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.'"

Comments

End of an era...?

[danielrm26]

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.

Extortion countersuit?

[PDG]

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.

Nature of punishment?

[Hexydes]

Isn't the nature of punishment in these cases to deter the perpetrator from commiting the crime again, not threatening to destroy their life with monetary charges that they could never possibly hope to repay?

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.

Re:Why don't these people fight?

[Geek of Tech]

But (as much as it seems) the jury is not made of solely 12 RIAA member. As long as the courts believe you, that is the important part.

Oh, and just on a side note... If peer-to-peer networks started encrypting their searches, whether or not it is strong encryption, wouldn't the RIAA have to stop. I believe breaking encryption, or bypassing the encryption could be considered quite illegal via the DMCA. Start using the DMCA against the people who lobbied it into place. The RIAA wouldn't be able to search the network for music. If they did, I believe that that would be bypassing a copy prevention scheme. Especially if it used something like the MD5sum of the executable for the encryption key.

Re:Why these things get modded down

[shark72]

"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."

Not sure where you're going here... do you think minors are, or should be, exempt from copyright law?

"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."

The RIAA is following the due process. One does not need to be law enforcement to follow a process set down by law.

Also, after that embarrassing "Usher" incident wherein a university professor was sent a nastygram for having an MP3 in his directory that appeared to be a copyrighted song, you can be sure that the companies the RIAA uses to track offenders are double and triple checking their evidence. It is in their best interest to.

Re:You know what?

[antiMStroll]

Conversely, if the intent of the legal system is to prevent and redress harm done, those laws have no right to exist until that harm is proven. Laws don't exist in a vacuum, they serve a purpose and must be justified beyond expressing the wish of lobbyists.

virus writers please step up!

[SethJohnson]

All you punk virus writers who are comprimising peoples' computers for the purpose of setting up spam relays, please hear me now!

We need you to modify your code for the sake of humanity. Please create a virus that installs a standard p2p mp3 filesharing app. You provide all these kids with a defense against these RIAA jackbooted thugs, and you'll have fewer irate admins hunting your asses down over spam. I can promise you that.

RIAA acknowledges sharing inadvertent

[uncadonna]

I'm no Kazaa user - I'm elated with iTunes and think its DRM policy is reasonable, and I've never used any Napster-like anonymous P2P. So when I read that the kid said she had no idea she was sharing files, I was dubious. However, she and her attorneys should note that the RIAA prominently asserts exactly that file sharing companies trick kids into file sharing. From their website:

In his testimony, [to Congress, RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch] Bainwol urged peer-to-peer network operators to voluntarily implement the following reforms:

• Change the default setting for their users so that American children, teenagers and others are not automatically - and often unknowingly - uploading music from their hard drive.
• Institute meaningful disclosure clearly notifying users that uploading and downloading copyrighted materials without permission is a violation of federal law.

...

"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.

Statistical anomaly?

[Przepla]

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.