Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Teen Accuses Record Companies of Collusion

Posted by samzenpus on from the sue-me-sue-you dept.

evilned1 writes "A 16-year-old boy being sued by five record companies accusing him of online music piracy, accused the recording industry on Tuesday of violating antitrust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats."

8 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Donate to the cause by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a lookin for this kids web site (if he has one) and I think i'll paypal him a couple of bucks. Here is his mother's site ( or so I believe - I can't guarantee you that it is not a scam )

    http://www.p2pnet.net/goliath/
  2. Re:Good luck with that by kfg · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've just been playing a fiddle tune. Although it is more than 200 years old I had no problem finding either sheet music or recordings of it, because anyone is free to publish and/or record without a license.

    Cream rises to the top without a demon to drive it there.

    Oh, the name of the tune? "The Rights of Man." I commemorates a little book of the same name. You might want to read it.

    KFG

  3. The Five Labels Found Guilty Themselves Once by chromozone · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The papers allege that the companies, "ostensibly competitors in the recording industry, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy" by bringing the piracy cases jointly and using the same agency "to make extortionate threats ... to force defendants to pay."

    The labels were actually found guilty of this once before:

    States settle CD price-fixing case
    By David Lieberman, USA TODAY

    NEW YORK -- The five largest music companies and three of the USA's largest music retailers agreed Monday to pay $67.4 million and distribute $75.7 million in CDs to public and non-profit groups to settle a lawsuit led by New York and Florida over alleged price-fixing in the late 1990s...

      Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time that consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997 and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as $5 a CD as a result.

    In settling the lawsuit, Universal BMG and Warner said they simply wanted to avoid court costs and defended the practice.

    "We believe our policies were pro-competitive and geared toward keeping more retailers, large and small, in business," Universal said in a statement."

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30 -cd-settlement_x.htm

    Maybe some of those jobs being lost should never have been there to start with

  4. It's called unclean hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands

    "Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint--that is with 'unclean hands'. The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity"."

    Obviously the kid didn't think this up himself.

  5. Court docs by FienX · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fresh from Pacer

    14 - Defendant's Answer [PDF]
    14 Exhibit A [PDF]
    14 Exhibit B [PDF]
  6. Re:Smart kid by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's an article about his lawyer. It is the same guy that represented his mom (and that worked out ok...sort of). It is a one man operation, with a little help from the mom herself.

    It sounds to me like their short on funds, and I'm not sure what this lawyer is looking to get out of this--a judgment for attorney's fees? I guess he had to countersue for this kid if he is to have any chance of getting money out of this. It's too high profile to quit, but their is no funding to work with (except for this little fund mentioned in the linked article).

  7. Re:This puts a grin on my face. by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or in other words, "I didn't do, but even if I did they made me do it, and never told me not to, and it was a long time ago, and, like, even if I had it the music was legal because it was someone else's."
    Sorry, but it sounds like he's squirming like a little kid caught with his hand the cookie jar, throwing out every excuse and rationalization he can come up with.
    Sorry, but that is the way the US legal system works. Everyone wants to win and they are going to use every argument possible that will help them win. In addition, you can't raise defenses later, if you did not raise them at the proper time.
    Anyway, it seems to me that the argument that he did not download the music is not just rationalization. If the RIAA has accused him of downloading and he (or his sister) actually bought the music, what has he done wrong?
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  8. SiteAdvisor - p2pnet,net by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here is his mother's site ( or so I believe - I can't guarantee you that it is not a scam )

    Red-flagged by SiteAdvisor. Here is the report from McAfee for p2pnet.net:

    When we tested this site we found links to warezclient.com, which we found to be a distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other unwanted programs

    After entering our e-mail address on this site, we received 3.7 e-mails per week.

    I offer this purely as a suggestion, mind you, not legal advice:

    But if the heart of your defense is that know you "nothing, nothing!" about the darker side of the P2P nets, a jury might think that this is a mighty strange place to find you.