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?
"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?
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
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.
"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.
What the hell are you talking about? The generation that listened to the Beatles is still alive today.
No shit. They were an example--legends with music that transcends time, they WILL be heard for generations after anyone involved with them has gone! Perhaps you missed the forward pointing language, but I don't think that's my fault. Yeah, they're still alive and kicking, they deserve the fruits of their labor, but it's all too likely that the bigwigs who invested in their music have kicked the can--corporations excepted, they can live forever. Should their great-grandkids still be collecting royalties after they're gone? Should King's Quest I be tied up until 2078? Is it right that some Vanilla Ice wannabe in the year 2075 would have to liscense that famous loop from Under Pressure? I don't think so. Its insane.
There's plenty of music, video, photos, and stuff that has been produced since 1923, which is still copyrighted, and that stuff won't become public domain until 2019--if they don't decide to extend copyrights again, that is. Do you think it was a mistake that the copyright extension act was Sonny Bono's pet project? Talk about a guy with vested interests, too bad he couldn't stick around to gain from it. Many (most, nearly all) of the people who were adults when they created works in the 30's are gone now. Some of the stuff is still relevant, but it's sad that photos, newspaper articles, and even floor plans from the 30's and 40's could still belong to someone/something, I think.
I think milking copyrights in perpetuity is wrong. 40 years isn't unreasonable. 50 years isn't necessarily pushing it. I think the current 70 years for personal authorship is a little long (even if you create something at 18, you're covered till you're 88, that aught to be long enough to get your share out of your works). 95 years for corporate authorship is simply disgusting, though.
The thing is, they only need to find another Sonny Bono to push their agenda, and they've got it in the bag. That's not right or fair, and this is from someone who makes pretty good money on the side doing creative stuff, which is covered by copyright. In a world where nearly all arts are built upon the foundation of previous works, super long copyrights are a burden and a hindrance.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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.