provide people with incentive to release creative works without the fear of someone else immediately stealing them. How many people do you know that were refraining from releasing their creative works because if they did they would have to give them up into the public domain 80 years AFTER THEY DIED, and would instead prefer to lodge them with a corporation who can keep them indefinitely now?

Nevermind the fact that only a tiny minority of people actually own copyrights on their own stuff anymore. Did you sign an agreement when you started working for your current employer? If yes, chances are you don't own any of your own copyrights either. I've heard of agreements where they ask you to *retroactively* assign all your copyrights to the company in addition to future ones.

Copyright is broken, whether you choose to see it or not. It was supposed to be for the good of everyone. Now it's a tool for backstabbing, anal-retentive corporate control freaks. 20 years ago, copyright was generous. Today it's absolute lunacy.

Re:Oh please.

[Choobius Gothicus]

Another thing...the child you describe is expressing him/herself by recreating a derivative of Mickey Mouse, which will most certainly not have the exact characteristics of the original. You can create your own song with the same title as other songs from before (happens all the time). However, there is nothing expressive about pilfering other people's work. Only a knucklehead would consider an analogy between the two. I feel somewhat stupid for even initially responding in kind.

They must not care much about public Opinion

[jacklebot]

This is obsurd. The RIAA must think that we will not do anything about their little spree of gleefully delivered lawsuits. They might has well go on the streets and steal an old lady's purse or stolen a sucker from a three year old for what this kind of action should do for their image. This can't continue. Even our big business loving president is going to have to take notice and act against them. Of course, this IS the president that punished Microsoft for being a monopoly by making them give cheap software to schools, there by furthuring the monopoly. I just wish one of the major news companies would pick this one up and run with it. The RIAA wouldn't stand a chance. Anyone here work at CNN or Fox? :-P

A Thought..

[DigitalHippie]

If Webster's Dictionary is copyrighted..wouldnt someone be able to sue me for using words to create this sentence?!

Re:I think you

[Palshife]

But both theft and copyright infringement are still illegal, correct?

Re:They've built the culture they do business in..

[pmz]

It's almost impossible by then.

Anyone can be changed. Have you seen A Clockwork Orange?

They showed you Star Wars in school?

[Duck of Death]

Let me get this straight. Because it was raining OUTSIDE, they decided to show you a movie instead of teaching you math, or spelling, or history, or something like that? I'm surprised you can feed yourself, much less operate a computer.

In my day (1970's) if they showed a movie in school they at least PRETENDED it was educational and showed us "Our Friend the Beaver" or "The History of Zinc" - films made in the 1950's with budgets of hundreds of dollars.

My take on this whole RIAA thing:

In the early eighties, a movie on videotape cost $45-$95, but for about $9 you could buy a quality blank tape, rent a movie and make a copy if you had a friend with a VCR. Today, movies on tape cost less than nine 1982 dollars and they sell by the truckload. The same sort of thing will happen with music.

My prediction for the future:

The recent price cut is only the first - there will be more. Once the price drops to the point where you can buy a CD for about $7, sales will go back up. There are ten CD's I can think of right now that I would buy at that price. At $18, it's an investment and I have to know I'm getting my money's worth. At $7 it's an impulse buy and if there's only 2 good songs on the album, that's fine. If I can dowload the two tracks and pay $1 or less per song, then that's terrific.

CD Prices will drop, digital downloads will be available for even less (0.50 per song, $5 per album). CD copy protection and DRM will go away (it doesn't work and confuses/angers paying customers). File trading will continue, but it will be a fringe thing - why bother? The legit stuff would be so cheap that $100 would buy 15 - 20 entire CDs. Most people don't spend that much on music in a year. I buy 1 or 2 CD's a year (I have a "4 good songs" rule). I would gladly triple my music spending under this scenario.

It's not the quality, it's not the selection, it's THE PRICE. If you're selling me something for $18 that I can duplicate for $1 in time and materials, then your price is way too high. People will happily pay a FAIR price.

Five years from now, the industry will still be selling CD's but, just like with videotapes, they will be selling more units than ever, and they will be making money hand over fist in the digital realm (no manufaturing, no materials, no shipping, no warehousing, no returns and only bandwidth and storage space = high margins).

Just my 0.02

DD

Re:They showed you Star Wars in school?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Let me get this straight. Because it was raining OUTSIDE, they decided to show you a movie instead of teaching you math, or spelling, or history, or something like that? I'm surprised you can feed yourself, much less operate a computer."

It's called recesss, numbnuts. I didn't even bother reading past that.

So how did you get by in this world with absolutely no common sense?

Re:They showed you Star Wars in school?

[NanoGator]

He's talking about recess. Funny thing is you could have determined by that your own observation. "Why would rain outside cause them to watch a movie?

I agree with AnonV, you have some serious issues regarding common sense.

Re:They showed you Star Wars in school?

[Duck of Death]

A: I considered the recess angle

B: My copy of Star Wars indicates that it is 2 hours and 1 minute long. That's a long recess.

C: I was kidding.

DD

OT: rationalize petty behavior?

[tetra103]

...but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.

This may be off-topic, but how do you rationalize speeding in traffic. Everyone does it right?

That's how I look at this whole copyright infringement issue. Yeah it's petty. Yeah it's a crime, but just like speeding, everyone does it! Hell, even cops will sit by and watch speeders drive by. However, they generally only pull over the ones who speed excessively. The RIAA isn't just going after the "excessive" offenders. They're trying to milk everyone. We all know that speeding is bad and so is copying music. The difference is the punishment. The RIAA is way out of line.

So herein lies my rationale: I moderately copied music before and downloaded a few tunes. But I also bought all the CD's of the artists that I really liked. I have a huge CD collection. Some duds, but many I still listen to. Ever since the Napster case and the many that followed, my feelings towards the music industry greatly changed. Greed changes everything. I know that some of the music I copied was wrong, but I also gave them several hundereds of dollars. No, I don't feel bad for my actions. I felt pretty moderate. But now there's a backlash. It sickens me to see the greed in the music industry. Wanting to get their cut for resale on music...charging bars to play music. What's next? Charging weddings if they want to play the chicken dance?

I generally don't download music anymore. Not because of the legal issues. Mostly because of the poor quality in many of the rips. I'll only do it if I'm looking for one particular song and it's usually for fun. However, I do sign CDs out of my local library. I burn them all so I don't have to sign them out again. My burn collection is getting huge and although I concider myself pretty moral, I do not feel bad for the RIAA. My actions are nothing compaired to them. Ever since the Napster case, I've not bought any CDs. In a way I refuse. It's more effort to find it in the library and burn it, but it's my own private protest against the greed machine. I refuse to fuel that economy I was helping before. Yes, and I'll continue to drive 60 in a 55 zone too.

Another major force in my "immoral" actions is the RIAA vision of the future. I think we all see it coming. Music and videos will all be pay per use. I can see stereos and TVs all being operated much like the satellite radios today. You'll navigate to your selection and choose the content. At that point, you either pay a monthly fee for the service or the meter will just start ticking. All local copies like tapes and CDs will be an obsolete concept. For the environment, I see it as a good thing. For society, it's a control nightmare. In general, I have mixed feelings for the future.

One thing.

[WesternActor]

I can't help but wonder what share the artists will receive from this and future settlements. Because, of course, that's who the RIAA is doing this for, right?

Looks like someone is already passing the hat...

[Mackus Daddius]

The RIAA Are Dicks. We Apologize.

Global Add Campain

[thirdofnine]

What we need to do is get some funding for a global advertising campaing against RIAA, ARIA (Aussie Equlivent), smilar organisations, and the Music Companies etc, telling the non slashdot community, and also non computer uers compunity to boycot CD's during that period. To have an effective impact, it really needs to be a world wide, and also in conjunction with non computer users, to make a really effecitve statement to them. 0011/1001

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

[Politburo]

Shaq does something most people cannot EVER learn to do as well as he does it;

Not true. There are many, many basketball players with better skills than Shaq. The guy can barely shoot a free throw. Shaq's skills in combination with his size have contributed to his success.

Verizon Bitch Slaps RIAA

[jbottero]

Check out what Verizon has to say about it "The top lawyer for Verizon Communications Inc. (search), William Barr, charged earlier Tuesday during a Senate hearing that music lawyers had resorted to a "campaign against 12-year-old girls" rather than trying to help consumers turn to legal sources for songs online. Verizon's Internet subsidiary is engaged in a protracted legal fight against the RIAA over copyright subpoenas sent Verizon customers."

Re:Oh please.

[alexq]

very well put.. but i keep thinking:

if you don't buy another cd until they give the money back, it's not making a great statement. you might not have bought a cd anyway - and even if you would have.. the riaa won't know why you didn't buy the cd :)

unless there's an organized protest...

You sir are a moron...

[ErnstKompressor]

I cannot help but be 'pointed' in my response to your mindless comment...By your logic, poor people should be allowed to rob banks and shoplift because they need it more than rich people? This is not a case of accidental infringment. This is someone who knowingly aquired and distributed illegal goods.

Additionally, you state "They (the artists I assume) need to make a product that the public wants to buy instead of using litigation to attempt to make an income."...This is so wrong-headed and oft-repeated around here...They do produce something that the public wants -- what do you think this girl had on her computer -- music that she wanted. She simply didn't want to pay for that which she wanted to possess...regardless of whether she could afford it or not. This is not a case of the RIAA acting like SCO. While I do not agree with how the laws are set up presently, I do believe in respecting them until they are properly changed. I think anarchy is a short-sighted solution.

Re:You sir are a moron...

[adewolf]

"This is someone who knowingly aquired and distributed illegal goods."
Hmmm, did you read the story. They paid money to use a what they thiought was a leagl service. Like I saw somewhere on this thread the service they used are the one's to blame here. It's simply ludicrous (sp?) to ask a 12 year old for anything more than $50.00.

Alex
Yes,yes my spelling sucks

Re:You sir are a moron...

[Wingnut64]

This is not a case of accidental infringment. This is someone who knowingly aquired and distributed illegal goods.

This is also somebody who is 12 years old. There is a reason why people under 18 are not held to the same standard as adults.

She simply didn't want to pay for that which she wanted to possess...regardless of whether she could afford it or not.

She thought that since her mom gave money to the service she used, she could listen to music off it. Why do you think that poor people are out to steal everything they might not be able to afford?

Re:You sir are a moron...

[rob_benson]

Did you not read my post? Where in there did I say that poor people deserve more rights than anyone else? Where did I recommend theft? I did not. I suggest that our legal system should not be "bought" by the rich. I ask for a level playing field.

Should I assume from your post that you think all poor people should just be thrown in jail?
No. I do not, please do not put words in my mouth, I put enough in for myself.

AGAIN, for the LAST TIME since you did not do your homework. She did not know that she was commiting an illegal act. She purchased her fileshare on a website which gives the impression that downloading songs from them is legitimate. She was mislead. This is a case of accidental infringement. Otherwise I would not be so caustic in my defense of her. I am still against the RIAA targeting individuals, but when they know what they are doing, it is their own lookout.

She did not steal the product the RIAA had to offer. She downloaded an MP3, She did not shoplift a CD. Again, READ AND COMPREHEND. You do not need to assume, it is spelled out. I mentioned the PUBLISHERS need to produce something the masses want to buy, not the artists. Obviously if people download MP3's, the artist made something they want. It was plainly written in my post. The publishers are not producing a product that as many people want as they used to, which is why CD sales are dropping. MP3's are replacing them. Instead of shifting their focus and selling MP3's at a reasonable cost download site, they have chosen to gain revenue by litigation, never a good sign in any industry.

As I don't have time to reply to every post, a quick note about my listening habits, as there has been some assumption. I own alot of CD's that I purchased legally, used and new. I regularly get my music from buymusic.com, because it is a nice legal, fair way to get my music. I do NOT fileshare music, because it is Illegal. Period.

Finally, please save the name calling for the schoolyard. It only relects on your poor breeding.

Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis

[pmz]

Damn his dead and buried corpse for suing a 12 year old kid! How dare a dead guy sue a 12 year old kid?!?

His work really should be public domain, by now, anyway. Why does a dead person need copyright? So their children can get fat off of easy royalties?

Re:Oh please.

[HTH NE1]

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.

Remind me to check the ECCA (Exiting Customer Checkout Agreement) posted at the checkout lane the next time I buy something in case it says that some items I may have purchased may in fact be illegal to possess and that they disclaim all responsibility for selling me a region-free DVD player or Macrovision-immune VCR.

Because assuredly there was such an EULA for the P2P software the mother bought.

Not that I think for a moment that that 12 year old girl actually cost the RIAA $2,000 worth of music sales.

Sharing or what?

[cflorio]

I thought the RIAA was going after those that had songs available for download, not those that did the downloading??? Are they saying that she had tons of songs for download on Kazaa or what?

Great, just great.

[Unknown Poltroon]

First the lawsuit, and now you just slashdotted a 12 year old.

Downloading Vs. Listening: Clarification Wanted

[caesar79]

What exactly is copyright infringement ? Is it simply making a copy or is it using that copy ?

if X makes copies of mp3's and then immediately deletes them without listening to them, is X guilty of copyright infringement ?

I know, but...

[LiberalApplication]

I agree with you, but I've been thinking about this for a short while and haven't been able to produce... well...

What would the *right* thing to do be? Not in the moral sense, but considering that anything which can be digitized is now capable of being freely distributed, laws or not, what kind of model would serve both the needs of the consumers and the artists?

Pardon me for my (sarcasm free, despite the looks of it) lack of peripheral fore-vision, but what do /. readers consider to be viable plans for dealing with the issue, and moving on into a hypothetical future where the RIAA ceases to exist (or retreats with its tail between its legs)? Would redistribution of music be completely legal?

The only parallel I can draw to this hypothetical future is the music/entertainment market in Hong Kong, where music *is* pirated day in and day out, and the artists make up for the losses by making paid, regular television appearances, starring in movies, advertising, and selling rights to their works to karaoke-disc publishers.

Help me out here.

Re:I know, but...

[Ying Hu]

One thing you do is think about it, to try to come up with some new solution.

You try to raise people's awareness on copyright and freedom issues, you make the law more important than anyone's business (right now, Disney, RIAA, MPAA have the copyright laws changed every time they want to keep Mickey or their music or whatever a little longer), and work to get copyright law changed to a more reasonable form.

You don't allow the industry that fueled economic growth all through the 90's (computers) get its progress nailed to the ground by one one-tenth the size, and much more irresponsible (entertainment).

You don't give police powers to anyone to invade any citizen's privacy unless they're the police.

You let the companies go after real pirates (I'll just grab this CD and make 10,000 copies myself and sell them on the street. [I once walked down a street in the computer store section of Beijing in early Sept. '95, and had a Chinese man step up to me every hundred feet to offer me a brand-spanking new disk of, you guessed it, Windows 95. It hadn't been available in the States yet when I left, but those guys must have been burning those things at midnight of Aug. 25]).

If you're the company, you offer a fair product. Are they locked in to paying those artists so much they can't afford to charge less? (Not - everyone knows some artists get a fortune, but lots are hocked up to their professional eyeballs upon signing a contract, and the RIAA has been convicted of price-fixing.) If people would just stop to think about it, p2p downloading is actually kind of a pain in the ass. It's slow, fails frequently, the networks are crowded, there's not always good selection (I still liked Napster best), song quality is very uneven, and it's tedious doing the searching. There's a second reason besides price that it's often young people doing it. A reasonably-heeled adult has a better payoff to their time than doing a LOT of downloading.

A song's worth maybe a dollar, a bit less, if you get to keep it. Think about it. How many songs on a CD, and what's the price? How many songs at a concert, and what's the price (but you get to SEE your performer). What's Apple charging for their songs? The RIAA could have done that a long time ago, and probably made it fly even while Napster was alive if they'd gotten their technological heads out of the sand. Reliable, fast downloads, good quality, play it where you liked, big songlists, descriptions and Amazon-style samples, and yes, yes, yes, marketing! They would have been loved. IF they'd charged .89 and sold by the song. Isn't Apple still just selling to Mac owners? There's a BIG market left out there.

And if they want to sell to it, it'd be nice if they left the ideas of monkeying with my computer and my free speech alone.

Re:I think you

[aziraphale]

> and by law copyright infringement is NOT THEFT

And by law copyright infringement is ILLEGAL. What don't you understand about that?

Whether it can be equated to theft or not is irrelevant to the debate on whether sharing and downloading copyright songs over P2P systems is legal or not. Clearly it is not.

There are two ways of behaving - legally, and illegally. You have a choice. You can go and buy a CD, or you can steal it. You can pay for a legal music download, or you can download an unauthorized copy from Kazaa. In both situations, the person choosing the illegal act is getting the same benefit as the person choosing to stay within the law, but doesn't hand over the money that the law-abiding person does. In both situations, the subjective result is the same. So, in what way is that form of copyright infringement any different morally from theft? Even if it isn't actually the same thing?

Re:your sig

[wurp]

Removing the control rods shuts down the reaction. Control rods are there to slow down the neutrons enough so that they react with other nuclei to continue the reaction.

Musicians

[Luminous]

These atrocities (okay, perhaps too strong of a word) are being conducted in your name. Every 12-year-old who gets stung by the RIAA is being stung by you, Eminem, Britney Spears, et.al.

Don't expect them to forget it.

Re:Musicians

[SnakeStu]

Don't expect them to forget it.

Forget it? I don't even expect them to understand it. The girl won't hold any grudge against musicians, she's convinced she did something wrong (and, according to our imbalanced laws, she did). There won't be any backlash by youngsters "stung" by this sort of thing, the only thing that will hurt the RIAA is to steal their market by promoting Free alternatives. Kinda tough to do on limited budgets, but worth working on anyway. As for this girl, the only way she might have any ill feelings toward the RIAA -- i.e., something to mitigate her feelings of guilt -- would be to explain to her what copyright is supposed to be versus what it has become. Not an easy concept for someone that young, especially growing up in an age when "intellectual property" is an accepted term instead of being dismissed as an illogical and vulgar notion of greedy fools.

this is disgusting...

[The Lynxpro]

What infuriates me the most is the fact that to this date, none of the artists the 12 year old was supposedly hurting didn't tell their record labels to tell the RIAA to stop pressuring the family. I am sure this girl's family bought an eMachine from Best Buy and is either using MSN from one of the original ISP rebates or they are using Netzero for their internet access. So much for the credibility of the RIAA only going after the massive file traders. Why isn't the RIAA going after the company that charged the family $29.99 for access to Kazaa? What about the retailer or other establishment that sold the software? It also amazes me how Hollywood figures can always advocate liberal use of middle-class tax revenue on feel-good social programs (and knee-jerk anti-war stances) but when it comes to their own bread-and-butter, you better not cross them otherwise you are a law breaking pirate and/or an economic terrorist...

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[hastings14]

I don't see how you can truly believe any business can compete with a service that offers the exact same product for free with home delivery.

I am so sick of all these whining people who claim you can't compete with free. Where did they get such a crazy idea? Plenty of people do...

Mmmmmhhh.... lemme' see. Water, for most of us, comes included with our rent, which means its free. Comes out of a tap in the house - home delivery. Yep, its all there.

And yet... ever heard of a little thing called Evian? I wonder why the good ol' Coke Corp. has declared that sales of bottled water is its fastest growing product line? Could it be that it IS possible to compete with free? Maybe there's a business concept called a value-add?

But wait - if you can can compete with free but the music industry isn't, maybe that's because both they and hmccabe are extremely poor businessman who would rather whine, lose money, and sue 12 year olds than create a product that consumers are actually willing to pay for. Nah, that couldn't be it.

Someone's collecting money for her

[dekker]

May have already been mentioned, but I found this, on BoingBoing.

Re:Someone's collecting money for her

[SnakeStu]

Nice idea, but my limited funds should go toward fighting the RIAA, not helping pay them. If the RIAA sees that "small" settlements like this can be "effortlessly" paid by people, it will only encourage that behavior. How many settlements are we supposed to cover?

but what about their price fixing?

[virtualXTC]

I'd love to buy CDs as I find the sound quality to be better and I get sick of making up cover art to distinguish between my cds. My issue is that CDs are highly overpriced and I only download as a a protest to the RIAAs price fixing

- compare the price of a CD to a DVD vs the contents and cost of production and the cost of the resources (media) and it's obvious that you are getting screwed when you buy a CD.

Re:I think you

[Dun Malg]

But both theft and copyright infringement are still illegal, correct?

Certainly, but equating theft with copyright infringement lends strength to the industry's attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity. According to the constitution, copyrights are for a limited time. Property rights never expire. This is the distinction I want to be clear.

Re:Are you shitting me?

[Atryn]

Actually I believe the original story stated that they didn't even keep the songs. They just clicked on them in Kazaa and listened to them. This would imply a decent speed connection, but no need for high storage.

Re:While you're at it

[Sj0]

hmmmm....this sounds like a job for, "THE MANIC CODER!"(tm)(c)(r)

Wait...no it doesn't. Maybe if I had the source to a well set-up proxy system it would be. Otherwise I guess it's not really that manic.

Parrallels!

[arclightfire]

This has paralells with the legal letters to young Harry potter fans sued by Warner Bros over copyright issues.

Re:I think you

[Dun Malg]

And by law copyright infringement is ILLEGAL. What don't you understand about that?

I'm not arguing that it's legal to infringe upon copyrights, only that attempts to frame such infringement as "theft" lend strength to attempts to extend copyrights in perpetuity.

Whether it can be equated to theft or not is irrelevant to the debate

[sigh]....It is quite relevant. See my post here.

And believe me, I'm as tired of having to weigh in on this over and over as you are. I will, however, continue to do so as I see it as a very important aspect of the debate.

So, in what way is that form of copyright infringement any different morally from theft?

This isn't an issue of morality, it's an issue of law. Some people think killing an animal is as morally wrong as killing a person, but we don't send people to jail for life for running over a cat.

Child pr0n

[jafac]

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

Oh, I guess they are. . .

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[Politburo]

If water is in your rent, it isn't free. It's part of your rent. That means while you have a flat rate for water, it isn't free.

Furthermore, the only reason bottled water has caught on in this country is public paranoia (thanks to the media) and, in some cases, poor water systems. Poor water systems lead to poor tasting water, which drives some people to buy bottled. In my hometown, the water is mostly well-collected, and is excellent. Few people use bottled or even filtered water for home use.

Introduce that kid to Free entertainment

[SnakeStu]

I'm sure some musicians who have released their work under the Open Audio License (and similar licenses) would appreciate attention from young listeners. No need for the young to only 'love' what they hear on the radio. My 11-year-old wrote to FreezePop after hearing their music via the Open Music Registry, and she also convinced me to buy a couple of their CDs.

Rolling Stones?

[WiggyWack]

"What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones."

Yeah, because 12-year-old girls living in the projects love listening to the Rolling Stones.

A poem inspired by this discussion...

[brahmsnotbombs]

Can't wait to turn it into a song tonight...

OIL and VINEGAR

A 12 year old is a criminal
In our world today
Glad to know millionaires
Will get their pay

Stop doing pushups
On the youth gone wild
For they are our future
Our destiny, our style

Our era is spiraling into
A depressing and cosmic end
Glad to know
Oil and vinegar still don't blend

See my behavior can't be quantified
Through benchmarks and tests
My spirit wisps around
And for that I am blessed

I should thank Bush
For making me see
That his world is one
That cannot encompass me.

Give me art and life
Soul food and death
Over any Homeland Security
Or any school test.

For that is what
Humans do best
Morphing and twisting
And shaping all the rest.

In two to six years
We'll decide another fate
Until then I build
My foundation of hate.

Ah but a wise man said
In the hotel bar
With a cigarette and a scotch
And a jazz band afar...

You learn more
from your enemies
Than you do from friends.

You learn more
from your enemies
Than you do from friends.

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[aziraphale]

Bzzt - flawed metaphor, you lose.

Tap water, which, to be fair, isn't free - you are paying for it either in your rent or in some kind of payment to your water supplier. Now, the water they supply is a particular kind of water - it has a particular taste, and some people are concerned that it might not be 100% clean and would rather not drink it. So, there's room in that marketplace for suppliers to step in with water which tastes better (or at least different), and which people believe contains less impurities. Capitalism is set up to allow this sort of competition to flourish, and flourish it indeed has.

But you're asking the music industry not to compete against free 'tap music', which is of qestionable taste and quality - that would be fine, they could indeed compete by offereng music for different tastes, and of higher quality. You're asking the music industry to compete with somebody giving away everything they produce for free. It's like if Evian discovered that some local water supply company was siphoning off a few millilitres of evian from the top of each of their bottles, and using that to make up their domestic water supplies. Nothing Evian could do to improve the quality of their water would make any difference, because the same water would end up in the free supply.

With music, the industry can't compete with the stuff that's out there for free because it is their own product. If they improve their product, as if by magic, the free product improves too. It'd be like racing your own shadow.

So yes, in general, you can compete with free. But the music industry can't compete with a free clone of itself, and value-add isn't going to help them 'create a product that consumers are actually willing to pay for' - wiping out the unauthorised free distribution of their product, on the other hand, might just do.

Re:I think you

[aziraphale]

Fairly put - I agree that it's not irrelevant to the wider debate on the validity of copyright law. On the narrower issue of where people stand who download music which is within its copyright period without paying for it, I think the theft metaphor deserves some scrutiny.

> This isn't an issue of morality, it's an issue of law.

Ah, but the two are so closely tied up. You see, plenty of people here dispute the very fact that downloading or sharing copyrighted files is actually illegal. I think it's fairly clear to anyone with even an approximately rational mind that it's definitely against the law.

Nonetheless we find ourselves dealing with two groups of people who persist in arguing in favour of downloading copied music - 1) those who refuse to admit it's illegal, and 2) those who admit it's illegal, but say that an unjust law is no law at all. Both groups however have to come up with an argument that says that it's moral - otherwise they're left on very flaky ground indeed.

I've yet to see a convincing moral argument in favour of copyright infringement. And I think the fact that the subjective marginal benefit of copyright infringement is more or less indistinguishable from that of theft, the two do merit comparison.

> Some people think killing an animal is as morally wrong as killing a person, but we don't send people to jail for life for running over a cat.

People may well do jail time if they hit the cat deliberately. Similarly, it's possible to kill someone in a car accident and not go to jail. I'm not sure what this proves - that extreme moral relativist positions are not represented by the law? I guess that includes people who think killing abortionists is right, or that copying music isn't wrong... they're moral positions of one sort or another, but they don't reflect the position taken by the law.

Re:NPR, PLEASE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe on this topic, but any political commentary definitley has a liberal bias to it. Either in the way it's reported or what is not said. NPR is definitely not balanced as a whole.

It is best to get the news from numerous sources and the facts are usually somewhere in between the views.

This is not insightful- moderate -3 Idiot

[scosol]

They sued people who are *sharing* songs, not people who are *downloading* songs.

Re:Hypocrites?

[alecto]

If copyright laws were abolished, there'd be no need for the GPL. If you understood the purpose of the GPL, you'd realize that. (I know, don't feed the troll.)

Sentator Investigating

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this article (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60366,0 0.html) Senator Norm Coleman "plans to hold hearings on the RIAA's evidence-gathering methods at the end of the month."

Ignorance is no excuse.

[FatSean]

[eom]

Re:Oh please.

[Mr. Troll]

You are good all around man except the "Corporate Welfare" part.....so called corporate wellfare creates SO many jobs....my old company...they wanted to expand but didnt have the funds....got a "corporate welfare" grant.....to build a new facility.....they were able to hire 50 or so new people (all technolgy jobs)......so not only did the tax base of the area grow (and that would pretty quickly give the state a good return on the welfare investment), but it brought good jobs to the area. And those good jobs spawned other good things in the area......and cycle goes in.....other stores open to support new people.....and so on

The Enforcement of Law

[zanderredux]

Does it mean that, in the US, the law is supposed to be enforced by lawyers instead of the police?

I can just see musicians' putting on...

[pokeyburro]

...the Brianna-Aid Benefit Concert.

Words have power

[yakovlev]

If this were just a semantic argument, then the people who keep saying it's stealing would just call it infringement.

As you noted, calling copyring infringement stealing invariably results in a bunch of "it's not 'stealing'" posts. The response to these posts is always "that's a semantic argument, and they're essentially the same."

My question is, if they're essentially the same, why do people insist on calling it stealing, even though they recognize that it's technically incorrect? The only answer I can come up with is that they're NOT the same, and people who call it stealing are choosing inaccurate language for a reason, probably to evoke an undue emotional response.

So, if you want to get rid of the "it's not 'stealing'" posts, stop calling it stealing, since we both know it isn't.

Sometimes I wish copyright infringement was theft.

[orichter]

One of the many things which is so crazy about this whole situation is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. As others have already replied, copyright is not theft. This is made clear in the way it is persued. If I illegally copy 500 songs, I can be sued civilly I believe for $150,000 per song, or $75 million. The RIAA can spend any amount they want on lawyers to extort a settlement out of me which I may or may not owe, and I have no right to a public defender. If I went into a cd store and stole 500 songs (about 50 CD's) I would be charged with a misdemeanor, would be entitled to a public defender, could not have my property appropriated without a warrant, and even if I was found guilty, would probably only be required to pay the cost of the songs plus perhaps 3x punitative damages (i.e. perhaps as much as a couple thousand dollars.) On rare cases, I may even serve a small amount of jail time, but this would probably be suspended or plead out. I would much rather that copyright infringement were treated as lightly as theft, since clearly (at least to me) that even if copyright infringement is wrong, it is less wrong that theft. As to your complaining about the correction of clearly misused terms, you clearly don't understand that one of the first rules of debate is that the side which is allowed to frame the question has already won the debate. Would you just let it slide if I said that since it probably took this woman several years to save $2000, that the RIAA had essentially taken away two years of her life, and had therefore partially murdered her. Of course you wouldn't let this slide, but if enough people were allowed to get away with this, eventually people might start to equate the two. That is what has happened with the copyright/theft debate. On the other hand, if you were just trying to troll, then bravo.

Re:Oh please.

[dolson]

I agree with you entirely. It's also possible that the computer was given to them too, so they might have not even had to pay for it. I gave an older computer to my in-laws once upon a time, and they still use it. Some people just think that they are so much better than anyone who needs government assistance. Sad.

RIAA Is NOT the Copyright Holder

[BanjoBob]

It is interesting that it is the record lables who own the copyright to the label's own material and NOT the RIAA. DMCA allows the copyright owner to proceed in this manner. How is it then that the RIAA can do this when they're not the actual copyright owner? Interesting question.

Isn't it illegal for the RIAA..

[dlcantrell]

.. (or anyone for that matter), to monitor the on-line activities of someone who is underage? My two cents.

Cruxshadows

[krysith]

I became aware of the Cruxshadows by a) going to school with Rachel, and b) because my sister used to hang out with Rouge. The first time my sis saw someone with a Cruxshadows poster on their wall she just about shit herself ;).

I have a copy of Intercontinental Drift (grins).

BTW I don't think they are a Metropolis band. Dancing Ferret I think?

You should also check out Middle Pillar records too. I am a huge Changelings fan, although they may not be too ambient for you.

Re:Cruxshadows

[vistic]

Yeah Dancing Ferret... they're stuff is all available through Metropolis Records website though.

I have to say, I saw The Cruxshadows last November (I think it was on election day) at The Mason Jar here in Phoenix. It was absolutely amazing. Rogue was dancing among everyone and a bunch of us were dancing on stage and there were a million encores (though it seemed like half the people thought the concert was over after the first encore ("Marilyn, My Bitterness") and left, when Rogue came back out, he said we must be "the loyal half" of the crowd... those people missed half the concert!) I became aware of the concert through Metropolis Records' emails they send out.

I downloaded some MP3's and now I've bought a record of theirs and seen a concert. Without MP3's and filesharing, I wouldn't even know they exist.

Re: A proposal

[Lonath]

2. To the consumers: A proposed "black out" date has been set for December 1st-December 31st 2003. During this time ,no RIAA controlled CD should be purchased from any store.

I think you should be like me and boycott of all **AA materials for a "limited time".*

* "Limited time" as in: Jack Valenti thinks that copyright should last "forever minus one day" which is his definition of limited time. I now take that definition for mine.

Damn Skippy!

[Cybrex]

I love going to concerts in small venues (clubs and such). It's great because there's usually stuff for sale there that you can't get anywhere else (t-shirts, bumper stickers, CD singles, etc.), and you stand a decent chance of actually getting to meet the band and chat w/them.

I also like knowing that what I buy there is directly going to the band. Waaaay back when (probably 10 years ago) I had the pleasure of seeing Chem Lab in Gainesville, FL with a group of friends. G'ville is a college town, and it was the middle of summer, so the turnout was fairly minimal. We all bought t-shirts after the show, and one of the guys in the band mentioned that we'd just bought them breakfast the next day.

I've never gotten the feeling of supporting music that I love so directly. You certainly don't get that from buying a CD at Fluff Music Warehouse in the mall.

-Cybrex

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

[Syberghost]

Not true. There are many, many basketball players with better skills than Shaq.

Read what I said again. I said "most people". The entire NBA combined is statistically insignificant compared to the world population, or even to the number of teachers and cops in the US alone.

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

[tkg]

The retorhical question was: "Who offers society more value? The cop that you expect to save your life in the face of any danger? Or Shaq who can dunk a basketball?"

Perhaps a better question is why does society idolize someone who wins a genetic lottery rather than the one with the willingness to sacrifice his or her own life for another? Just because only a few win the lottery and many _can_ make the sacrifice isn't the right answer, because although many _can_ make the sacrifice, only a few choose to do so. Why is making the choice of so much less value to society? There is no 'simple' answer, I think.

Re:Oh please.

[d34thm0nk3y]

unless a website or something told them it was completely legal...

Re:Oh please.

[d34thm0nk3y]

yeah, 'cause everybody knows that every drawing of mickey mouse made by disney has the exact same characteristics....

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

[Politburo]

I am taking exception to the fact that you imply basketball skills are natural born, not your overall argument. It's not so much that Shaq has natural talent. He has natural size, which is commonly misperceived as talent. Due to this fact, Shaq most likely began training as a basketball player from a young age.

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[hastings14]

Um, ... your analysis of my example is kinda' flawed. If anything, you proved my point. Contrary to your statement, most of the bottled water that people buy is from the same source as tap water (not Evian, but the supermarket brand, for instance). Its just been micro-filtered and ozonated. Its the same water, but its at a different level of quality, and a different level of convenience. Like the water industry, music over the radio, on CD, or on P2P is all from the same source, but comes out at different quality levels and at different levels of convenience.

The difference is that, unlike the water industry, the music industry is not interested in charging for these value added features. They would rather provide a less convenient product (radio or CD) and then use the law to bludgeon people to do it their way.

Anyone who uses P2P knows that it is not very convenient in terms of finding what you want when you want it at a speed you want, and it is also not anywhere near the quality of CD - more like a clear radio signal. These are clear distinguishing factors, just as in water, that the music industry could differentiate itself with.

On a side note, this is why every independent study has shown that there is no validity to the industry claim that P2P "piracy" is causing them to lose money. Most of the people who are using P2P were the people taping songs off the radio years ago. They don't care enough about quality to pay an extra $6 or %10 for it. The switch to P2P, though, shows they do care about convenience. Too bad the music industry doesn't offer them this feature.

Back to my analogy, like water, people would pay for an on-line service that provided higher quality music with greater convience at a reasonable price. The closest example to this, of course, would be iTunes, but even that is restrictive. The current time limits and restrictions on music services would be like the bottled water industry insisting that you collect your fluid excrement (ya, know, #1) back into the bottle and return it to them. How popular do you think that would be?

The bottom line is that, with the correct business model and if you are not overly greedy, you can compete with free. If you would prefer an analogy other than water, somehow Microsoft has become one of the richest corporations on earth, exercising great monopoly power, and yet their product is distributed by individuals for free with the same regularity as music. Yet Microsoft has not only never felt the need to sue a 12 year old in public housing, but I don't believe they've ever sued any consumer at all. Granted, Microsoft has not always been exactly a role model of corporate morality, but I have to give them that.

As you yourself admit, "you can compete with free", so why don't you also admit that the music industry COULD compete with free if it wanted to? It just doesn't have the business sense... Its been basically 10 years since the invention of the WWW, and 5 years since P2P hit it big, and we're still waiting for the first business that lets you cheaply, easily, and securely buy and download an unlimited copy of a song from any computer. Its a good thing the music industry isn't the water industry, or we all would have died of thirst by now.

Why boycotting doesn't work in this case

[Anonvmous Coward]

The RIAA will see it's CD sales drop, so they'll whine to the government that law enforcement isn't keeping the evil pirates from stealing them blind.

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[hastings14]

You should see my other note, but I'll rewrite your paragraph for you....

If music is in your computer, it isn't free. It's part of your ISP. That means while you have a flat rate for music, it isn't free. (Yes, the ISPs don't pay the music industry, but the manufacturers do for blank tapes under the Audio Home Recording Act, and the only reason this hasn't been extended is because the music industry would rather sue people. Also, consumers don't know the difference one way or another. To them, flat rate tacked onto something else is free. I will continue...)

Furthermore, the only reason music has caught on in this country is public paranoia over bad quality of music and, in some cases, poor music delivery systems. Poor music systems lead to poor sounding water, which drives some people to buy music from the music industry. In my hometown, the music is mostly traded amongst friends, and is excellent. Few people use use music bought from the music industry.

-------

I believe my point is that while there will always be people in small towns who use tap water and trade mixes with their friends, the vast majority of people are buying for quality and convenience. P2P works because the music industry price fixes, vastly overcharges, sells their product with numerous restrictions when you can find it at all under their inconvenient distribution system. Consumers, especially American consumers, are used to paying a bit more but also used to getting what they want, when they want it, if they are willing to pay. Also, they don't understand licensing, which is a business concept that no cnosumer has ever been subjected to. Generally, when you turn on your hose to spray the neighbors kids, you don't expect to get sued. The music industry should start thinking a little more like the water industry, or at least start thinking about consumers.

Re: your sig (OT)

[Theaetetus]

www.fucksprint.com, according to whois.net, is registered to one Emmanuel Goldstein at 2600.com... and uses a redirect in phalse.2600.com. Now, not to jump to any hasty conclusions, but I don't think it was Sprint that registered that name... ;)

-T

hmmm....

[BlackBolt]

Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'

Personally, I think that if you 'love music' and 'don't want to hurt the artists' you love, you'll boycott the system that is keeping a great chunk of the money that artists deserve from getting to them. You'll help cut out the greedy middleman who is no longer required and is really nothing more than a festering cancer on the ass of music. Of course, I'm referring to the RIAA, not gangsta rap, which is a whole different ass cancer. ;-)

There's *got* to be a better, more efficient system of distribution, and the RIAA doesn't want anybody to find it, because if we do, THEY'RE DEAD. And musicians will make a proportionately larger chunk of the cash if we do find it.

Strange quote from Brianna

[Skynyrd]

Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

When did 12 year old girls start calling bands "artists"? I'd eat a sock if those words weren't planted in her head.

It's theft

[KalvinB]

When a GPL is violated Slashdot is all over it. According you, Slashdot should just shut it's pie hole because nothing has been stolen.

What do you call it when a credit card companies database has been accessed and the information taken? Theft. Identity Theft. Information can be stolen.

According to you, put your name on something? f you, I replaced it with my name and there's not a thing you can do about it. You can't own information so you have no right to it.

"What don't you understand about that?"

Yeah, why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Real money, real resources were put into a product. By stealing that product through a channel they havn't authorized you deprive them of real reimbursment.

All this theft is just going to encourage companies and individuals who make products like books etc to strong arm the public to ensure the real money they invested to create a real product is regained and then some so they can continue to create.

We're not living in medival times when you could get by with not much in the way of income if any.

If you can make products for free and don't mind how people aquire it then good for you. But it should be a CHOICE. It's absurd to expect that people who spend their time and money on a product shouldn't expect to get a return.

Ben

Re:Oh please.

[jcast]

No one objects to a child who shoplifts being made to return the items. If she had to pay $2000, too, that would be more of a problem.

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[Politburo]

Well the analogy kind of falls apart. The "piped" water companies do not really care about people no longer drinking tap water. Drinking accounts for less than 5% of all tap water usage. The record companies are losing much larger margins, and cannot afford to just take the hit.

Re:Oh please.

[PiratePTG]

>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?

Some friends and I regularly build up computers from "junk" parts from our own upgrades, donated parts, etc, and then GIVE the working computer to the Salvation Army, churchs, PARC, etc, for distribution to lower income familys... A P1-100 loaded up with Win95 and AOL may not be the fastest computer on the 'net, but it beats the hell outta not having one at all...

RIAA is evil

[SubKamran]

I hate these people...12 year olds. Jeez. Die RIAA.

Re:I think you - Um, Water!

[hastings14]

Any analogy falls apart if you look at every irrelevant characteristic.

Drinking water accounting for less than 5% of all tap water usage doesn't change the fact that people are managing to sell water even though it is essentially being offered for free. The relevent point here isn't the commercial viability of the tap water, which is analagous to the P2P networks, but of the bottled water companies, which is analogous to the music companies. My response to the initial statement that you CAN compete with free, I believe, still holds true.

Re: the record companies having much larger margins. Water companies only have small margins because they are a regulated industry - the government has stepped in and told them how much they are able to charge. This is similar to what the government has done with song writers. Perhaps the solution is for the government to fully regulate IP, and artificially force the cost of music to drop to the point where the whole free/paid debate doesn't matter - as with water. I personally think this is a bad idea. A well run competitive business that is focused on consumers will generally do better than the government. On the other hand, it worked with water.

Re:Oh please.

[bar-agent]

(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.

No, it's not that the web-site fooled her. KaZaA's web-site says that you shouldn't use it to trade copyrighted materials. She and her family simply assumed that they were downloading the songs legally. There was no intent to mislead here!

Re:A poem inspired by this discussion...

[brahmsnotbombs]

Hi Anonymous, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts about my poem. It means a lot to me. You actually read the entire thing to make a well-informed opinion and actually went to time to reply. I am pleased it invoked some type of emotion. As for the song-writing contract bit...you have to start somewhere. Now I have at least one anonymous coward's opinion to shape my future. Thanks so much! All the best, Katherine

That's not a definition of stealing

[CentrX]

You just made that up, that's not a meaning used by most people, or anyone who knows what they're talking about with regard to the law and the historical and present usage of the word "steal". Look at Webster 1913, look at the Oxford English Dictionary, go to dictionary.com. That is not a definition of steal, and it's even less the meaning and consequences implied when the word "steal" is usually used. You can have a different interpretation of whatever word you want, you can call copyright infringement "murder" if you want, but that doesn't make it murder and it doesn't mean that the meaning and sentiment you're bringing up in people's minds by using that word is accurate.

Re:That's not a definition of stealing

[tonekids]

mod parent up, I don't have the points...

Re:Oh please.

[ToeJamx]

This little girl didn't know she was stealing? Please....The RIAA only targetted those sharing large amounts of music. She may be 12 years old, but she didn't download that much music without learning anything. Personally, the RIAA can go f themselves as far as I'm concerned, I d/l music all the time, but it's music I would never buy in the first place, so what have they lost? Nothing. I do hope that girl's mother won't have to actually cough up that 2K, it sounds to me that she might need it more than the moguls at the RIAA do.

Re:Oh please.

[rob_benson]

Just a quick response to this one. I understand your feelings on this, as it has brought some good to you. The majority of corperate welfare money however, goes overseas, and into the pockets of the wealthiest 5% of Americans. As a middle class citizen if I want to add an addition to my house, I have to pay for it myself even though it generates jobs. I suggest that multi millionaires should have to do the same.

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

[Syberghost]

I am taking exception to the fact that you imply basketball skills are natural born, not your overall argument.

The potential to develop them is certainly dependant upon genetics, or all of the millions of people playing their hearts out trying to make it big would end up in the NBA.

It's not so much that Shaq has natural talent. He has natural size, which is commonly misperceived as talent.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that extreme height isn't genetic? Or, are you arguing that his height doesn't contribute to his success as a pro basketball player? If not, your argument is basically "you're right, but I take exception to it."

One of the dictionary definitions of "talent" is "a special gift." Shaq didn't do tall exercises to get that big.

I have a co-worker who is as big as Shaq, played basketball all through school including college, and who several days a week goes across the street from our office to the gym in which Shaq practiced every day when he was with the Orlando Magic, and plays basketball. He is not as good as Shaq, and wouldn't be if he played 12 hours a day for the rest of his life.

He can, however, drink a gallon of milk in an hour and keep it down for another hour, a talent that Shaq probably doesn't have.

P2P boss to pay schoolgirl's RIAA bill

[Chill E. V.]

The head of peer-to-peer (P2P) company Grokster has offered to pay the $2,000 settlement the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has agreed with a 12-year-old girl over her file sharing. Wayne Rosso, president of P2P software development company Grokster, said he had made the offer because he was "disgusted" by the RIAA's tactics. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143514

The RIAA is the one who is desperate

[Gary Destruction]

The RIAA is using its political and corporate muscle to attack individuals who pirate while the real issue is completely overlooked. That issue being the reason why people are resorting to piracy. Of course everyone wants everything for free, but who wants to pay $12.99 for something that costs $0.75 to make? These attacks clearly show that the RIAA is both hostile and desperate because it knows it's fighting a losing battle. And it's nothing more than a money-hungry institution that wants an excuse to extend its dominance and power in the music industry.

Re:I think you

[Sj0]

When you look at a cloudy sky, are you frustrated by the lack of black or white, but the countless shades of grey?

The magic formula

[fm6]

... where the hell do they come up with $15 GRAND?!?!?

They've probably got some complicated legal argument that might or might not stand up in court. It doesn't matter whether it really would or not, because it will never get there. It would cost a lot more than $15K to fight this kind of civil action, and there's little chance they could get their costs back even if they won.

And that's how they chose the amount. It has to be enough to hurt, but not enough to make the suit worth defending. It sucks, but it's not unusual.

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

[toothfish]

Yep-- I've been pushing for my pals to become supporters for phase 2, and I intend to do so myself when I can scrape together the 40- odd bucks to do it. I almost didn't care what the CD sounded like when it arrived, but happily it's very good (be forewarned that EN isn't for everybody). I prefer Halber Mensch but that's just me.

Do keep in mind that even though they got more support than they were anticipating, they still had to make an album for Mute to offset some unexpected costs, though. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that there are probably more kinks to work out.