Slashdot Mirror
Mothers Taking the Fight to the RIAA
An anonymous reader writes "p2pnet is reporting that two more single mothers are refusing to be victimized by the RIAA. Patricia Santagelo was one of the first to stand up and fight the lawsuits, which some say resemble protection racket schemes. Now Dawnell Leadbetter of Seattle and Tanya Andersen of Oregon have decided to follow suit and stand up against the recording industry behemoth. From the article: 'Don't let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.'"
Fuck the RIAA. Maybe when they get their business model out of the stone age, I'll consent to give them money once more.
It doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not. It doesn't matter whether or not their accusations are true.
They are more powerful than you because they have more money than you, and that's all that matters in the United States in 2005.
Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.
Wrong. Your only choice lies between paying a few k dollars to an extortionist company, or getting many millions to be able to afford lawyers and stand through the trial. It's not something an average person can do, so the choice boils down to either paying the extortion or suffering a personal bankcrupcy.
You're a citizen, not a company. You have no rights.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Are you kidding? When would the editors find the time to actually proofread posted articles? Slashdot has what, 20 accepted articles per day? If the editors actually took 30 seconds to proofread each one, that would waste an entire 10 minutes every day! You think they have that kind of time to spare, just to make their site easier to read for the thousands upon thousands of visitors who do the rest of the work for them and make this place what it is?
If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.
You know if you are guilty or not. If a court of law says you're guilty but you know you're not, still don't pay.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
"Only follow the law when the law is just."
Ordinary Americans desperately need, now, to begin to take back their country. If they leave it much longer, they themselves will not be the only ones to suffer consequences at the hands of their government and groups like the RIAA. The Australian government has already begun passing draconian laws of its own, following the cue of Bush, and I have no doubt that more will follow.
Technology is such these days that it is no longer good enough to merely talk about removing a dictatorial regime after it has come to power. In this case, it's not merely prevention being better than cure...Prevention may be our only option.
Point is, physical laws on an electronic medium.
If I took you to court and said, "This man over here stole $4000 worth of music from my music collection. Pay me right now for damages." they might consider it, but what if I told them by stealing I mean that you took my CDs, copied them, MP3'd them, and then returned them without any kind of damage? Now is it stupid to ask for their full value?
Now what if I said that instead of my entire music collection, you owe me 50 times the price I paid for them. I'd be laughed out of the courtroom and cornholed by the baliff for making him miss McGuyver.
But its all good if you're a company, because God knows whatever a company says has been well researched, thought out, and their word should be taken over mine at all times.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
YOU DO NOT KNOW if she has or has not been committing copyright infringment! Until you do, who the FUCK do you think you are to tell people they suck just because they've got the courage to defend themselves?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sure they've got millions of dollars but how many people are they suing? What if every person stood up to them? I'm betting they'd feel that hit on the wallet.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Double parking is less of a crime than genocide, but it's still illegal! Why don't we just institute the death penalty for double parking, then?!
Dumbass!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"IT IS NOT STEALING. When will you people get this through your thick skulls and stop believing the propaganda?"
Whoooah, slow down man. The 'stealing' argument is based on the idea that a music download means one less bit of music purchased. Whether stealing is the correct term or not isn't all that interesting. The claim is that money is lost from downloads. In those terms, the term 'theft' isn't all that unreasonable.
Unfortunately for the RIAA, the only real 'damage' that they've been able to reasonably prove is that the sale of singles has shot way down. (That was two or three years ago, I don't know if it's true today.) According to the RIAA, there were 2 billion songs being traded a month. With numbers like that, you'd expect to see a huge dip in their profits. Not even close. They did have a small dip during a stormy economic time. Blah blah blah.
Frankly, I'm not offended by use of the term 'stealing' when downloading music. I see where they're coming from. What annoys me is the assumed 1:1 ratio between downloaded music and sales lost. I'm also not thrilled with the automatic assumption that downloading of music is automatically some unethical move or that it was some attempt to save money. People went out and spent $400ish on iPods and related gear and where then accused of trying to get 'free music'. A new market was created and the RIAA refused to move into it. Even if they did manage to lose money on it, what'd they really lose money from? Downloading of music or a really bad business move?
What irks me the most about these accusations is my own downloading habits from years ago. (I'm a Rhapsody subscriber now, all my music is 'legit'. If anybody's curious about my experiences with that service, I'd be happy to talk about it.) There were two reasons I downloaded music. 1.) I downloaded music I already had on CD so that I had my collection at work and at home. 2.) I was trying to find new music. The second one is the hot button for me. According to the RIAA, I should go spend $15 to $20 on an ablum I've never heard before, and I cannot return it if I don't like it. Some stores have neat little kiosks where I can preview the music. That's nice and all, but I seriously doubt they want me loitering around long enough for me to make my decision. (Not to mention I've got OTHER things to do...) Funny what happened when I started doing this. I went and bought less music. Because I already had it? Nah. I rarely downloaded a whole album. I just found that there were several individual songs I wanted, but they weren't worth the cost of the whole CD. Yeah I saved money by downloading music. It helped me make wiser spending decisions. It's a pity they didn't sell music on a per-track basis like iTunes does now.
Okay, I've drifted off topic a little bit. Sorry about that. My point is that the theft vs. copyright infringement argument isn't going anywhere. Both sides are talking about two different things. The 'downloading is theft' side is saying that money's being lost. The 'downloading is copyright infringement' side is saying that not all downloading is illegal. Frankly, you're both right. But I think both sides need to think a little bit more about what the other side is thinking. The 'theft' side thinks that the nitpickiness over the term is a wake justification for the bad evil things the other side is doing. The 'infringement' side thinks the theft side is making broad generalizations which sound an awful lot like the "MP3s == Communism" propoganda that was flying around. I think there's a common ground here, but it'd probably help if the term debate would finally die.
"Derp de derp."
But anyone can set any IP address he likes, manually, as long as the other computer is off (which was mostly the case). Depends on the type of the network, probably. And if she had a WiFi router, unsecured...
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not stealing. "Stealing music" is a phrase invented by groups like the RIAA to try an justify their actions to the general public. Only the truly gullible and terminally stupid (i.e. you) really believe them. If you want proof that copyright infringement is not stealing, then simply look at the papers the RIAA filed. "Theft" is not the offence these mothers have been accused of. QED, copyright infringement is not theft.
Your post assumes that these mothers are guilty of the 'crime' they have been accused of. They way the RIAA spin in, it's beholden on the accused to prove their innocence. This act is directly counter to the principles that many legal systems were founded upon; notably - that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. All the mothers can hope to do in this case is prove that they didn't use P2P applications or have music on their machines they didn't have a legal right to. This doesn't prove they weren't sharing music at the time the RIAA alledge.
The RIAA should be made to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
Windows Tweaks
IIRC, RICO can be exercised as an ordinary civil suit, you just have to be able to state a claim for damages. In this case I would think that Anderson would have a claim for the stress factor this RIAA BS is causing her.
I hope she's reading this, more money for her and her attorney.
BTW, this is why you NEVER want to limit what attorneys or you can recover in lawsuits - because sometimes regular attys have to do the hard work that govt. either will not do, or when govt. is acting against you (as in criminalizing "copyright infringement" as if it were *SO IMPORTANT* to the whole of society instead of just some big wigs at the record and movie companies).
It's actually common for tards to install p2p programs on a friend's PC and tell them about the "big favor" they did by installing that "free" music program on that there PC. The woman probably deleted the shortcuts and left the program on there. If she didn't install it and doesn't know how to remove it or what it's doing, should she really be held liable for it? Should I be held liable for a virus that plants child porn on my hard drive?
Oh, wait....
Sometimes to fend off a fight started with a sucker punch, you have to resort to playing a little dirty, too.
Method of processing duck feet
You don't think massive corporations suing single moms is demonic behavior?
Hmmm maybe they do since the people opposing them are apparently excitable children.
Or maybe they're tired of seeing corporations making billions of dollars in profits and who have been porking the music buying public for years with price fixing dragging people who work for a living through the courts. Does that make me an excitable child?
That's probably one of the reasons Sony, BMG and some others collaberated to form RIAA, the same reason MSFT funded the BSA. So someone else could be the bad guy.
It's sort of like the Republican controlled Congress and Senate passing the bankruptcy reform bill which makes it difficult to discharge credit card debt. You'd think with the increased collections the credit card banks would give people a break right? Instead they all raised their late fees and penalties, knowing that they can get away with it because people can't discharge their credit card debt in court. Bet ya didn't see that coming, did you?
I don't know anyone else, but I'm tired of corporate money running this country. I want my country back. I want to lead a torch carrying mob down K Street and sack every lobbyist office and burn every corporate jet at the airport. And this crap that RIAA is up to is just one more reason we really need to do that.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
But demonizing them for kicking elf, stepping on spiders, and scaring babies is just taking it too far.
You're right - we should only demonize them for bullying families, enslaving the artists, stealing from their own customers (with overinflated prices) and suing people to bankruptcy.
Exactly right.
::Insert bad guy:: This depending on if you think RIAA or music piracy is to blame
This is just how things are decided upon by the masses. With tiny little morality plays tht rarely, if ever represent the truth of the situation.
The Scene: A small, empty, and locally owned record store with a going out of business sign on it's window.
The Actors:
The Small Businessman: Symbolizes all that's good in America. A local self made man that every one is supposed to love.
The Evil Goatee wearing Pirate: The young hoodlum who carelessly and illegally distributes Music and thus drives the Businessman out of business.
(Never mind the fact that music sales are not down and the closing of the little shop has more to do with decade long consumer trends away from downtown and locally owned shops.)
The Scene: A small and simple but well kept house
The Actors:
The Honest Single Mother: Symbolizes all the helpless through no faut of their own
The Evil Goatee wearing RIAA Lawyer: The young hoodlum who harasses innocent mums. No better than Mobster really.
(Never mind the fact that most cases have legitimate copyright infringement at their core)
The Scene: A squalid street corner busy with foot traffic
The Actors:
The Hard-up Musician playing for change: Symbolizes a pure musician who only wishes to be payed for creations
Rinse and Repeat.
Notice that this happens with all sorts of issues.
All we need is a few more viruses that download songs from p2p networks, and these lawsuits would disappear completely.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Change the law? Are you serious? With all of the money involved on the opposing side, it would be just about as easy to work at minimum wage with the goal of saving up enough money to buy a private island and enough yes-men so you can create your own little dictatorship that dosen't recognize copyright on materials older than a reasonable life span--all so you can thumb your nose at Mickey Mouse.
The Beatles, for example, are legends, and their works will continue to generate money well after the generation that first heard them have entirely turned to worm food. Michael Jackson makes a buttload off them, and they're just a drop in the bucket. It's in this industry's interest to make copyrights infinitely long, I realize this, they realize it, we all realize it. They have the money and the support to do it, and everyone else can eat shit. That's the reality. Unless someone cares to pull a few billion out of their ass to buy up and free all this good stuff, it will be tied up forever.
Somehow, to me, it dosen't seem unethical to copy music or other materials that have outlived everyone involved in its creation and its original investers, regardless of the legality.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I was about to consider the GGP's point as valid, but anybody who makes references to Harry Potter and expects everyone else to understand them as if they're a part of conversational English, is probably a little detached from reality.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Why does the Motherhood of these women matter?"
Because mothers, especially single mothers, have the second-highest political value of all, right behind children. It's all about who you can march out in front of the television cameras.
Nobody cares about the rights of college students.
anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max
Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at the very most.
Price is not determined by production costs; price is determined by supply and demand.
For instance, when someone puts his house on the market, he don't set the price by calculating how much it cost to build his house and adding some "reasonable" markup. Rather, he tries to figure out how much money he can GET for his house. Why should music be any different?
If people are willing to pay $100 per CD, then $100 is the "fair" price. Don't like it? Go write your own music. What gives you the right to copy someone else's hard work for free?
So, I say, we sidestep the whole issue, and just start enjoying media that artists release under Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ licensing. That is, tell the RIAA, in your face! There is LOTS of good music (and other work) out there that can be had freely. Sure, it's not the bubblegum stuff you're hearing on KRAP radio, but lots of it is really worth listening to.
The more we adopt alternate methods, the more the power will slip away from the current abusers. It's not a total solution, but it's a place to start.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
Yeah, you'll be SO effective at persuading massive numbers of objectors to contribute thousands of dollars to defense funds when they're too cheap to buy songs for 99 cents on iTunes.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
In short: individuals are nice enough, it's populations as a whole that are bad and have a bad image.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
...Why does the Motherhood of these women matter?,
This is speculation but I suspect the reason there was a case to consider is probably because a child or a friend of a child installed some file sharing program on the computer. The account with the ISP was registered and paid by the mother. So when an action was filed it is the mother who was named though she probably had no idea of what might have been the cause.
It should be understood that the copyright laws that are being invoked were written in the draconian terms because they were intended for legal actions of one commercial venture against another. All the mother might know is that she was providing an internet connection that the child is required to have for school work (if you are a parent you are probably aware that this has become a new requirement).
The idea that a parent is responsible for policing a home computer or face possible legal action that could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages is a new and startling development. If these cases go to trial and the mothers involved lose then the RIAA loses BIG TIME. The laws that they rely on to intimidate and win in the other cases will be seen as unreasonable laws and politicians will be falling over each other trying to address this perception. So if the RIAA wins then they definitely lose and if they lose they may still lose. Their best hope is that these individuals can be convinced to quietly settle.
That is why in the earlier case the most important development was that the judge told the lawyer from the RIAA that their resolution center was no longer involved in the case in any manner. They brought a suit in the judge's court and she [the judge] was determined that it would be adjudicated. Attempts to quietly settle were no longer an option. I suspect she was upset that the RIAA appeared to be using her court as a tool to force a settlement while avoiding a trial. Of course that is exactly what the RIAA wants to do.
"Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present,"
You're half right. CDs were about $18 in the mid-80s. If CD prices had stayed the same, that $18 CD you bought in 1983 would cost about $35 today. Instead, CD prices have been freefalling -- they were down to $13.29 in 2004.
"despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max."
Hmmm... the free market disagrees with you. I don't dispute for one second that you and all of your friends think that CDs are worth about $9, but the free market has deemed that CDs are worth about $13.29 and online tracks are worth about $0.99. Whether they'd sell more at $9 to make up for the lost margin is one of those classical supply/demand curve analysis issues (and you can bet that the record industry has hired smart people to do that analysis) but keep in mind that the record industry nets about 20% on physical CD sales (although I suspect it's much higher on downloads). There's not much more to shave off.
"LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982)."
Also correct -- I was buying LPs around then as well. $9 in 1985 dollars is about $17 today. While unfortunately it's not the case with gas or property, at least we pay less for music today than we did in the 80's. This is not due to the kindness of the record executive's hearts, but because it's a much more competitive market today Record companies need to compete with all other sorts of entertainment -- and they need to compete with piracy, too. Record companies are slaves to the laws of supply and demand just as everybody else is.
"Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so."
As mentioned above, the average price of new CDs is down to about $13 and change. Some CDs may be more (two-disc sets, audiophile versions, and so on), but that's because the record industry gets to reap the same benefits of supply and demand that other industries do. Logitech could sell that mouse for $20, but they sell it for $50 because they know people will pay for it. It might cost Kenneth Cole $10 to make a shirt, but they'll charge $100 because they people will want it at that price. And so it goes, in virtually any industry you can name. So if a record company thinks they can create an audiophile special edition version of a CD and sell it for $16, and people buy it because they think it's worth the few extra bucks, then God bless 'em.
Bringing supply and demand home, if you've made the efforts to get the education and training that allows you to compete for jobs (say, as an IT manager or a development lead) that pay $80K - $100K, but your cost of living is such that you could scrape by on $40K, you'll still gladly take that $80K job if somebody's willing to pay you. There's nothing illegal or even immoral about that.
"Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice."
Eh, mechanicals alone can run up more than $0.70. Royalties typically run $1 - $2 per CD. Not sure where you got your figures on video plays, either.
"Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
About 50 percent of all home and business wireless networks do not use the optional security features like encryption or MAC address filtering. Furthermore, for years now, Windows has had serious security problems with viruses, spam, e-mail attachments and other problems. Despite these unaccepatble security problems, most people have continued to use Windows even though more secure choices such as MAC OS X and Linux exist. According to on BBC article there are over 1 million Zombie computers spewing out spam and viruses or being used for other illegal activities. Should most of those over 1 million people be considered to be criminals because as you say "ignorance is not a valid defence?"
Most computer users are not knowledgable about computer security and use an insecure operating system. So if ignorance is not a valid defence then should I assume that most Windows users are potentially guilty of allowing their computers to be used for crimes? I use Linux by the way and am not a lawyer but, it seems a little harsh to hold unlucky ordinary average ignorant Windows users guilty by saying "ignorance is not a valid defence."
By the way, I am not saying that Linux or Mac OS X security is perfect but they are nearly immune to viruses, worms and e-mail attachemnts. However Linux users still need to use a firewall and download the latest security updates.