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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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

$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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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]

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

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.

[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.

[gamgee5273]

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

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.

[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.

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. :))

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

[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

[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.

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...

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.

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...

[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...

[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 =)...

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

[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.

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!!!"

$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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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.

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.

The Best RIAA Quote

[asv108]

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

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

Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong, not because they will get caught. It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[zakezuke]

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

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

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

Re:The Best RIAA Quote

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Embarrass their sorry asses.

[Black Parrot]

> Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures.

Several people have suggested setting up a donation fund for her. If we could get her name and do that, and convince non-Slashdotting music downloaders to do the same, even very modest sums of money would quickly add up to a very large sum, attracting the media's attention: "Geeks Help Poor 12yo Pay RIAA Fine".

Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[enjo13]

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

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

To the 12 year old girl...

[Jerk City Troll]

Rest assured, you weren't hurting artists. You were hurting some rich RIAA execuative who likely has billions of dollars to his or her name.

Imagine if the richest man in the world ordered a poor man to pay him a month's salary because the rich man felt his wealth was in jeopardy. Now, imagine this rich man had an army of slaves doing his bidding, who all work to make him money. Doesn't that sound silly? Well, that's what the RIAA.

The RIAA effectively takes music from artists and gives them slave wages for their music. When the RIAA takes music from artists, the artists no longer own it.

Since the RIAA owns the music, there's no way you can hurt the artist by downloading music. Only the RIAA hurts artists. Hopefully, people will keep downloading songs so the RIAA will go away!

Re:To the 12 year old girl...

[Spectra72]

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

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

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

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?

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

[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"?

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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...

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.

The library ...

[pgrote]

... is also a good way to find new music as well. It's a protected right ... for now.

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.

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

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.

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

[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

[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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

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)

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.

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

[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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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..

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?

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.

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!

Please, let's do this...

[Powercntrl]

I haven't donated to the EFF or to any other cause... But this whole thing has me so steamed I'd gladly toss a few bucks to help this unfortunate child and single mother out. Let's make their day and give the RIAA the finger in one fell swoop.

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

[the-build-chicken]

How is the RIAA getting the information...I mean technically.

I read about how they release a subpoena on 'x' who downloaded 'y' songs. Now, what I want to know, is, apart from having a packet sniffer in sharman networks, how can they know what you download. Sure, they can interrogate your ports, if they've reverse engineered the fasttrack protocol then they can maybe list your songs...but how do they know how much your downloading, and how do they know that those songs are even music...they could be someone just f$#@ing with them. And finally, I thought the fasttrack network operated on a PKI set up, with the heads of the network holding the keys. If so, how the hell are they even interrogating your system unless their also liscencing the keys...in which case, they would have to get them from the same guys that give you kazaa.

If anyone can shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated

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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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?"

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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?

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?

[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?

[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..."

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)

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

[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?!?

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?

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"

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.

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.

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?

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?

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: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.

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: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.

Better contact Arizona Republic (or AP?)

[martrootamm]

Arizona Republic picture of the girl

Arizona Republic Contact Page

AP contact address

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

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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 ...

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).

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.

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: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.

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.