Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Threatens 15-Year-Old
MunchMunch writes "It looks like the RIAA is still going after teenagers--this time, 15-year old Megan Dickinson was caught sharing 1,100 files. At the maximum statutory damages for copyright infringement, this makes Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000. Naturally, the RIAA benevolently offered a $3,500 settlement to avoid these moderate, legally sanctioned damages. As we can hardly forget, the RIAA has already used this technique to settle with a 12 year old. Megan's unsurprising take: 'Yeah, it seems ridiculous.'"
Between this type of scare tactic and the saturation of the P2P networks with garbage files, I think they days of the current generation apps and networks could be numbered. The average file-sharing home user scares fairly easily. I'm not saying these networks will dissapear, but they will cease to be the giant beasts that they are today. I think IRC and new networks like Waste will continue to reign/rise up in the place of the Napster paradigm.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
What's stopping them from asking for $5000, or $10,000, or $50,000?
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
Every time I read stories like this, I feel an extreme sense of paranoia that the RIAA is going to come busting down my door and demand money for my songs. Then I realize...I turned off file sharing, which makes the penalties MUCH, MUCH less. The penalties for DISTRIBUTING music run about 750$ per file. The penalties for downloading music run about 99c/file (You just have to reimburse them for the cost of buying), under Title 17, Chapter 5, S504, b. If bad comes to worst, I'll sort through my selection of 400 some-odd files, count out how many are indie or not coverred by the RIAA, which will be around 300, and then pay them their $1,000 and be on my way, having beaten the music industry. Then I realize once again, they're not coming for me because I don't use FastTrack. [Note, IANAL]
Has anyone considered a class action countersuit on behalf of p2p users for harrassment and extortion by the RIAA. This sort of thing was being done by SmartCard readers recently harrassed by DirecTV.
"Where is my mind?"
What ever happened to a good ol' shooting? What, does nobody has the conviction to kill a piece of shit any more? If someone tried to sue me for $800,000, they would die, jail term or not.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
You would think that an organization of, well, music companies would have something better to do than attack individual users for a crime that doesnt really matter. Honestly, shouldn't they be working on techniques to lower the cost of CDs so people, you know, start buying them again? Damn, but the RIAA really pisses me off, which I am sure is a sediment of many here in /. .
Save Sam and Max!
I know I would represent myself under the 'my computer was compromised by Windowz insecurities and I didn't know this was going on' defense?!?!?!
Good God! What's the address, before they take her down?
All kidding aside, ehh. She is sharing illegal files. She got caught. I'm not really seeing the "Shock and Awe" about this news article.
Sig it.
Man there is nuthin like pirating music.... But I never understood the poster that said, "When you pirate music off the interenet you are downloading communism" Can anyone explain this to me....
The key to being safe from the RIAA: Don't listen to music owned by the RIAA.
Why is this news? Sure its Goliath picking on David again, but what's new about that?
Here's a better question. Why complain about the RIAA doing what the RIAA does? Go change the law or do something productive.
Complaining about this is like complaining that lions kill antelope. Either kill the lion, kill the antelope, or put a fence between them!
Considering parents are liable for there under age childrens actions... It's something to think about if your a parent. In alot of cases your kids could be leading the authorities to your mass amounts of pirated software; Windows 2000, Office, Quicken etc! Thankfully, I'm one of the few slashdorks that actually uses Linux for everything --- I ain't worried hehe
Gamblers Forum
For the past few months (okay, a few years) I was somewhat sympathetic about RIAA's action. Even though I don't like it, it's the only way they know to go about it. Even when they sued a twelve years old, I was hoping it would be one of their "shock" cases... but this just went too far. If they were doing some drastic remodeling of their business model when they sue people, I would still be sympathetic. But now, they just sue, sue and sue and no actice action on how to repair it at the base, their own out-dated business model.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Can you actually sue a minor in the USA? Hell, I'm 20 and I can't drink beer there, but a 15 year old kid can get sued? What the fuck is that?
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
First they sue a 12 year old girl, and now a 15 year old girl. Is their new plan of attack to sue the only portion of their demographic that are still buying CDs?
I can understand why people object to them suing anyone, but as long as they're going to sue someone, why not a teenager? It's not like teenagers aren't aware that freely downloading copyrighted music is illegal.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Without "innocent" users leaving their shared directories open to the world--and consequently the RIAA--their rabid pack of lawyers might have to change tactics and come after the downloaders, who sit in relative comfort for the moment. I salute you, Megan Dickinson. Keep up the good work.
Let's see now, $165,000,000 dollars..Hmm. I guess his Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandchildren will be paying it off until 2400 AD..
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
While I am certainly no fan of the RIAA nor its tactics, I'm getting a little sick of the "I didn't know it was wrong" defense. Come on. 1,100 songs downloaded, parents oblivious, child claiming ignorance. Anybody see a problem here? You can argue until you are blue in the face whether or not the copyright laws should be changed. You can argue (persuasively, I might add) that the RIAA is heavy-handed. But don't come off pretending to be ignorant. The law is clear. This is theft.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
99.6% off sounds like a deal to me.
Gil Scott-Heron is in jail? Well I guess if CBS was pressured into moving their show the vast right wing conspiracy would have no problem sending him to things like "B" Movie. For those that don't know Gil Scott-Heron wrote "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" among other things. Look him up on KAZAA (now don't mod this off topic :P) and download some of his work! I bet Gil wouldn't mind.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
For freak sakes I meant to say "HER" grandchildren. ;)
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Of course, it's probably futile to expect metacorps like the RIAA to actually behave rationally about things like this, but this is just ridiculous.
For one thing, they won't be able to stop (or even slow down) the p2p sharers out there, no matter how much they try. The only way to really do that would be to permanently cripple the Net by doing things like, say, cutting off all international access points. Don't they realize that people in Outer Mongolia and Gabon and places like that also use these programs?
And their entire logic seems based on the tried-but-false idea that their industry loses money every time some kid downloads a song. False!!! They only lose money if that kid, had he not downloaded the song, would otherwise have purchased the CD. Does anyone really think that a 12-year old with a library of, say, 10K mp3 tracks would actually have purchased a thousand CDs if he couldn't have donwloaded them? Absurd!
Why do people still think like that?
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
1100 less shit songs on the net!
It looks like The Mall of America is still going after teenagers--this time, 15-year old Megan Dickinson was caught giving away 1,100 articles of clothing that she had shoplifted over the past year. At the maximum statutory damages for felony larceny, this makes Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000. Naturally, The Mall of America benevolently offered a $3,500 settlement to avoid these moderate, legally sanctioned damages. As we can hardly forget, The Mall of America has already used this technique to settle with a 12 year old. Megan's unsurprising take: 'Yeah, it seems ridiculous.'
You make it sound like she wasn't doing anything wrong. If she is sharing 1100 songs that SHE DID NOT PAY FOR, then she is stealing from them. Yes, this is an unpopular view here, but I mean come on, if instead of $165M worth of copyright infringement, she had just one picture of a 15 year old boy in a sexual position, would you all defend her?
Jesus christ. She is BREAKING THE LAW. Why shouldn't she be punished?
Factory owners terrorizing workers who were unionizing in the early 20th century, or Al Capone. And I seem to remember that the Unions won, and that Capone went to jail.
However, you also have to remember that back then the common people actually had spines. They knew they were probably going to get raped; They didn't bend over and they sure as hell didn't relax and enjoy it.
It's like Marty says in BTTF 1: "If you don't stand up now, he'll walk all over you for the rest of your life!"
Most people will go away, but the rest will learn not to be seen on the 'net, and might even start doing nasty stuff
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
How does the RIAA ACTUALLY know that someone has a song? Do they download mp3s from you and listen to make sure? What if someone had a file named as a famous music song in mp3 format?
[...]
"Another person we met -- we'll call him John -- has been violating federal law too. He just hasn't been caught.
"'I feel like kind of a sucker to pay money for something that I can get for free,' he said. "
As long as there are Johns, there will be Megans. Megan's at least young and (at least acting) ignorant.
What's John's excuse?
You would think that a very large group of lawyers who spend their time suing everyone would know the difference between stolen music and infringed copyrights.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. This constant mislabeling is really, really annoying.
America - Home of the scapegoat, land of the Corporation
This is absolutely the best outcome possible for the RIAA. Bust an underage filesharer and hit the parents for an amount that anyone can relate to.
I think that $3,500 is fair. If they went to court and won that amount, I would consider it fair. But extorting money from a 15 year old girl is just as bad as downloading 1,100 songs, if not much worse.
You know, it's not okay for the RIAA to sue college students and adults. But it's at least slightly morally acceptable. After all, these are adults you're suing, they know stuff has consquences.
(begin rant)
But once those jackasses begin suing minors, that's where I draw the f***ing line. Doesn't the RIAA know that they're pushing away the people they need to make money? This girl's going to have her plight featured on the local news TV/newspaper, probably going to be the lead story. What effect is that going to have on her friends/classmates? Right, they're probably not going to log on to Kazaa. But I really doubt they're going to go out and buy the next Britney Spears CD or whatever they listen to. They'll probably ask a friend to buy it, then the CD will get passed, and everybody will rip a copy of the CD themselves. After all, it's not illegal to allow a friend to borrow/share a CD, is it? The RIAA might make $3500 in the short term, but I'm willing to bet they're going to lose a lot more than that in the future because the girl is not going to buy CDs, and her friends won't either. Say the average CD is $10. (Which is a bit on the low end). I would be willing to bet that the girl + friends + classmates would buy more than 350 cds over her lifetime ($350 * $10 = 3500, for you math illiterate). But those sales are now lost. Nice job RIAA. You might be filthy stinking rich in the short term, but long term, forget it.
(end rant)
Jefferson said the well of democracy has to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants every so often. How about we start with these tyrants and then move on to all the other things ( Social Security, Work-Until-You-Drop-Dead lousy USA labor policy, total political corruption from top to bottom, health care that's more expensive than Canada's system while offering NONE of the benefits of that system, etc. ) until we start to make things right.
How many of you are gonna keep voting for the Democrats and Republicans that made all this wonderful goodness possible?
Stop buying music. Tell your friends
;)
not to purchase from certain companies.
Try to buy directly from the artist.
I cannot remember the last time i bought a cd. I cannot remember the last time i downloaded a song. I often listen to the radio and howard stern
Oh, and I also run win98se still sometimes because i never paid for a copy of 2000 or XP. Is this really a big problem? Or am i getting to old? (29)
later
"The lawsuit is demanding the family either pay a $3,500 settlement, or fight the suit and go to court. If they lose, they could have to pay $750 per song."
I have absolutely no idea how laws determine how much the guilty have to pay, but doesn't $750 seem like a little too much?
Considering these are 'soft', I would set their value at $1 each, like online music stores. Has the RIAA lost $750 on each song? Has each song actually been downloaded an average of 750 times?
The $3500 settlement is a little more reasonable, if such a term can be applied to the RIAA. That would mean about $3.18 per song.
WTF? anyone care to enlighten me?
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
and I'll say it again...I sometimes wonder if they are scratching their heads thinking, "What's the matter? We keep suing out customers, and the fuckers still won't buy our products! What's wrong with them?"
Joe
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standard until you have.
I really hope the RIAA ends up sueing someone who is able to mount a good defence. If I was 15 and they sued me (If I could retain my current understanding of the matter that is) I would so go to court( if I had money that is ;-), I think that there are a number of arguable defences, especially for minors. -- Comments?
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
If he could redirect his anger against the evil RIAA then we would all be better off!
Please come out of hiding Osama! We need your help!
It's copyright infringement.
Have you tried Linux yet?
Christ, I would have loved it if those assholes had said something like that to me when I was fifteen. :
I would have showed them the texas state bird
#
#
#### ##
#######
####
###
and then asked them how the fuck they expected to get that out of a high schooler who worked part-time at burger king.
If anyone pulls this kind of shit on my kids, I'm going to put the lawyer who serves the papers in traction.
If people didn't cave into these kind of scare tactics, especially directed at children, then they wouldn't keep doing it.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
I don't get people around here.
The girl was illegally sharing copyrighted materials. She was one of many who have been contacted.
Slashdot, in a typical tactic of propoganda latches onto one example and drives it home. A 12 year old! A 15 year old!
Meanwhile, no matter how you shake it, they're still doing the legal thing--protecting their copyrighted works! Even Jamie of Slashdot knows what that is about--threatening the daily Slashdot summary site because they are "illegal."
Look, I don't like the RIAA, and I'm doing my best not to support them.
And I think that in terms of customer relations, the RIAA is making a big mistake, which will turn around and bite them in the ass.
And I agree that the RIAA has long overcharged for CDs.
But I also don't download files (or share them) in violation of copyright.
And I'd sue if my copyright were violated. As for instance, if code I'd licensed under the GPL were used in a closed source product in contravention of the GPL.
This is ludicrous, but save your moral indignation for Direct TV's suits against people who purchase legal hardware, or for Belkin and its spam-vertising, or for John Ashcroft's willingness to trample the 4th Amendment.
What the RIAA is doing is stupid and heavy-handed. What the 15 year old did was stupid and illegal. But moral indignation against the RIAA is misplaced.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
"...Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000."
Megan - "Magic 8 Ball, is this a good time to ask for a raise of my allowance?"
*8 Ball dissolves in laughter*
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Speaking of which... anyone else getting nice bizzar results when trying to go to the RIAA website?
You mean it's actually up for more then one day or even a week? I guess miracles do happen or the hackers are taking a vacation from "owning" the RIAA site permanetly. :D
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
SBC challenges RIAA over subpoenas
'Lawyers from the record industry and telecommunications giant SBC Communications are set to face off in a San Francisco courtroom Friday in a dispute over the record label's legal charges against file swappers'
There is a huge difference. I'd suggest learning it, you asshat. Especially since the two crimes carry very different punishments.
The law isn't always right. If it was against the law to live, would you have to be punished?
With all the prior blunders by the RIAA reguarding hunting file swapers maybe the RIAA no longer has a legal leg to stand on?
At this point I'd say the teen should sue the RIAA for harrasment and neglegence as it's been shown the RIAA can not accurately identify file swapers let alone count violations.
I don't actually exist.
and starts trading mp3s with her friends. There's no need to get them off the internet, and it just sucks up bandwidth that would be better used for some other purpose, like reading Slashdot.
Come to think of it, suing teenagers could help the RIAA make money -- by speeding up the Itunes downloads. It's not like teenagers are going to give the RIAA their money anymore anyway, so what's the harm in alienating them?
Rank Presidents by th
FTM=Fsck This Mongoloid?
Here comes my flaimbait to start a flame war.
Did someone forget to tell the kid they sue? He knew what he was doing. They should change the laws so kids can not be sued, instead the parents should be sued. That would stop illegal music sharing. But then the poor kid would not have the PC in the bedroom to look at porn. It is all being done to ruin the lives of kids. Imagine if when you were 15 some corporation caused your parents to check out what poker game you were playing on that CGA monitor. EGA if you were a rich basturd.
While I am on my soapbox let me have a rant. Why is it a CD costs so much money when they cost less than a nickle when purchased in spindles of 100? How much money from each CD goes to the artist? How much goes to Sony and the label?
None of what I am writing means anything. There is the way the world is, and we can do nothing to change it. Our opinion is meaningless. Vote? Sure, for the guy PAC's a-m paid or PAC's n-z paid? My interest is being represented?
How about this for an idea. Music is a way of sharing ideas. The USA is about free exchange of ideas. Music can sometimes make you see things in a different way. At least Bob Marley did that for me.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Do you have a problem with NOT sharing copyrighted material? The problem is simple, and the solution is simple. Now the more illuminating question is why are people not doing it? I promise you the answer isn't going to be flattering.
What is the legal situation for suing for actions of a minor? The article says the family are being sued, not the 15 year old. At what age does a person become liable to be sued directly? If the child is not at home when the "offense" occurs, what then? (E.g. if they music-file-shared on a school computer, is the school liable?)
Another legal question: Say I am about to be sued for everything I own. I liquidate all my assets, go to a casino, and bet the whole lot on a spin of the roulette wheel. If I loose, I'm no worse off (I was going to be bankrupt anyhow), if I win, the winnings pay off the judgement and I still have my money. Effectively I am gambling someone else's money, but I get the winnings. What legal sanctions are there to prevent this?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Last I'd heard none of the smart card people have won anything against DirecTV - a few lucky ones have negotiated their way out of it, after convincing the kind DirecTV people that they do, in fact, have the legal right to pursue activities that involve smart cards.
But in court, I've only heard of them losing massively on the extortion angle. Did I miss my mandatory /. DirecTV story, or are they still getting pounded?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Also, by the way, which legally recognized governmental agency were you working with to collect the data you gained about me? How are we to know you didn't just make up a list of IP addresses and content?
I better cut Fido's internet access. They might start suing dogs next.
Why doesn't the RIAA sue Comcast or some other ISP for allowing these crimes to occur? Maybe they should sue John Ashcroft for not doing enough to stop these heinous cybercrimes.
What do they really hope to achieve by getting $3500 from this family? I guarantee that their legal bills for this action are already well in excess of $3500.
All they get for their $3500 is bad press.
In the past four years I've bought maybe twenty CDs new at Retail, and those were gifts. I buy used CDs not for some ideological reason but because $15 per CD seems too high. But after this... Well let's just say that Santa thinks that everyone will do just fine with books this Christmas.
Hey, if I give CDs this year, maybe those teenagers on my list will rip them and share them on Kazaa. I better steer clear of such a risky purchase; I wouldn't want to end up harming the very musicians I thought I was supporting!
Well it sure was fun writing this post. Now it's time to head down to the library and see what music the City of Seattle wants to share with me, legally, for free. Maybe I'll pick up a few DVDs while I'm there.
Boy am I glad that 90% of the music I listen to is from independent labels. Dance music is not taken good care of by RIAA labels (except for the most popular DJs and producers), so I'm lucky in that I can buy the music I love without doing business with these idiots.
I feel zero pity. Theivery is theivery, be you 15 or 115.
I hate sigs.
What I'd really like to know is this:
Can she settle the case with the stipulation that the settlement does not consitute an admission of guilt?
If the SEC can settle with Putnam and Morgan Stanley without forcing them to admit wrongdoing after they committed fraud on a huge scale and victimized thousands of innocent people, it seems to me that the RIAA could see its way to giving a 15 year old girl the same courtesy.
"However, some local bands say they didn't ask for and don't want protection from fans downloading their music.
"I'm all for file sharing," said Mark Arm, the lead singer for Mudhoney. "I think it's ridiculous that they're going after 80-year-old women and 15-year-old kids, no matter how many items they've downloaded."
The biggest artists may have the most to lose. File sharing takes money out of their pockets, because fans download the music rather than buy it.
Non-mainstream, more independent artists take a different view. File sharing gives them exposure they may not otherwise get. "
Nice to see that even the mainstream media is beginning to catch on that just because the RIAA bought themselves some laws it doesn't mean they are right. Yes, laws have now been crafted to make it illegal to share, so what she did is "illegal." But she didn't do anything wrong, some music groups understand that, and eventually people will see that file sharing is the best way to advertise.
Spare me the new /. wave of conservative thought that wants to lecture me about how the corporations are in the right and we should just cooperate and shut up. The RIAA got this one wrong, they are trying to protect a dying business model, and history will show that file sharing increases business, not descreases it.
Keep in mind, I actually am law-abiding, even though I disagree with the law. But it encourages me when I see the mainstream media begining to see that just because the RIAA says 'file sharing = evil' it isn't necessarily show.
Just a thought, how come the RIAA is allowed to file so many cases against internet "Pirates", just because it's easier to document. Shouldn't there be some sort of parallism in their approach? I.e shouldn't they be going after all the high schools, whose students use Copyright material in stage performance.
Is there some sort of legal restraint for the number of legal suits your can file of a certain nature? There definately should be somthing legally in place to keep the RIAA in check.
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
Ado any /. layers live near the boy? Are any willing to fight this, even if it means going pro bono?
Is it even possible to sue a minor for something like this?
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Would you prefer they go out of business? After all if the litney of complaints are the truthful indicators that people think they are? Then from the artist at the beginning to the chain of people on down to the shop on the corner. The consumer would *supposedly* benifit. Weither everything on back, however is an unpursued conclusion. I guess when it comes to music? No one can think straght. But we know that we'll at least will get our pound of flesh, while the patients alive. But who will pay for the funeral, and weep for what was?
Well, since I'm not a girl, AND I'm over 18, I don't think I have anything to worry about getting sued as far as RIAA goes.
It looks like the LAPD is still going after teenagers--this time, 16-year old Megan Dickinson was caught driving 71 miles per-hour in a posted 65 zone. At the maximum statutory damages for felony traffic offenses, this makes Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000. Naturally, the LAPD benevolently offered a $3,500 settlement to avoid these moderate, legally sanctioned damages. As we can hardly forget, the LAPD has already used this technique to settle with a 12 year old. Megan's unsurprising take: 'Yeah, it seems ridiculous.'
It's called "making the punishment fit the crime." Driving drunk and causing a fatal accident is a felony; speeding 6 miles over the limit shouldn't be. Looting people's 401(k)'s is a felony; stealing some clothes from the mall shouldn't be. Oh, and running large scale fraud operations over the internet is a felony; file-sharing shouldn't be.
Rank Presidents by th
Let's see, 1,100 songs for $3,500 = $3.18 a song, give or take rounding.
Now, if she would have gotten closer to $3,500 a song, it would have been comparable to iTunes.
If you figure a CD can run you almost $20.00, the dollars work out almost in her favor.
This space for rent.
Why capitalize that?
Whether she bought them or not is largely irrelevant.
The relevant question is whether she had the right to create copies for other people by sharing them.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
read 504(a)(1) and (2) ... the plaintiff is entitles to ask either for actual damages OR statutory damages. In your case you can bet they'll go for statutory. If you've got 300 infringements then you're paying between 750 and 30,000 per.
any time before final judgment the plaintiff can ask for statutory damages.
if you were to make that argument in court the riaa lawyer would chuckle and say something to the effect of "thanks for playing, game over." and then you'd get the hose of justice where i'm sure you don't want it.
How can a person learn about non-RIAA music while inside a moving vehicle? Clear Channel seems to have a large captive audience in people driving to and from work, and Clear Channel's so-called "independent promotion" agency charges big bucks for playlist adds that only the larger RIAA member labels can typically afford.
Will I retire or break 10K?
THE reason why RIAA always attack the minors.. the reason is as easy as ABC:
A) Children don't know what they are doing
B) Parents are responsible for their childrends felony
C) Parents have money
On the other hand, the average ungrad and college student will go to the full trial, loose the darn case, go bankrup and get away with a free rid from their tuition fees in the same time.
Adding to my Original post on Legal restraints, if the RIAA were to actually take their total of around 300 law suits to court, as legally entitled and not settle out of court for any of them (as legally entitled), and say the average number of shared files per user is around 2000 (fiarly conservative). At around 750$ per song shared thats and then another 1$ per song not shared. thats KATCHING!!! 450,600,000. half a billion dollars... Now consider this... If the number of people they could hypothetically take to court is raised to around 1000 This figure goes past the 3 Billion mark, like I said there needs to be limits put on the RIAA for how many cases they can pursue.
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
Don't be a stupid criminal.
Leave the toying with children thing to Michael Jackson, RIAA... It's his job to poke around in their pockets not yours.
Seriously though, the RIAA doesn't care who you are so long as you've got their material without paying for it. Instead of this whole big campaign against people who share their material, why not use it to pay the artists in compensation for the money they "might" be losing?
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Especially since [criminal copyright infringement and larceny] carry very different punishments.
From what one would read on Slashdot, the typical punishment for petty larceny in most states is less harsh than the punishment for criminal copyright infringement in the U.S.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Keep your panties on. It's not you who would have been served the papers, but your parents. And compounding the problem by assaulting someone wouldn't have helped (assuming it would be a lawyer to begin with. It could be a police officer as well. Don't want to be giving him the bird], now do we?) The parents would be the ones enduring the penalties. Kind of like when I shot out the neighbours window.
Be that as it may, but copyright infringement is NOT thievery.
And how would you like to get executed next time you go over the legal speed limit. After all, breaking the law is breaking the law.
Yes, and as to many teenagers, the concept of actions having real consequences seems a little ridiculous too.
Say whatever you will about the RIAA's tactics, this type of reaction from a teenager is hardly the result of an over-aggressive music industry.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Who cares? I would love to know the amount of people who just are so tired of listening to the RIAA whine they have boycotted them. Personally I figure since they have lost my business and I refuse to buy from them period they have lost.
20 CD's a year (what I typically used to buy * 50 (Lifespan) * 20 (Amount a crummy CD costs nowadays) = $20000 (Amount lost). But this figure does not consider inflation and I am not going to look into an ECO book to find it. But I would guess at the rate CD prices have been rising it would increase at least 2-3 dollars in the next few years and keep doing so until people said F%^& this.
Obviously they can't count that high. They only have 3500 fingers!
If this post doesn't make any sence, I say blame Canada(and their refreshing beers)!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Theft is a Criminal act. Copyright infringement is a Civil act.
True, but copyright infringement is also a crime (17 USC 506).
Her violation is not worth $165 million. Anyone who suggests that it is is a fucking idiot.
It took half of Congress to enact a law that provided for such damages. You just called at least half of Congress "fucking idiots." Not that I necessarily disagree *cough*Bono Act*cough*DMCA*cough*.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Don't you know the unwritten rule for using laws against the corporations that lobbied for the?
11. Thou shalt not challenge the authoritai of The Wife.
12. Thou shalt not use a law paid for by a corporation against that same corporation.
13. Thou shalt not put the Chest Pain unit for Seniors on the 13th floor of a Hospital.
I remember most Slashdot posts back when the RIAA was trying to get Napster shut down. They were to the effect, "Napster is just a tool, it can be used to share legitimite things too! Go after the actual offenders, not the tool!" Now the RIAA is going after the actual offenders. Guess the general opinion has changed since those Napster days. I called bullshit back then too, we all knew Napster was all about illegal file-sharing back then. Don't believe me? Go back and look through the Slahdot stories covering those issues, you'll see what I mean.
This is exactly the feeling many people get. They don't have the money to defend themselves in court, even though they may be in the right. You can only fuck people over so much before they decide that life ain't worth it if you gotta live in fear.
Blar.
I'd really like to punch the RIAA right in its bitch mouth.
Then, while it writhes on the sidewalk, I'd turn to the MPAA, and say, "You're next, Nancy."
Then I'd swagger off to Moe's for a Duff.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/08/0752248.shtm l
And what dollar amount would fit the catagory of "make money" or "punish those they sue". C'mon we all know that this dollar amount exist. Our very argument depends on it.
Ok let's break down the case it's either
a) 1100 shared non-copyrighted files [or files to which they had permission]
or
b) 1100 files to which the person had no right to "share".
I'm taking [without RTFA...why bother any more?] a guess that this article refers to case b.
So why is this such a problem? If a 15 yr old kid stole [yes I know "sharing" is not theft... but let's just argue] from a store should we not hold them partially liable [and their parents all the way]? While "sharing" is not really "theft" it is still against civil law in most countries.
So I'd say 3500$ is being too easy on them. Screw it. If the stupid jackasses can't learn sue them for all they are worth!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
To which I ask, where the fuck were the parents? Why didn't the parents teach their kid a bit of the "rules" of the land.
Fuck them. If the parents can't be bothered to teach their *****15 yr old***** kid that copying media [that they haven't paid to have access to] then fuck it. Sue them all the way up and back again.
The EFF is trying to make a case of where P2P can be used and all sides benefits. Stupid articles like this really don't help since they portray the RIAA as the evil do'er here. Hey if you don't like the RIAA don't buy their music. Really that simple.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to L.A.
But she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
The RIAA took my baby away
They took her away
Away from me
The RIAA took my baby away
They took her away
Away from me
Now I don't know
Where my baby can be
They took her from me
They took her from me
I don't know
Where my baby can be
They took her from me
They took her from me
Ring me, ring me ring me
Up the President
And find out
Where my baby went
Ring me, ring me, ring me
Up the FBI
And find out if
My baby's alive
Yeah, yeah, yeah
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
She went away for the holidays
The RIAA took my baby away
They took my girl
They took my baby away
Come on if Enron CEO's can declair bankrupcy with million dollar homes then why can't this 15 year old let these stupid people take what he has in his bank account (what all 10 bucks?) then he declairs bankrupcy...7 years later by the time he graduates from college he's got a clean credit record.
Guess it just goes to show you that the only people in the legal system that ever stand a chance in hell of getting off or winning anything are those with money. Who in their right mind is ever willing to say that Michle Jackson will spend one day in jail?
You know if I thought there was anywhere else better on this stinking planet I would move.
iIf someone makes the decision to steal - then I have no sympathy for that person.
CowboyNeal - get a life. Every post topic u post is about how MS is evil, about how evil the RIAA is for going after people to steal and about how cool Linux is
Basically what you're telling us is that we've gotta "contribute" to the GOP campaign funds? How much is a readonable "donation" to these guys?
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
"Did I say it was Michael Jackson? No no, it was the RIAA that abused me!"
The main gripe from the RIAA and the difference between typical P2P and say a public library is that both parties then have access to the song.
So what if the file sharing app ensured that only one user could listen to each legitimate purchased copy at one time?
For example, each user pays for a couple of songs from iTunes, and allows other users to "Borrow" them, meanwhile noone else can listen to that licensed copy.
Some caching would be required, and attempts could be made at encrypting the cache to prevent misuse, and make it illegal to do so (DMCA).
And yes I realise this would be HARD to design and remain secure, but if implemented correctly, could the RIAA complain or sue?
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band. In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
It's time for a new business model. Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
O new art woe are we.
Unfortunately (for you) the Us vs Them argument doesn't hold up for several reasons.
1-Civil disobediance is doing an act and suffering the consequences (sued, going to jail).
2-This "I'll download till they hurt" doesn't work, and actually strengthens the enemy, while hurting the artist (however little that may be).
In short either the actions of the "us" is done out of "we don't know any better" or "we are too lazy to take the difficult way out".
You get modded down instead of someone responding to you with their opposing opinion.
By my calculations, my mp3 collection could hit me with a $2.5 Billion dollar fine. Who knew that 100GB could be worth more than the GDP of most third-world countries?
Dave
moo
thats like making a deal with the devil. Is it time for the revolution yet?
Going after underage kids, are they? And think of all the other connections the RIAA's members have with Michael Jackson...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
until they start suing infants for being "potential copyright infringers"
Jackson's voice: "I said you screw the kids, not sue them!"
RIAA representitive: "We screwed them, and sued them."
Jackson: "Even then it's not that kind of screw, you idiot!"
RIAA representitive: "You mean, get screws at the hardware store, and attach them to the wall? You're sick. Nails are much better."
Jackson: "I don't believe it? Do you guys even have balls?"
RIAA representitive: "No. We're androgynous aliens from the Planet X, seeking to cause chaos and mayhem prior to our invasion of your discotheques."
Jackson: "Those vanished over twenty years ago!"
RIAA representitive: "Damn. There goes our world conquest for this week."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
RIAA == SCO
Ok, RIAA. I'm not using Kazaa anymore, I'm not downloading files anymoe. But I'm alson not buying your CDs anymore, cause I don't believe in what you are doing. I just buy all of my CDs from Europe on labels that you aren't backing! You won! I'm not sharing files anymore! I hope you are happy!
-Magiluke
Earl Grey, Hot.
He's the one and only Wil Wheaton!
Maximum of $150,000 per song... that would be well over $1,500,000,000. Go for it, guys! This girl is much richer than the last one!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
One too many zeroes.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
One night at Neverland with Michael Jackson.
I'm sure that would stop any sane individual from downloading ever again.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
while your points have merit, the illegal act of distributing copywritten material is NOT an act of civil disobedience, just as shoplifting is not civil disobedience in response to the high price of impulse-buy items. If you want to send a message to the copyright holders, DON'T LISTEN TO ARTISTS WHO HAVE SOLD THE RIGHTS TO THEIR MUSIC TO LABELS AND DISTRIBUTORS!!!
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
If I were in the US, I would be compiling a plan.
Step 1, stockpile tracks which are completely legal to copy. Build up, say, 10,000. Then rename them all to filenames of songs which are illegal to copy, and put the whole lot up on FastTrack.
Step 2, wait for a lawsuit since they're probably too stupid to actually check the contents of the files, and countersue for extortion. They will be all high and almighty thinking they'll get more money from you, than you from them... but they won't realise that they will lose their side of the case. On the other hand, you were doing something legal, and a company tried prise money out of you for doing it.
Step three, profit!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Listening to some of these people bash the RIAA, you'd think music was more important than breathing. It's entertainment. A luxury. A consumer good. Something you spend your expendable income on. In other words, simply icing on the cake of life. It's nice, but you'd definitely survive without it.
Have you any idea how pitiful and selfish it sounds to hear so may people wailing that they aren't getting enough icing? Is it justification for stealing said icing?
Sure, the RIAA are greedy pigs, but it's downright gluttonous to think that one is entitled to certain luxuries.
...and I'll say it again. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy CDs...DVDs....go to the movies...don't go to concerts.
Let the RIAA/MPAA know that your not willing to spend money on their crap anymore.
Choose indie artists....listen to local music.
Otherwise...deal with whatever happens. The reality is that downloading music is illegal. So either let them know they need to meet us in the middle with either cheaper prices...easier ways to get the same material or by making it legal by creating your own lobby groups to influence government or by boycotting...or stfu and pay for your CDs...
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Don't spoon feed me that bullshit that she didnt know what she was doing. She knew exactly what she was doing. If someone kills someone and they do not know murder is illegal, then the law still applies. In my opinion, she got what she deserved. Simple solutions to difficult problems.
At minimum the charges seem to be near the millions, forcing people to settle. It's not about the legal action, it's about how they're going about it (scare tactics) rather than letting it be settled fairly in court. You might also want to remember that the RIAA was already caught for price-fixing etc in the not-so-distant past... hey RIAA, I'll take my reparations in P2P, please.
Am I missing something here, or is a file residing on your hard drive a collection of binary. It has to be run through an interpreting client before it approximates the so called music the RIAA refers to.(have they been listening outside windows) (real)Musicians should be releasing their music for free online so as to encourage people to come and see them play live, and thus get paid for performing. They will have to play 5-6 gigs per week to earn a wage the same as the rest of the workers.It will weed out those who really do not want to play music, but only see it as a way to fame(??) and fortune(??)
...I obey the laws of physics....
Someone must have thought about this before?...
comments?
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
My guess is that music file sharing won't disappear; it'll just go further underground to something that's more difficult to track back to individual users.
One obvious candidate would seem to be FreeNet. IMHO the only thing stopping FreeNet being used for music file sharing is that most people don't know it exists and there's no music-specific-and-easy-to-use client for it - if/when someone addresses those two issues, it's going to be game over as far as file swapping is concerned.
Your entire argument was weak.
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
Even if those "perfectly normal" teenagers were illegaly distributing copyrighted works knowing full well it is illegal? I still do not understand the leniency around here with regards to just grabbing music without paying for it. I have yet to read a single valid argument for it.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
It has to do with ownership. Those companies own the recordings to distribute. That's how they make their money. You seem to be implying it's a-okay to just take copies and not pay for it, for no reason. Would you say the same for warez? How about movies?
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Actually, that point is extremely weak. For one, most active musicians do not make that much more money touring live than they do from album sales. Second, you are still hurting the artist--that is still money you are not giving them. Third, if an album doesn't sell well and makes no profit for the label, what do you think happens to that artist? Now you get it.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band.
This argument has been shot down countless times. The cost of a CD includes the marketing, distribution, recording costs, and tons of other expenses. It's not like the label is supposed to just take the expenses for getting those sales in the first place. They make it up in the sales, as does the band.
In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
Then why is it not working? The only instance I've seen is iTunes, and even that is dwindling out. The answer is--free piracy. Advocated by places like Slashdot for some inexplicable reason. Honestly, nobody has ever actually given a morally or legally sound reason. It's always half-baked "culture movement" lectures or other similar excuses.
It's time for a new business model.
People love to say that. "It's time for a new business model. That means I get to take their copyrighted works!"
Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
How could more people be involved if less people are recording?
You're right. Let's kill the girl.
RIAA sure has a thing for really underaged girls. Should we sue them for child molestation and put them in the same cell as Mr MJ?
Moderating 101
the legal fact of the matter is that they may pursue copyright infringers. It is not her content to distribute
The problem is, folks like the parent like to whine "they mod me down without responding", but really, EVERY thread on the **AA has 500 responses to his/her initial statements. Most posts like the parent get modded down because they insist on whining. "You're all a bunch of thieves!" "See, this is Slashdot hypocrasy!!!" "What if someone stole YOUR code/violated the GPL!".
See, what you and the parent seem to miss, is that most Slashdotters respond to stories like this in the usual fashion, because most of us disagree with the laws as they stand.
We don't have a problem with laws being enforced per se, it's more of a statement of "the laws really, really suck". And no, it's not some black and white issue of "she shared music, therefore she must be guilty because the law says so". For one thing, she's a minor. For another, there is the concept of evidence, due process, etc, which seems to be entirely missing from the RIAA's current tactics. Oh wait, that would assume they're a law enforcement agency, which they most certainly aren't, even if they act like one.
Yup, some kid is accused of having copyrighted material on her hard drive. Coming to the RIAA's defense by saying "she's guilty, she's a thief, what they're doing is right!" isn't insightful, it isn't informative, and it sure as hell isn't interesting.
Although in all fairness, I think everything on this issue has already been covered a million times here, so I'm not too sure just what is interesting or informative anymore.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The RIAA had sense enough to buy a few politicians.
Tech Public Policy stuff
2) When you receive your notice from the RIAA, simply reformat your harddrive, then reply "It wasn't me... it could have been anyone in the neighborhood!"
3) Get help from the EFF; take the RIAA to court, and make them prove it was you that downloaded and/or uploaded the files.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I am at this very moment connecting to the internet through my neighbor's wireless router without his knowledge. I hope the RIAA doesn't send him a summons because of it! (I also hope my neighbor doesn't read slashdot, but if he had a clue, he would have turned on WEP in the router.)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I don't know much about the American Leagal System, But if you go by Australan Law, it looks like All the RIAA is trying to do is "Prove" that filesharing is wrong by settling out of court with all of the little guys, then when it's time to move in on the big file sharers, they will have enough precedents to make the cases as short as possible to save more money in the long run.
Most girls I know downloading music off the internet download the teeny bopper songs that encourage this level of airheadness. They just want the songs, they aren't interested in 'covering their tracks'. Now a GUY, they know to turn the sharing off. GO GO GADGET TESTESTERONE. I think sharing the songs is a stupid idea anyway, why let someone else take some of our bandwidth? :( Then again, I do whore the 56k flex. FLEX!
Propz to metawire.org
I sell out to The Man every day.
There is no difference. They both screw kids
~~
Extortion used to be an indicator of organized crime too, now I guess it's just business as usual. Pathetic.
The reason why the vast majority of people side with the filesharers instead of the mega-corporations like the RIAA is not because of some David-vs-Goliath underdog syndrome, it's because the RIAA and labels are making money from doing nothing.
Back in the analog days, actual physical copies of works had real value (each copy had real costs associated with it and took time to make), but in the digital world the copy has no value; anybody can make 100s of thousands of copies of a song per day using the most basic features of their computers. Aside from other factors such paying for convenience, supply and demand dictates that copies of works have zero value since the supply is effectively unlimited. Sure, creating the actual song itself required work, but they are trying to sell us the copy not the song itself.
People are simply rejecting the idea that they should pay for nothing, which is why we should change the copyright laws to recognize the basic principle of "no work, no money". People could download songs all they want completely legally as long as they don't make money off of it. If a company wants to use a song in their commercial then they pay the artist/authors for it because otherwise the company is making money from increased sales without doing the work of writing the song (this is the same principle the GPL is founded on). This preserves the author's incentive for creating a song in addition to concerts, selling the rights, fame, and other forms of compensation.
In other words, Digital Copyright should prevent others from making money off your work instead of preventing people from enjoying your work without paying for it.
Please don't compare internet "piracy" to drinking and driving. Drinking and driving is dangerous and can and often does cost lives. Internet "piracy" does not. The two aren't even comparable.
"Stop stealing money from recording artists!
Record companies hate competition"
When I was a young lad in the 3rd grade I started my first fix in copying games and programs from the classes Apple IIe which has gotten me through tough times from the local bullies at school. Anyhow when I was finally caught by one the teachers she asked why are you copying these programs, and my reply was "Well I don't see a sign for not copying them."(in Punk type manner). The teacher did nothing about and I was on my merry way. A few years later I was playing Quake on the school network making the game availible for people to play. Well I was caught and I was sent to the pricipals office. He would later ask why did I abuse school property My answer "Well first off you have no set rules on piracy on the network, second It was used only for play and enjoyment not for making profit. He would later buy since he had no rules made up yet to suspend me. The story that is to be learned is that kids are smart and will always find a way that the law favors us to get away with things even if its the RIAA or those fat cats in the MPAA.
I might as well throw up the much more flammable straw man of, "Is there any reason copyrights should last for an effectively unlimited period of time?" They stole from us, some of us steal from them. It's the law of the jungle. That same sense of fair play that our distant chimapanzee cousins understand between boughts of swinging from tree branches.
She may have broken the "law" bought and paid for by the super-rich for the super-rich. But get into an ethical pissing contest, well she was wronged first and worst, so I would think you'd want to avoid it. But I might be overestimating you.
> People can't unilaterally toss laws out the window when it's self-serving to do so
Well, of course they can; that is apparent. You mean, as we know, they shouldn't. Yet, that is the principle that we call by shorthand "civil disobedience", namely that some rights are sufficiently innate that it is in our own self-interest as moral beings to deliberately disobey the established law in order to express our right.
Of course this carries the substantial risk of being penalized for the legal disobedience. So were many of the famous practicioners, from Stalin to MLK.
Wouldnt it be a pimp scam if RIAA were the ones who paid someone to write P2P aps knowing that peopel would share music. Then they sue those people to get cash for pirating music.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
People make such a big deal out of this. Get over it. The RIAA may be a bunch of evil suits who would sell their own mothers if it'd turn a profit, but the law's still on their side, and it's a pretty fair law in my opinion. If you share files, you're doing something illegal. It doesn't matter how you justify it. Overpriced? You don't have enough money to buy music? So what? There are plenty of homeless people out there who would love to cite that argument as they move into your house.
It doesn't matter how evil the RIAA is, you know it's illegal. You're stealing something that doesn't belong to you, and by doing so you acknowledge and agree that there's a chance you'll get caught. Stop whining and face the music.
15 years? And this doesn't have to do with Michael Jackson?
I want my karma, and I want it now!
Just because the RIAA says something doesn't mean it's right. There just isn't anyone with as much clout arguing for relaxation of restrictions, or reduction of prices. However libraries and rental shops have for a long time rented audio/video media.
Libraries buy books and other items for lending, why couldn't a respectable outfit try to do this digitally? Are libraries illegal now?
Certainly there are differences between books and digital media, but there still remains a lot of unexploited potential between Fair Use and the Tradition of Libraries. There are even things called interlibrary loans. And there is value in promoting research and telling people about relevant authors which librarians also do. I'm curious about whether there would be any problem with software client that would let a repository track files, and provide the services that libraries generally do. This service would cover print media, audio and video. It might be free, for profit, nonprofit, tax-supported, members only, a coop, or something else. Hopefully it would be international.
The library would certainly have to pay for its own copies, and it would have to handle only items for which electronic distribution is allowed. But it is also conceivable that through fair use people could register their own music with the library and sign something which says they will not play a given song when it is being played by someone else. Some cryptography may be appropriate, but this is not really so important (except for some signature to identify each file uniquely).
It may sound like there are lots of loopholes for copying but this is true in many other realms. The public does not bear the burden of inventing ways to enable corporations to infringe on their rights. I am not interested in promoting illegal copying but the kinds of money the RIAA talks about are not part of reality as we know it. I believe that if we want to own our own past and future, we must take steps to do so ourselves. This means discussing the subject with professional librarians, publishers, broadcasters, authors and artists. Then bring on the developers and lastly the business people. It doesn't have to make a billion dollars but it should be a useful service for people of all ages.
Those companies own the recordings to distribute. That's how they make their money. You seem to be implying it's a-okay to just take copies and not pay for it, for no reason. Would you say the same for warez? How about movies?
Sure. No one ever said that the laws had to be favorable towards their making money. There used to be a thriving industry in patent medicines in this country -- then we created the FDA and it ran all of those snake oil hucksters out of business. This was not a bad thing, despite destroying their ability to make money.
As for why we might want to do this, it's for the same reason. If we thought that the public would be better off being able to copy works (assume that we might merely alter, rather than outright abolish, copyright, e.g. by reducing term lengths) than we would be otherwise, even taking into account the effect that this might have on the creation of works, than frankly we'd be stupid to _not_ do it.
After all, why would you not want to be as best off as possible?
We only grant copyrights in the first place due to a belief that we're better off doing so than we would be if we didn't; certainly through most of history we didn't have copyrights and no one complained.
Given people's attitudes, the increased ease of publishing and creation (e.g. not every movie needs to have a zillion dollar budget -- those may be unsustainable with regards to the laws they need to be worth creating not being justified), etc. the time might be ripe for cutting back on copyright protection in order to make everyone better off than we are right now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
what's the problem here? she was breaking the law. should 15 year olds be allowed to drink and drive too, simply because they're only 15?
But don't come off pretending to be ignorant. The law is clear. This is theft.
s/theft/copyright infringement/ and you would at least be correct. But whether ignorance of the law constitutes a valid defense (it doesn't) isn't the point. The point is that, as a matter of fact, many, many users don't believe--whether due to ignorance or to conscious moral stand--that distributing music files is, or should be, illegal, and the RIAA is telling all these people that they're wrong. While the RIAA may be within their legal rights, neither angering nor scaring your customers is a sane long-term business strategy, and it would be in the RIAA's own best interest to quit doing this and find ways to work with its customers instead of against them.
And what was it they said about a law not supported by the majority of the population?
...I'm working on anonymous filesharing.
Pure blanket hatred of the RIAA and things like this, and a general desire for free psuedonymous speech, too, without the threats that go with it.
Anyone who's interested in actually helping out, and has experience with mixnets, distributed hash tables (especially Kademlia derivatives), trust metrics and routing algorithms, or is just a very good unit tester, drop by IIP #anonymous and ask around.
[Posted via a p2p anonymous proxy chain!]
and people keep buying his music ..
What's wrong with the world?
So being a minor she couldn't own the computer.
Could she even own the songs? If she cant enter a contract she cant buy the songs. They couldn't have lost money because she couldn't have spent it.
The songs are legally unpossesable. You cant steal something you cant posess. Noone can illegially copy old literature (say some classic like King James Bible. You cant illegially copy that because it cant be owned.)
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
If somebody actually had the balls to take the RIAA to trial, I really wonder if the RIAA would have a shot at a favorable verdict. They're on the right side of the law, but the law is so unreasonable that I'd bet most jurors would refuse to vote in their favor. I don't know what portion of the jury is needed to render a verdict in a civil trial, but it has to be at least a majority and my bet is that the RIAA couldn't get half of any reasonable jury to find anybody, 15 years old or not, liable for $845,000 in damages (much less $165 million) for this type of offense. Nobody can compel a jury to vote based solely on the law - they're free to find however they want for whatever reason they want AFAIK.
It's incredible how many people try to justify their use of p2p for sharing copyrighted music. Here's the bottom line. It really does not matter one bit whether it's more like sneaking into a movie theatre than theft, or any other daft analogy you can come up with. It also doesn't matter that the artists/shops/RIAA/whoever is corrupt and evil. Didn't your grandma ever tell you "Two wrongs do not make a right". The absolute bottom line is it results in you gaining something you have no legal or moral right to.
If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez under the premise "I need it to fully evaluate it" - despite the existence of a fully or almost fully functional trial version - and having these "evaluations" last.. well.. permanently.
The "Information wants to be free" argument invariably falls down when a person who'll quite glibly throw out that catchphrase suddenly falls quiet when asked to "free" their full address and credit card number.
Finally, I am NOT trying to justify the actions of the RIAA here. I think their behaviour is completely draconian and yet another really bad PR move on their part, but I also think it's somewhat over reacting to paint them as the big mean evil bully picking on the poor little girl for no reason whatsoever. Fact remains, she HAS committed a crime. The only question is whether the punishment is fitting. Personally I would say no, it isn't. It's complete overkill, but that's the ONLY problem I have with the situation here.
Incidentally, for the triggerhappy mods out there - If you really feel you must mod this as troll or flamebait, then go ahead, but please at least think carefully about it first. Troll != Devil's Advocate
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
There is a reason for handing out 200+ year sentences. It ensures that the defendant serves a life sentence, even after subtracting time off for good behavior and parole, which can cut the duration of imprisonment by a large amount.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"this makes Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000."
I think the main issue with me is this massive media focus and corporate witchhunt against what I deem to be relatively minor offense.
If all this effort was spent on something more important, like, I don't know, drug-use, gun control, or even the florida election tampering, maybe the world would be a better place.
I think music "pirates" should get a 1st warning, then something equivalent to a traffic infringement. I also consider it one SINGLE offense, not an offense per song. That's just stupid. I would think it's fair to say that speeding in a car is MORE SERIOUS than sharing a song.
Do you realize that teenagers has less stable psychic than older people ? Do you know that teenagers has a strong tendency for commiting suicide ?
See here for list of articles
What if one of those girls will kill herself, impressed and frustrated by that 1000000000$ fee ?
RIAA will not be responsible for murder.
why not just rip streams from you favorite online radio stations?
Everyone knows that the RIAA has been corrupting mp3 files on the Kazaa networks. I've heard them, you've heard them. They annoy the hell out of everyone. I'd just like to see the look on their faces when the RIAA "accidentally" sue someone who's sharing a whole hard drive full of corrupted mp3 files. But either way I have to admit, the RIAA are finally picking on someone their own size... little 12 year old girls.
This is what my 4:21 AM dyslexic brain read:
... and I thought, "w00t!"
15 Year Old Threatens RIAA
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Go pick on someone your own size!
No seriously, is the RIAA aiming to teach kids that big bullies win? I thought that was supposed to be a 'Bad Thing'(tm)..
That why it's fun to live in the Netherlands. Here it's actually legal to download music, as long as it's for personal use. Mind you that the recording industry would tell you that it's illegal, because when allowing people to download is illegal, how can downloading be legal. But they choose to ignore that downloading is making a copy. And making a copy for personal use is explicitly mentioned in the law as being legal. Wich also means that if i have hundreds of (different) copied CD's they are still legal, as long as i don't sell or distribute them.
one Sundown.
Hey. It's the way of the jungle baby. You always knew it, now someone just put it in writing. Take something away from someone who feels they have nothing left to give, an no compelling reason to comply, and why shouldn't they kill you? Really, when it gets to that point, find a fucking reason and fast. We are the premiere killers on the planet, mother nature knows how that's gonna go down, you might as well too.
The difference between fatal psychotic break and final act of altruism is largely a matter of who writes the eulogy. Sleep tight.
Illegally copying music, movies or software is not justified simply because those items are overpriced.
Movie distributors, record companies and software houses know they can get away with monopolistic overcharging because gutless Joe Average is constantly bombarded with advertising making him believe that he *HAS* to have the latest music CD, DVD or game / application - therefore he goes and spends money and buys the products.
If you want to hurt these companies then *DON'T* buy the products at the prices they want for them, it's that simple. As a result, they'll be forced to reduce prices and we all benefit.
This teenage girl is basically too stupid to recognise that she is *NOT* entitled to free music and is giving in to peer pressure probably because her friends do it all of the time. She was unlucky, she got caught.
However, I don't support the RIAA whatsoever. If these actions were about paying musicians properly and delivering talented artists to the masses then I would be happy about this. Instead, it's about swelling record company profits to make more money while they still churn out sub-standard plastic artists on overpriced plastic CDs...
Because p2p file SHARING DEPENDS ON PEOPLE SHARING STUFF TO DOWNLOAD! If nobody shares a file, how does someone go about downloading it? Oh right. They CAN'T.
Mod me down if you will, but that's the truth, if nobody shares, then nobody can download, if only a few share, then downloads are really, really, really slow as 100s of people try to grab from a single source. Only if everyone shares does a p2p network truely work.
Shouldn't this be:
I agree with you that people have a write to cow pee writes?
dONT dOIT
That would make for an interesting case, charging a minor with possestion of child pornography. What about distribution? I know some (high-school) girls who are freaks and proabably would post pictures of themselves on the internet. I'm 17, if my girlfrind (also 17) sent me a nude photo of herself could we both be slapped with kiddie porn charges?
First off, a nude image does not automatically imply kiddie porn, but yes, in most countries it is so. As e.g. here in Norway, where any sex or sexual experimentation is legal if the persons are of "same age and equal mental development". So two 10yo's could 69 eachother and the law wouldn't interfere (unless they were being coerced to do so of course).
But producing, distributing or posessing any pictures or video of it would be illegal, even if it's your own movie and the act itself was legal. Of course, at 10 you wouldn't be trialed at all here (child care up to 15? 14? has some restraining power but nothing like a jail) but any kiddie porn would be confiscated. And once you get old enough to be trialed as an adult, you could feel the full force of the law for posession if you still have a copy.
Now, that's taking it to the extreme. But it's quite common, not only in the US ("Think of the children!" country #1) that people could have sex legally, but not document it in any way...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Because it's hard to edit mp3 streams into separate and distinct tunes.
.
Michael Jackson threatens 12 year old
Sorry
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Because if a 15 year old committed murder we would just ignore it.
Who cares is the person is a teenager; they have broken a law and should be held responsible. The lesser settlement price is comparable to juvenile detention centers.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Newsbin.com
..to just share pr0n, not music.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
These people are all crazy sueing kids... well they did do something illegal.
www.colocationcity.com
Outside my house I have left a computer, a cd-rw drive, 1,000,000 cd-r discs, 1,000 of my favorite CD's, and a sign that says "Burn your own Music FREE!". Come and get me.
A lot of these sharing clients automatically share the same folder you use to store your mp3 files. If she's a typical casual computer user she could have been completely unaware that her music library was being shared.
-- thinkyhead software and media
She was planning to give the files back, man!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Thankfully, this reminded me to check the RIAA Radar site and I found their record company are RIAA members.
My decision: I'm not going to give any fuel to these motherfuckers. I'll be getting The real new Fall CD by The Fall.
As I see it, and I have a feeling that the founders of this country might agree, excessive copyright terms steal works from the public domain.
Copyright is supposedly a limited monopoly on distribution of a given work granted by the public in return for the owner's courtesy of sharing their work. This was meant to encourage creators to share their work widely, as it would enrich the public domain when the clock ran out on the limited monopoly.
However, copyright terms have been getting longer and longer. Since the moment distribution of recorded music became commercially possible, new works have stopped entering the public domain.
Add this to the fact that the RIAA does do an incredible job of promoting their own music, but doesn't do such a good job of making it clear that their music is used with permission. Usually the use of music in a movie is mentioned late in the credits, when most of the audience has wandered out. Listening to the radio spew out song after song at no cost to me other than the time spent dealing with (listening to or avoiding) commercials, I hear no legal notices explaining that the songs were used with permission from the relevant parties. Stations have to pause periodically for identification. Perhaps it would clarify to the general public that the music is used with permission if they would pause from time to time in a similar manner to explain whose permission allowed them to play such music and to remind the public that the music is a tightly controlled resource.
When you see a trademark used in print, there's a little symbol used to explain to people that the symbol in question is, indeed, trademarked. The fact that copyrighted works require no similar annotation allows the RIAA to dangle their music in front of our noses before slapping us the minute we start to believe that they're actually giving it to us for free.
All of this has lead to a public which doesn't understand why the radio can redistribute music, but we the people cannot. The situation also leads me to believe that the public is attempting to get a refund for the time-limited monopoly it has granted.
To put it in real-world terms, if I agree to let you borrow my car for a few hours in exchange for you washing it for me, that is a reasonable deal. You have exclusive possession of my car, but I benefit in the end.
However, if you were to try to extend the term beyond hours to days or even weeks without offering me significantly more benefit, I'd definitely reconsider the arrangement.
The RIAA hasn't brought the car back yet, and Congress keeps telling them that they can extend the joyride longer and longer. Decades beyond the death of the creator is too long, and the public is saying that the RIAA needs to wash the damned car and bring it back to the public with whom it belongs.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
RIAA Subordinate: "Sir, we have word that Micheal Jackson, who makes us millions a year, has been accused of child molestation."
RIAA Chief: "Oh? Do we have any other details?"
RIAA Subordinate: "The accusations come from a 12 year old boy."
RIAA Cheif: "Well then, we do have a serious situation on our hands. Then we must find out the truth to the most heinous question of all. Do you think that boy was sharing music on the Internet?"
FLR
It seems pretty obvious that the high cost of music CDs is the result of an illegal collusion among record companies. They got caught on payola back in the 60's so they had to drop that little strategy. Now they just charge more for all CDs in order to fund expansion into wider markets.
I wouldn't be surprised if this illegal collusion is exposed through civil litigation in the next few years and extreme penalties levied.
Just a hunch.
-- thinkyhead software and media
With the current business model in the US, music sharing/trading does potentially hurt artist revenues. It sucks, and needs to change.
Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows. Wrong. In the US Musicians can make a decent living from live show ticket sales, percentage of liquor sales, and merchandise sales, but the real money is in royalty payments from performances, recordings, and of course, music sales. A good album release keeps paying the artist without him doing any work so long as the album is bought or music is used commercially (among other things).
Royalty payments is big money in the music industry, and this is why musicians can get so obsessed with impressing A&R reps to hopefully get signed on to a major label. These labels provide capital and assist with marketing and distribution to wide national and global audiences, something that is difficult for an artist to do on his own. Now there is no rule saying that artists can't make money through performances or other creative means. Unfortunately, and no offense intended, musicians generally aren't savvy businessmen and as much as the "system" is so crappy (odds are less than 1% of getting a record deal even after catching an A&R rep's attention) they tend to see no other way.
The solution to all this has nothing to do with the Internet, mp3s, or any file sharing technology. Even iTunes isn't too much of a revolution -- it's just another channel for music distribution that happens to play nice with both audiences and record labels. A real change would involve providing complete and available alternatives for (talented) musicians to sustain themselves while still exploring and sharing their musical universes.
Nuff said...this is already about to spill into another discussion altogether.
Clever signature text goes here.
This fifteen year old is accused of illegally distributing music and faces a fine of up to 165,000,000 dollars.
Glad to see we have our priorities straight...
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
A 15-year-old is perfectly well aware of what he or she is doing when they break the law in such a blatant way.
If that 15-year-old had just stolen a car and gone joy-riding, it wouldn't have been OK because she was 15 and no-one would be arguing that she didn't know what she was doing.
If that 15-year-old had just smashed the window of a shop because she was bored and wanted to do something exciting, it wouldn't have been OK because she was 15.
If that 15-year-old had just beaten up on a smaller kid who irritated her, it wouldn't have been OK because she was 15.
You may disagree with the copyright laws, and you may disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but if you're going to do so, please do it on merit, and not by pretending that a 15-year-old is all sweet and innocent. Any kid smart enough to set up Kazaa or Morpheus is smart enough to know that file swapping in breach of copyright is illegal.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
To extort money from a 15 year old and before that a 12 year old? WTF is that about and WTF is that going to solve? Law is Law, even if it is complete shit and designed to help line the pockets of the greedy and toss the scraps to the artists. But to leverage money out of a teenager/child even at the amount of $3,500 is just plain stupid. Even if they had a silver spoon in their mouth and mommy and daddy could pay it, nothing has been accomplished. It's this flagrant display of greed that makes me sick.
I'm not saying I have a solution, I'm not saying you should get off unscathed for breaking the law. I beleive there is a better solution to them addressing this then feeding lawyers and pissing a lot of people off despite words on paper that say you are in the right. Just because words say you are in the right, does not make your actions right. I'm not even saying I have a solution here, but with the amount of money they have already extorted and ripped off from bloated prices...you think they would have hired at least an MBA to figure out, "Hey lets try to save face and instead of trying to get money from the people who probably don't have and won't have it...have them repay it by working community service." As much as I wish horrid things upon everybody associated with the RIAA, I would be hard pressed to keep such a view were they to make their point and show they are not a greedy giant too important to see the humanity side of things.
On a personal note, I think the kid would learn their lesson sucking exhaust up their nose for a month picking up trash on a local highway or freeway.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
I know what this person did was illegal, and, depending on who you ask, probably immoral... But doesn't $3,500 seem a little bit on the steep side?
I'm not saying we should all violate copyright wherever we see it, I'm just saying that the punishment shouldn't be quite that severe. How long would it take a 12-year-old or 15-year-old to pay off that kind of money?
Since the thread is about music, there are similar examples were musicians grant such rights to the public. Recording and sharing music from Grateful Dead concerts is permitted, but not of their published works (CDs, LPs, tapes, etc). Others here can probably throw in more examples -- myself I listen to more live music than canned.
While it's possible that this girl's entire collection consisted of music with such rights, it's not a probability. But that's not enough reason to feed RIAA/MPAA fallacies; File sharing of copyrighted works, even of copyrighted music, is perfectly legal if the license for those works says so.
A more controversial issue is the claim about lost revenue. At the time "illegal" music sharing was at its peak, CD sales were also reaching their peak.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The question that is fundamental here is: why have copyright laws?
Musicians perhaps should make their money by performing, writers by reading, coders by coding, etc. Copyright has permitted as system in which non-producers can get very rich by what is arguably abuse of copyright.
Even if copyright laws are acceptable, why should copyright last more than, say, six months? That would take care of first run movies, new cds, new books etc. Lengthy copyright may provide a pension scheme for a few producers, but mostly is a way for non-producers to accumulate vast, arguably unearned wealth.
I suggest a gradual shortening of copyright down to six months, with the ultimate aim of eliminating this outmoded concept.
Well, it seems that 3 out of 4 songs on Kazaa are garbage files. You know the ones...15 sec. of music followed by nothing but static.
I doubt she, like many others, bother to delete these after they've been downloaded. So perhaps this evil child hasn't downloaded an incredible 1100 songs...but maybe only 275.
Of those 275, how many are copyrighted works that belong to the RIAA? How many are not music at all?
Lastly, what if the RIAA dumped all these garbage files onto the sharing networks knowing they'd propgate all over the place? I know they'd love to show statistics to the US Govt. that are 75% higher than reality.
Since, quite obviously, garbage files to not hinder a file sharer from finding the song they're looking for...even if they're only 15 years old.
Yup... next we'll just allow any old corporation to come crashing through the door with a half baked, sorta legal document and extort money from you because "THEY" claim you broke the law... according to them.
Very dangerous when we allow corporations and associations to become, judge, jury and executioner.
Did we say terrorists... good ok then.
A hotter piece of 15-year-old ass you will not find anywhere.
>> Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
> How could more people be involved if less people are recording?
Because recording and creating are not the same thing. It wasn't long ago that music was something everybody created and enjoyed as a part of their day instead of a commodity to be consumed. When my grandparents wanted to wind down at the end of the day, my grandmother would sit down at the piano and my grandfather would get out his violin and they would make music.
There is no contradiction in what the parent poster wrote. The music "industry" could shrink, change, or go away and people's involvement in music and the creative process could still increase.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
the RIAA, Michael Jackson, and girls under the age of influence?? Could there be a link?
Im still trying to figure out all this copyright stuff so bear with me. I thought copyright infringement only occurred when: 1. Someone makes copies of something and sells it to make money. 2. Circumvent technology to copy music. If there is data that is sitting on a CDROM without any copyright protection and someone makes a backup but doesnt sell the backups for money how can the RIAA go after them??
College applications now ask if you have convicted of a crime. Ac ouple of people offered admission to Harvard have had their admissions rescinded after a crime has been discovered. (One for a juvenile murder; another for plagarism.)
And the numbers stand like this. There's at most a couple hundred RIAA's and millions of mp3 downloaders and sharers. I think the sharers can take 'em.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
No. Someone at the local college tried and discovered that Fort Wayne, Indiana, has no frequencies available in the FM band for a general-interest campus radio station. There is one college-operated radio station in the area, but it's operated by Taylor University (a Bible college) and plays gospel music.
Will I retire or break 10K?
With tool like audacity...it's getting easier all the time :)
Ok, I have thought about this over the past year, and as IANAL, I am wondering if this could at least put a bit of a damper on the RIAA. Over the past 17 years (started in 1986)I have purchased CD's. I know, no vasoline included. But, I have also only purchased them through second hand music shops and on half.com over the past 3 years, as least my money is not funneled first hand to those crooks and pedophiles we shall call the RIAA going forward. Ok, back to my point. Now, if I were to share only those CD's that I own, wouldn't it be up to the RIAA to show that I am distributing content illegally. I mean, they are looking for sharers, and as I may be sharing, I also OWN everything in my shared folder. They would have to prove who downloaded, when it was downloaded, and how many times. As well as prove that they did not own the works in question as well. Wouldn't this send them back to payola of our Congress (there is a joke, I wish the plane would have hit there instead of the WTC). I also am tired of seeing this country sold to corporations, and isn't the definition of FACISM a government by corporations? Sorry for the wandering.... But, if I were to share only my works, how could they sue me for a product that I have purchased from them? Since when is it illegal to make mp3's out of your music collection, as I can't transfer the music to my iPod in the state it is in? And, I happened to have installed Kazaa, no crime there either, and my music happens to be in the shared folder, again, no crime. I haven't downloaded anything I did not own or have possesion of physically. What do you think and what can you add ?
In his testimony, [to Congress, RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch] Bainwol urged peer-to-peer network operators to voluntarily implement the following reforms:
...
"The law is clear. Yet the understanding of the law is hazy. Why? In large part it's because the file sharing networks like Kazaa deliberately induce people to break the law," testified Bainwol.
If this is true, the RIAA has a point. Such behavior on the part of the P2P services is hard to justify.
On the other hand, it means the kids using the service according to official RIAA testimony often lack intent to violate laws in general or to redistribute copyrighted material in particular ! The sort of random shakedown of well-intentioned end users (SCO anyone?) that we are now seeing is outrageous and enromously destructive, far worse than a total collapse of the recorded music industry would be.
If I can be assaulted by a squad of corporate attorneys when I think I am minding my own business, I will simply be inclined to avoid using any products whatsover that include any technology invented after about 1910.
If this kind of malicious attorney-goon-squad behavior is legal, it shouldn't be. Now here's a place for a federal law.
mt
When asked if she had any idea there was something wrong with what she was doing, Megan said, "No, not at all."
Bull, with all the media attention this has gotten, her saying that she didn't know this was wrong is just going to expose the rest of us to more b.s. ad campaigns from the **AA...
Megan's mother Becca doesn't know what to do.
Whip your kid into shape. Repeat after me: Stealing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Ground her, take away her computer, whatever, get the point across that Stealing is wrong, mmmkay?
"It's unfathomable, I can't believe this is happening to us."
reaaaaallly...
I don't think the fact that she's 15 is a big deal, 12, maybe, but not 15. She knew what she was doing was wrong, and yet she continued. Typical teenage response when you get caugh is "I didn't know..."
Snooze and you lose your sushi.
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
To earn a living the Mexican band Molotov must continously tour because of piracy. And most "active" musicians don't make any money.
Does anyone wonder why publicised cases when RIAA prosecutes underage kids for copyright violations involve extremely young females?
I mean, most sharers (as well as Internet users capable of installing and configuring P2P software) are males. I'd expect the most hit group to be 16-21 years old males.
Or just media are focusing on those few very young girls within 260 people (as stated in the article) sued by the RIAA.
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Actually, that point is extremely weak. For one, most active musicians do not make that much more money touring live than they do from album sales. Second, you are still hurting the artist--that is still money you are not giving them. Third, if an album doesn't sell well and makes no profit for the label, what do you think happens to that artist? Now you get it.
You have got to be an RIAA lacky. Artists make as little as 2-8 cents for every cd sold. Lets subtract 20.00-.08=19.92. Yeay money for lawyers, money for prostitutes, money for cocaine. Lets check concerts. Depending on the band, a single life performance could run over a mil. Cds sold by artists themselves at concerts, with all money going to artists, even more money for the creators. And dont think it costs a lot of money to produce an album. With the new technologies you no longer need a recording studio. You can do it at home with the same quality. Costs of no more than 10, 20 grand. Ohh no advertising costs. Lets see a 1 mil dollar campaign: tv adds, posters, radio advertisements. Selling 1 million cds at 20 bucks a pop: 20 mil. Oh no must create pieces of plastic. Assembly line costs of 40 grand for 10 mil cds. Lets add retarded crap costs to make costs an even 2 mil. Leaves 18 mil. Where is that money going to? Ohh yea, coke dealers. I'd like to kill off some of your other arguments but they have already been taken care off.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
Put money in a bank, it will work for you. Save enough and you will never need to work. Same as artists. Make an a single album good enough to make you one mil. Put in a 5-6 percent cd. Never work for the rest of your life.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
For God's sake, you think she REALLY didn't know there was anything wrong with this? "Oh I just randomly went to this KazAA web site, and downloaded this, and got these 1100 songs and didn't know it was wrong."
:-/
I guess that TV she watches all day is NEVER turned to the news.
If she's really that dumb, well, here's a way to learn a lesson
It's totally true.
You heard it here first.
The RIAA has been conducting SURPRISE RAIDS of people's homes.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
In the first instance, the phrase is semantically rubbish, unless you incorporate information which defines life (bacteria, etc) into an argument. I'm certainly not defending the phrase...
As to your second point, that information is volunteered daily by billions of people, in business situations. Illegality comes from abuse of that information once it is in the possession of another. Money still nominally represents a physical resource, therefore its removal can be said to be theft.
Some might argue that music digitally copied from a CD also represents a physical resource... but the law treats the copy as a separate entity. Hence, we have 'copyright infringement', rather than 'theft'.
Furthermore, copyright is a bodge designed to promote the creation of works (by ensuring that artists have motivation to do so)... and sales of many artists have risen. File-sharing (through increased exposure) has been a factor in that.
What we're seeing is high-profile artists having a little less incentive, and low profiles being raised (and those artists gaining more financial incentive.)
Were copyright not able to be reassigned... or if it could be assigned for a maximum duration of, say, five years... record labels would be forced to give more of a shit about artists. Which would promote new works. Which is copyright was intended for.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Insane as you may be, I agree totally. Nothing wipes the smile off of a lawyer's face (and smears it against a wall) faster than a bullet. Just make sure you know how to aim, unlike the pathetic shooter video recently aired.
If A is selling something for $15.00, and B is giving away the same thing for free, wouldn't a person with just a trace of common sense think it prudent to find out how the market can support both suppliers? For example, if a song really has zero cost, shouldn't the price of a piece of cheap plastic with the song in it be driven a LOT lower? I mean, I can buy a *much* bigger sheet of polycarbonate for $15 when it has no song in it. Shouldn't that suggest that the song has a nonzero cost, and B is either stupidly losing his shirt or failing to pay what he owes?
Gotta ask my kid what they're teaching in school these days, if they're not teaching stuff like that. Not that he gets away with only knowing what the schools teach, mind you....
Go to the RIAA Radar page. Look at their top 100 non-RIAA albums. I'm sure you've heard of some of these artists... Warren Zevon ('The Wind' has been #1 on their chart since it was released!), Brian Setzer, Natalie Merchant, Jimmy Buffet, Boz Scaggs, Simply Red, and more.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I can see the add now "We'll get your children one way or the other"
Hmmm. Sounds like the family should sue Kazaa.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
I joined a record club when I was a kid, without parental permision or anything along those lines. My issue was getting stuff I didn't order, even though I made sure to mail in my stuff. "We're out of stock on this item, so we're sending you the beach boys". I sent it back, they sent it back to me saying I had no choice. Some sort of double album at a double price who's price doubled and trippled and before I knew it I owed them $50 or some such.
The letters said quite specificly that I would have bad credit for 5 years (could have been 7), and given I was roughly 10 years old at the time I declaired victory.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Yes, there is a difference.
I think you're missing the point. Yes it's illegal and yes people need to be taught a lesson. The comment was more directed at the laws, written with the entertainment lobbyists looking over congress' shoulders, that allow corporations already making disgusting amounts of money to basically ruin the lives of ordinary citizens. Given how easy it is to come up with a false positive or simply fake "proof" of infringement, there may well be innocent people caught up in a lawsuit with no choice but to pay a settlement or hire a lawyer (which costs more than the settlement) in order to prove that they did nothing wrong.
Even for those who did break the law, do you really think the industry lost $150,000 per song? Do you think it's right for them to go after people, not just children, anyone, for an amount that is orders of magnitude more than they will EVER see in their lifetime? That's what's wrong with what the industry is doing and that's why regular, decent people have a problem with it.
If whales learn how to use weapons we're all screwed!
This is the 2nd year that I'm not asking for any music for christmas. I haven't bought a cd in a few years and I am not asking for any this year.
The artists voluntarily sign the contracts. Stop acting like the RIAA swoops in and takes all the music some garage band makes, sells it for millions, and gives the band $100 in exchange. The artists sign the contract. They make the choice. They choose to give over the rights to their music in the hopes that they might get rich. If they get screwed in the deal, it's their own fault. They should have stayed independent. Then they could voluntarily put their music on as many P2P networks as they wanted.
And still be playing in their parents' garage.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
Not in Soviet Russia!
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
Last I checked I have about 7,500 mp3s. At the going rate of $3,500 settlement and iTunes' 99 cents a song, that means if I was sued I'm still ahead about $3,000. Considering that my probability of being sued is about a million to one (or better since I don't use FastTrack), I'm not concerned.
And if I was sued, I would simply "gift" my small bit of property to my partner, declare bankruptcy, and end up paying $0 anyway.
So what if he/she is 15 they know its wrong and they deserve what they get. It's a great lesson for them and one they obviously need to learn. Last time I checked 15 year olds have to follow the law too.
That said, right now there is an army of teenagers out there holding their thumbs and index fingers up to form a giant "W"
A better deterrent, sez I, is to make teenage offenders listen to each and every bootleg track, sequentially. With the state of music these days, this oughta be punishment enough.
Another thought: After paying out a sane-but-painful 3500, Miss Whassername's pop might provide the "deterrent factor".
said RIAA President Cary Sherman. "That's our job!"
The reason you have no sympathy is because I am guessing you've never created anything that people still want to buy, or listen to, or watch, many years after you have created it. If you did come up with something great, and were able to make a living off of it, until someone started giving out free copies of it to everyone, you might be a little mad as well.
I don't understand why everyone falls back on touring as something that artists should be required to do if they want to make any money. What if they don't want to? We don't require authors to constantly travel the country and do readings to make money because nobody is willing to pay for their books. Instead, they can spend a little time promoting and then concentrate on creating the next book. Similarly, artists may want studio time to create the next album.
To rephase your post, "relying on stealing music for a while is a nice idea, but if it doesn't work, then the consumer should stop complaining and start paying."
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
That's where I get mine. The band's own merch tables. And knowing that my support is going where it SHOULD makes the icing that much sweeter.
If you really do love music, find good indie bands. Go to their shows. Buy their music from THEM, not from Sam Goody. You'll help end the RIAA's stranglehold, clear your conscience, and make the world a better place for music. Viva la revolucion!
she's a minor, and therefore not responsible for her acts. but her parents are. but then you would have to prove her parents were involved. i'm surprized that this hasn't been explored further.
You had me up until the Eminem bit. This is a little jarring for the reader. Almost as if I posted a lengthy diatribe about Free Software that included the words "ticklish", "backhoe", and "Care Bears".
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Someone once said "If guns were illeagal then only criminals would have guns". The idea of music swapping is old. I used to record songs off the radio onto cassette tape so I could take them with me. My friends and I would buy music and record it onto cassettes so we would all have the album at a fraction of the cost. The difference now is that technology allows us to record things electronically and the internet allows us to have more friends to share it with. The use model of today is that people want to be in control of their music. We want to take it with us. We want to order the music in different ways, mixing and matching artists and jenres on a single CD. The RIAA really needs to get out of the stone age and get on board with technology. Other media has. Like my local newspaper. I don't have to pay for the news they print, I can go to their website and read it at my leisure. I can even search the want ads for specifically what I want instead of poring over pages and pages of tiny text. Most of the major magazines are also online. Sure, they charge for access to their archives, but most allow free access on the day of the publication. We are a global, technological society. Businesses who don't climb aboard will be run over by this freight train. I also think that their tactics, whereas technically legal, are extortion. Why would anyone settle for $3,500 when they could possibly get awarded hundreds of thousands? Normally, a person with a valid suit would never settle for that small an amount. This is akin to, either we break your legs or you pay us. Or to give a better analogy, the bully in the playground saying "give me your lunch money or I will kill you". That is more the scale and maturity of what they are doing. Yes, it is indisputable that these people are technically breaking the law. How many of you have photocopied pictures or text from a book and got sued for copyright infringment? It is essentially the same thing. The publishing industry isn't placing survellience cameras at Kinkos. I think the RIAA is cutting off their noses and there will be a backlash once a critical mass has been reached. I personally cannot wait for this to happen :)
Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
The absolute bottom line is it results in you gaining something you have no legal or moral right to.
... and, frankly, its legitimacy ends with the medium.
I disagree. Intellectual property is illegitimate.
You have every moral right in the world to share songs, paintings, stories, software, whatever... it is the law that is unjust: the just man has every right to violate an unjust law.
When you were born onto this Earth, you were born a free person with all the potentials of the human mind ahead of you. For thousands of years human beings have told and shared stories, painted, drawn, sculpted, played music, and so on, and never in the history of mankind has it been acceptable for anyone to lock up these things -- things that are so fundamental to our human nature -- for the benefit of a few.
The first copyrights were trade laws, intended to protect the investment people made in producing books from other publishers. Nobody would have dared say you couldn't read the books to your children or shared them with your uncle.
The copyright, then, didn't extend to the words -- but to the medium
We've become such a perverted society that we have people who actually stand up and say: "You have no moral right to share in the intellectual project of human civilization."
If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez...
It isn't any different.
And, inevitably, someone in the nosebleeds will come down and whine: "But, what about the rights of the author? Shouldn't she control her work?"
And, in the answer, is "No." Someone, somewhere, convinced us that authors -- being miniature Creators -- ought to be deified and given preference in the use, interpretation, and reuse of a work... I think it was the day we did that that the "masses" went from being free peoples to bored and unintellectual rabble.
No, fuck you and your "hypocrite" -- my views are perfectly self consistent. Are yours?
If you can't stand the time, don't do the crime, that's all.
The defense of this "poor girl" is that she had no clue she was doing anything illegal.
First of all, are we really supposed to believe that she thought that musicians had just utterly given up on making money off their recordings.
Secondly, it's never been a valid excuse the plead ignorance. It's a pretty well established principle, that "ignorance of the law, is no defense" And what rock has she been hiding under, for the last 4 years, to not have a clue that the music industry has been fighting against things like Napster, MP3.com, etc.
Fact of the matter is, she was a major contributor to copyright violations. Both actively taking music that she hadn't paid for at all, as well as enabling others to share in her ill-gotten trove.
Sorry, but I really fail to see the problem here. My rights aren't being threatened at all. I have yet to share files on Kazaa, and I don't plan on starting.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Every time something like this hits the wires the first reaction is always outrage, but I think there is a benefit to the RIAA going after teenages and people in their 20's. Before you flame me, hear me out.
Most of my friends fall into the previously stated age catagory, and for the most part we are finding that some of the laws of this land ruffle our fur for one reason or another. You might say "so what?", well when enough people who are young enough to risk everything get sick of the status quo something will happen.
What the RIAA is doing might just make one teen out there into our modern day Thomas Paine or John Hancock. People see something they don't like and make great moves to change it. An advantage and a danger of having a Republic. Why lament the laws that we don't like when we can work to change them?
Even if what is being done is "illegal" according to the laws of the United States, does that prevent action to change these laws? In short, no. The Boston Tea Party, the fight for women's voting rights, Martin Luther King's crusade for equality all were none violent (for the most part) actions that sought to overturn laws and cultural norms that were seen as unfair or overbearing.
So why could the same thing not occur today with the RIAA and the copyright laws? After all, the cat is out of the bag, and it's not going to be put back in.
Just my two cents.
"Credit Fraud? That's worse then murder!"
The Max Headroom pilot almost had it right basicly by pointing out in the *not so distant future* that credit fraud was worse then murder. I guess the writers were not too far off.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Keep in mind that it's rare when an artist gets in such an advantageous position when it comes to royalties. This is akin (and just as likely) to a tech guy guy who gets lucky and cashes in a bunch of undervalued stock options, then re-invest and lets things appreciate while he takes a permanent vacation. Do you know any musicians that only do music? I don't. Most musicians out there are subject to the daily grind as much as we are, and work on their music during off-hours. Music is an extremely un-lucrative career where there's no such thing as job or financial security (unless you're Ozzy Osbourne).
No one ever said that the laws had to be favorable towards their making money. There used to be a thriving industry in patent medicines in this country -- then we created the FDA and it ran all of those snake oil hucksters out of business. This was not a bad thing, despite destroying their ability to make money.
There is no natural right for a business to make a profit. Nor is there any right to make money from a specific business model. Regardless of how much time and money might have been "invested" or how profitable that business model might have been in the past.
We only grant copyrights in the first place due to a belief that we're better off doing so than we would be if we didn't; certainly through most of history we didn't have copyrights and no one complained.
Copyright originally came into existance in response to the printing press. As a way for the state to prevent "subversive literature" from being published. The idea of copyright being something to protect the rights of creators of works is a century or so more recent.
The Boston Tea Party, the fight for women's voting rights, Martin Luther King's crusade for equality all were none violent (for the most part) actions that sought to overturn laws and cultural norms that were seen as unfair or overbearing.
Fighting for equal rights and political independence is equivalent to STEALING MUSIC?
You, sir, are an idiot.
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
They may make most of the money from their music from live shows. But there are plenty of musicians who's main income is from something else.
I am exaggerating a bit on purpose, but I think that the argument "the artist won't be able to get rich and stop working" is a bad argument.
No. Downloading music is not stealing. I am not depriving the artist of any revenue by downloading a song, am I? I am not taking the song from his possession am I? He is still free to go on tour with his song to make money.I am not so much arguing for downloading other people's must for free, as I am making a statement against what I feel is a silly argument: That the artist somehow has the right to get rich and stop working. TEveryone else has to work, so I really have no sympathy for artists who have to work for their income either.
Clever signature text goes here.
That's fine by me. Playing PC games or creating my own web page is not a lucurative business either, so I have to work with something else. If a musician can't make money by working with music, then that's too bad. Get another job.
Clever signature text goes here.
System of a Down did a lot to make people think-- they brought awareness of the Armenian Genocide, awareness in some light respect, to the attention of radio listeners who liked the music for its sound but were giving the chance of knowing a bit more about the world. Few artists who actually make a living off of their work do this, for reasons that should neither surprise anyone reading this, nor be gone into.
The same thing with a lot of, but by no means all, rap music. It draws attention to the plight of real people in this world, instead of numbing listeners to it. Entertainment or art, you take your pick, but the entertainment industry in no way operates to peddle reality-- only escapes from it. Music that sells, and isn't going to be selling as much anymore with the advent of a broader market and ways to do away with the hegemony of "entertainment," shields people from really doing much about the world they live in, save for turning away from it.
--- pandrax-
And all 'Pro-Choice'rs, too.
just because they cannot stand someone else making a decision about their own body.
It's not their own body they are mindlessly murdering. Seriously - only immoral, irresponsible, sociopathic women would ALLOW someone to rip a living child from their womb. Thousands of real women every day have to deal with tragic loss due to miscarriage; thousands spend YEARS and countless dollars just trying to even conceive. And we're supposed to support and accept the 'choice' of some 19 year old whore to MURDER the innocent child that SHE conceived... to just MURDER it for no more reason than she 'feels like it'?
Fuck you.
RIAA is indeed suing little girls for lots and lots of money, but to me this makes sense so far. It might be bad for PR, but it indeed has been effective in stopping much P2P. The RIAA might think a PR plunge might be worth that. Why are people complaining about the amount they are sueing? From their point of view, you're going to want to scare them as much as possible. However, if this is kept up, eventually someone with enough cash and backbone won't back down. It might not even take as much as you think--it is rather hard for the RIAA to prove that said person was sharing copyrighted material, not to mention that no sane judge would let a coorporation get millions of dollars from an individual, assuming they had that much money. Otherwise, I guess they'd be sent to the juvie / prison. "What you in for?" "Brutally murdering 5 people in public. You?" "... Uhm, sharing music." "Whoa! S-stay away from me!"
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
This is completely irrelevant. The fact still remains that the music belongs to someone else. PERIOD. There's no way to justify theft or unlawful distribution. The music belongs to the parties who created it, and they can do whatever they please with it. If a consumer disagrees with the terms, they simply keep their money and walk away, EMPTY-HANDED, as they would in any other market transaction. If you choose to take matters into your own hands, that's fine - but then you deal with the consequences, as this 15-year-old has now discovered. And not a particularly bright 15-year-old, when you consider all the press surrounding the RIAA's effort to crack down on the illegal distribution of their property.
Yes, the stationer's copyright predates utilitarian copyrights. But the two were really only alike in name -- the current system owes nothing to the stationer's copyright, and hasn't for about 300 years. (also the stationer's copyright began under Queen Mary, IIRC, so that's roughly 450 years ago, not 400)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You just don't have any imagination.
Creative works form the cultural context in which new ideas are defined.Ownership of ancient ideas prevents new authors from being entirely free in how they express new ideas. While now that effect is only felt in the arts, it will eventually spill over into politics of left unchecked.
Some writers have already raised the alarm wrt this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The problem with the current system is that those being sued can have their lives ruined whether they are guilty or not, simply due to the fees involved in defending themselves. This is what needs to be changed, IMHO. Perhaps if there was a penalty for suing someone and then losing, less people would be inclined to swing the "sue-stick" so quickly.
IMHO.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The RIAA know full well they wont loose a significant number of customers from lawsuit publicity. Most people will think "oh well that little filesharing scam is over i guess i will just have to go back to buying CDs i dont want to get sued" How many will be botherd enough to boycot the RIAA? People just behave like little school kids and will listen to the teacher (RIAA) and try and fit in with the system.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Thanks for not actually reading my post, and not answering any of my points. I considered responding again, and restating what I said, but if you didn't get it the first time, what's the point?
sharing is stealing. sharing is evil. sharing is (blank). i learned in kindergarten that sharing is good. it's different now?
i came up with an anology recently. sharing is kinda like bringing popcorn into a movie. i wasn't going to buy their overpriced stale flavacol-soaked tish in the first place. if i bring or don't bring my own snack is largely irrelevent. it certainly doesn't deprive them of a sale. is it still stealing? am i still the antichrist? do i have to pay a $150,000 fine for each kernel i eat?
it's getting silly.
Where's Robin Hood? We could kinda really use him now.
I'm glad to hear the RIAA has finally gotten around to doing thing THE WAY THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE in the first place. They had no business suing or even ATTEMPTING to sue Napster or Morpheus. They were both "common carrier" innocents, regardless if they knew the criminals were dominating the legal traffic by a 1000:1 ratio. The RIAA didn't face the FUCKIN THEIF users that needed to be sued, because they found the sheer number too daunting, but it's like a heard of scared sheep, and if you pick off a few of the biggest assholes (be they 30 yr old tycoons who "can't be bothered to drive to the CD shop" or 12 year old 5-finger-discount bitches) the RIAA has finally gotten the right idea. It's all quite analogous to what happened in the early 90's with software piracy: many BBS's had a special "warez" area with pirated shit you could download, well -- the FBI royally assfucked a few of the "big boys" who had 5-phone lines and almost all of the 2-phone line small-time theives were scared into submision -- relegating software piracy from friend->friend cdr burning and the few idiot theives who still hang-out on the more "underground" and "unknown" warez channels on some obscure places like IRC.
The current political trend in the USA is to lengthen not reduce the length of tyme copyrights are good for unfortunately.
Should there be a Law?
At least one Founding Father thought long copyrights were bad for the public, Thomas Jefferson. Based on an acturial calculation he proposed a term of 19 years to James Madison:
"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another seems never to have been started on this [i.e., the European side -- Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American] side of the water... that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. -- I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... A generation coming in and going out entire... would have a right on the first year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for 14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take, for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon... [according to which] half of those of 21 years [of age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application... Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity for producing it to public consideration... Establish the principle... in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 years."
Thomas Jefferson's copyright term (fwd)
According the site above using actuarial tables from 1992 a Jeffersonian calculation would put the copyright term at 30-35 years, copyrights last more than twice that.
Should there be a Law?
... immediately the production, performance or marketing of your recent play, "Romeo and Juliet" which is obviously an infringement of our copyrighted work "Romeus and Juliet".
Sincerely yours,
Shylock Law Firm
Seriously folks, the world got along JUST FINE without copyright, and some of the most important works of all literature were based on someone else's 'intellectual property'. There's no such fucking thing. Ideas, plays, music, whatever; it all belongs to Everyone, not some corporation that's not even a person. All this control freak bullshit is just a selfish jerk's way to get more for himself at the expense of everyone else. Would ANYONE buy a Windows from Microsoft if there were other companies selling their own version of windows? Actually, yes! But not as many as do now, I think.
And as far as this music thing goes, this whole concept of Wealthy Music Star and fans who pay is an artificial concept created to move wealth from the many into the hands of the few, thereby concentrating power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. There was a time not long ago when people made their own music, all the time. People shared music with each other in community gatherings, not giant arenas where noone knows each other, and audience and the performer both oddly anonymous. Kill the profit in the music industry and build better communities.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Personally, I'd vote for the $165,000,000.00 judgement to be paid by HER PARENTS. Maybe that will get parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing on line. Just as you don't (if you are a good parent) park your kid in front of the cable or sattelite TV, you don't just park your kid in front of the computer.
Sure your kid can be watching Discovery channel, but they could just as easily be watching the Playboy channel, if you aren't paying attention to what they are doing. Why didn't her parent's know what she was doing with the computer? What if she had set up her own version of "Debbie's Web Cam"? The RIAA shouldn't have to bring things like this to parent's attention.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Could it be the open distribution of music has shifted the paradigm away from record companies? Real music is art, not merely a commodity. Although most mainstream music is made with profit as the chief concern. And the artists themselves make in the range of $0.03-$1.50 on a $15-$20 CD. You want to support an artist, go to a concert, where they get a reasonable share of the take. The RIAA is no longer needed to distribute the music to the listeners. The Record Companies outmoded. But they are not going quietly; they need not suffer silently when they can still use remorseless scaremonger tactics to delay the inevitable. They are now an unnessary middleman.
<jedi> There is something funny here. You laugh. </jedi>
"Listening to the radio spew out song after song at no cost to me other than the time spent dealing with (listening to or avoiding) commercials, I hear no legal notices explaining that the songs were used with permission from the relevant parties. Stations have to pause periodically for identification. Perhaps it would clarify to the general public that the music is used with permission if they would pause from time to time in a similar manner to explain whose permission allowed them to play such music and to remind the public that the music is a tightly controlled resource."
Great post overall, but one clarification: radio stations generally need not get permission to play music (the instances where they must get permission is beyond the scope here). However, they do pay for the priveledge of playing the music. The money goes to ASCAP and BMI, two non-profit performance rights societies that distribute the money back to the composers. The record company does not get this money.
Also, your post may infer that the RIAA is the permission-giver for all music. For instances such as using a piece of music in a film, permission of the copyright holders must be obtained. The copyright holders can range from the record company to an engineer or two to the composer to the lyricist to the performer, but it's never the RIAA. The RIAA is a trade group that represents many but not all record companies. To that point, if I release a song on my own, or with the help of a record company that's not affiliated with the RIAA, I still get all the rights you've described above. Copyright law protects everybody.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I'm a little unclear on this.
If a radio station does not have to obtain permission to play a song, I would assume that they already have the priveledge of playing it.
However, if they must pay for the priveledge, doesn't this mean that permission must be obtained in some manner? Whether they obtain permission by paying for it, I'd think that permission still must be granted by some relevant party.
Could you clarify?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
The RIAA hopes to fine her for the full $165,000,000 and thus enter her into indentured servitude as the next plastic mega pop star. She will work off the fines via her 3% cut of sales profits.
....COLD from ever buying another CD in my life. If the RIAA wants to keep themselves afloat by lawsuits, go ahead, but I doubt that any of their victims would want to buy any more of their products after mugging them blind. Or anyone watching them do it for that matter.
David Gonterman of FoxFire Studios http://foxfire.twu.net
"However, if they must pay for the priveledge, doesn't this mean that permission must be obtained in some manner? Whether they obtain permission by paying for it, I'd think that permission still must be granted by some relevant party."
I know, it can be confusing. It's due to a phrase which you've probably seen tossed around in debates about music sharing... "compulsory licensing." In mediums where compulsory licensing occurs, such as radio, it means that you don't need to get permission from me to play the song I've recorded... if you compensate me in a pre-determined fashion. It works similarly for jukeboxes... if you own a bar with a jukebox, you can put whatever music you like in it -- indie, unsigned band, RIAA Big Five crap, etc. -- without first getting permission from anybody, but you do end up having to pay BMI/ASCAP.
From time to time people have advocated a similar sort of compulsory licensing for download services... particularly in the early days when the legitimate, paid download sites where having a heck of a time getting permission from skeptical copyright holders. A compulsory licensing system would have meant that a paid download service could put Madonna's music up whether she liked it or not, as long as they sent her a check.
Similar to this is compulsory royalties. If you're a singer, generally speaking, you need not get permission to record a cover version of a song and put it on your CD, as long as you pay them the mandated-by-law 7.1 cents per copy. Those 7.1 cents are the compulsory royalty.
Getting back to radio, there are certain exceptions to the "play what you like, just pay later" compulsory licensing scheme. For example, I believe it is still the case that a radio station can't just play an entire CD from beginning to end without prior arrangement. There may be other exceptions.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Sometimes we get caught in our everyday lives and forget to get on the roof and watch things from there; they look a lot different, don't they?.
That's what happens when we think in terms of laws. We are so accustomed to them, that we don't realise when they become obsolete and need a change, or we try to deny the very truth that law is artificial, just like any other system we create, like the educational system, economy and others.
Remeber also that we live in a democracy, a government from the people for the people where the majority is supposed to rule.
In this whole RIAA thing, democracy and law is failing, and should be corrected. Obviously to protect the majority who shares data over the internet freely and wishes to continue to do so. The property laws we have been applying to intellectual work is not working as it should in this case, and is harming the majority while delaying innovation, and with innovation I don't mean P2P software, which is still constantly innovating, I mean business models. The business model of the giant RIAA is obsolete and needs a revision, I can enumerate the reasons for this but I think most readers with a little bit of thinking can enumerate the facts themselves, that bad is their business model, it's not my fault, not Meagan's fault, they are trying to run a business out of emotions, that same emotion that makes some men think they own their girlfriends, they think they own the artist's work, well, maybe the law tells them so, but in this case, that ownership is becoming illegitimate, and we should fight back the estabilished order if we want to go for a fair settlements of matters.
The RIAA's days are numbered. They just had a movie premier hacked and released again. People who share contraband over the internet are morons anyway. If strangers can read your E-mail, they can probably devine the actual contents of anything else you send, too. The only truly secure crimimal activity is face-to-face, between people who can put each other in jail.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
No, I responded appropriately to your statements that musicians somehow should be able to get rich and relax without working hard.
I think RMS has some great ideas on copyright, including a good explanation for how copyright is commonly misinterpreted and a great starting place for the kind of policy we ought to pursue. I also agree with the FSF that the term "IP" (or "intellectual property") does more harm than good for informed debate.
Digital Citizen
I am a diffrent anonymous coward, but what you are saying like the other free warzers is that it is ok not to pay someone for their work as long as it doesn't happen to you.
Say you've got a wireless network which you leave open for your neighbors, or anyone walking by or driving up, to use.
I didn't share the files, it was someone else.
Prove it was me.
I'm waiting for WOOT to offer an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. I need one.