Teen Accuses Record Companies of Collusion

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."

Comments

NO WAI!!!!

[tomstdenis]

They're not competing? NO WAI!!!

Can't wait till studios figure out this isn't the 19th century...

There is a way to make money in music/movies. Selling mass copies of media is not it.

Tom

God bless this little thief

[PopeRatzo]

No matter what side of the RIAA-wars you come down on, there's something endearing about a kid who stands up to bullies.

Re:God bless this little thief

[Mprx]

God bless this alleged little copyright infringer... Get it right people.

Re:God bless this little thief

[jkauzlar]

The definition of 'thief' is so flimsy in this kid's case, it probably doesn't matter whether he's innocent or not. It's easy enough to teach an 11-yo kid not to take things out of retail stores without paying, but to convince an 11-yo (whose mother can barely turn on a computer) that certain bits and bytes are covered under intellectual property laws is far more difficult, especially when a lot of clear-headed adults can't even be convinced. I say he's got a pretty good case. Leave the 11-year-olds alone. How are they going to come up with $16 for a CD anyway?

This puts a grin on my face.

[Lord Prox]

I'm a lookin for this kids web site (if he has one) and I think i'll paypal him a couple of bucks. Not standing up and saying "NO" to the RIAA is as good as saying OK. I'm glad someone is returning fire.

Silulu. Hot Polynesian Geek Chick. HPGC

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ultimately, he did break the law by copying music he didn't have a right to

And your source for this claim is ... ?

Oh, the RIAA. Right.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Actually, I agree with you. I'm thinking the ACLU, since among other things, they try to educate people about fundamental aspects of the law such as "accusation is not conviction."

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[rizzo420]

you implicated that he's guilty when you said "Ultimately, he did break the law by copying music he didn't have a right to". nothing in there says that you think he's "likely guilty". there's actually a great chance that he is not guilty, and if he is, they have little to no proof of it. the burden of proof is on the accuser and if the RIAA can't prove that he's guilty, he wins and they pay his legal fees.

if he can actually get the courts to agree that the RIAA is wasting their time, it's a win for everyone, which is why he deserves more than a starving FLOSS developer. i equate a FLOSS developer who doesn't have a real job with an artist who refuses to join our capitalist society. our country has been capitalist for over 200 years... that's not going to change, you don't deserve my money if you can't figure that out for yourself. it's called getting a real job and making sure that anything you code on your own time belongs to you. not too difficult.

if i had the money to donate, i'd donate it to this kid. he's taking on a worthy cause (through his lawyers). chances are a "starving" FLOSS developer has the means to get a real job and afford to live, while a 16 year old kid taking on the RIAA probably doesn't.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[doktorjayd]

i thought this {legality | prosecution | persecution} hadnt been thoroughly tested in the courts, because when the 800 kg gorilla that is the *iaa team of lawyers descends on unsuspecting accused, they take the _much_ cheaper option and pay the protection money demanded as 'settlement'. the few cases where the accused has said 'thems fighting words, lets step outside', the *iaa backs off.

just 'cause the *iaa keeps bleating 'youre stealing, its illegal, etc' doesnt make it so.

i'd throw a few gold coins his way too, as this looks like a pretty good vector to prise open the *iaa shenanigans

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[iminplaya]

...what has he done wrong?

We're talking about "legal" and "illegal". Right and wrong have nothing to do with it.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[kubrick]

'there are a few guilty people in Gitmo'

Innocent unless proven guilty, remember? One of those democratic principles we're supposed to be fighting for?

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[metlin]

Correct.

My Dad, who is a lawyer, always used to say: "Law is not justice, legal is not right and illegal is not wrong."

Law is just a set of rules for the smooth functioning of society and has nothing to do with morality or ethics - they may overlap in places, but that does not mean a thing.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

In WWII did the soldiers decide they weren't going to fire at the enemy combatants because "they hadn't been proven guilty in front of a jury of their peers?" No, they shot at them, and if they captured them, they were sent to POW camps, where they were held as guilty until after the war (or they were traded). You don't try people in war like that, it just doesn't make sense, as all of your time would be spent on the obvious.

I guess you missed the part where Bush declared that the Gitmoees aren't POWs, German soldiers in WW2 aren't enemy combatants, and we aren't actually at war with anyone in particular. Aside from that, you're doing fine.

The people at gitmo are so unlikely to be innocent it's not even a question.

Based on what, exactly? You round up a bunch of people in Afghanistan and they're suddenly bloodthirsty animals? If they weren't then, they are now, and with good reason.

These are the prisoners who demand TVs during the world cup, than destroyed them during commercials.

Sound like fans to me.

These are people who will do anything to kill the western way.

Even if it means raising sheep in a village you've never heard of - suck on that!

I imagine the odds of one of them being innocent is much LESS than the odds that any given person in american prisons is innocent.

That's about 40%, right?

But all these big hot shot lawyers are clamoring to defend them. It's pure publicity on their part, they don't care about guilt or innocence, in fact, they want guilty parties to go free. if these lawyers cared about justice, they'd donate their time to help cases where people were legitimately screwed by the justice system.

So you see nothing wrong with throwing someone in a hole for 3 years, declaring them outside the Geneva convention, and outside civil due process? I hope they come for you tonight.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Maxo-Texas]

Phil.

Seriously...

They've found a rather large number of folks at Gitmo to be innocent.

Do a search for british gitmo prisoners.

We (america) engaged in *TORTURE* of them which means any admission of guilt on their parts is suspect.

If I were to waterboard you, shave you, parade you around naked, etc. as we have done to these guys, you would confess to just about anything in under 48 hours.

We really need to hold ourselves to higher standards if we hope to be the shining beacon on the hill.

Or we just need to say we are savages too and stop pretending we are better than everyone else.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Eivind]

A completely different issue is whether the prisoners at Gitmo actually is entitled to human rights protection.

The thing that completely flabberghasts most of the world is that USA actually debate such a thing. What century do we live in anyway ? Seriously, they're called "human rights" for a reason. What part of Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,(...) is hard to grasp ?

But even ignoring that, there's a second problem, atleast equally bad.

It's perfectly possible (likely even!) that most of the people in Gitmo are guilty of horrible crimes. The way one deals with such is by charging people for an actual court, and have the court hand out a sentence. (which in the USA can include the death-penalty)

Putting everyone in prison for like literally half a decade, yet never formally forwarding any charges, and just say "it's ok, they're *probably* guilty, most of them anyway, so we won't even bother trying to show that for a court" is definitely *NOT* how it's done. It's a complete disgrace.

And it completely undermines USAs position as the "good guys". It gives the other side an excuse to say: Sure we play dirty, but look at them Americans, they ignore stuff like the human rigths when it suits them too, they're no different. (notice: I don't nessecarily *agree* with this statement, I just think you stupidly invite it by not following your own rules)

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Dogtanian]

Going by your comment history, I don't think you were trolling, (probably modded down because someone disagreed with what you said- not the purpose of the mod system but there you go). Bearing that in mind:-

Also, most of these people are actually guilty. "Also, most of these people are actually guilty." I like the way you mention that as if it's just a minor issue, and that you clearly imply (and just as clearly don't give a fuck that) there's a significant proportion that aren't.

And you know that they're guilty without anything like a fair trial. Because they're terrorists and they don't deserve a fair trial (or somesuch bullshit circular reasoning).

Let's not even get into the pseudo-legalistic weaselling BS that the US is trying to use to get around the Geneva Convention.

The people get "tortured" because they toss their urine and feces on the guards and refuse to eat. What the hell do the quotes mean? Were they or weren't they tortured, and if they were, are you claiming that the torture was justified?

Are you saying that the British government would have been justified in using torture against Irish Republican terrorists who covered the walls of their cells in excrement?

Anyway, let's make one thing absolutely clear. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and all their hardline Wahabi friends are vermin who I'd quite happily see stoned to death, or finished off in similarly appropriate medievel style. Who's worse- the Americans or the Taliban and friends? The Taliban.

But regardless of what your dumbfuck "With us or against us" black-and-white-world leader says, it doesn't justify what's going on at Gitmo, and if you need them to compare against and make yourselves look good, you're already fucked.

Also, apart from anything else.... nice little anti-American propaganda tool you set yourselves up there. Fucking idiots. Not that I'm bothered about it making the US look bad (deservedly so, and not my problem). But anything that lets those lowlife portray themselves (and co-opt the cases of the innocent who had nothing to do with them) as martyrs and recruit more to their cause isn't exactly desirable.

Gitmo proves that the Americans are all talk and full of shit when it comes to justice, democracy and whatever. Go on- bring up some spurious dichotomy and ask how I'd prefer living in a world ruled by the Taliban (because if I'm not kissing your ass, I'm endorsing them, right?)

I've been there as a communications support technician.

This may not be a popular opinion on slashdot these days, but from someone who has been there, learn your facts and shut your mouth. This may or may not be a popular opinion, and I don't give a fuck either way, but why don't you and everyone else involved with the Gitmo operation do us a favour and just fucking kill yourselves.

Re:Yay!

[Dunbal]

Let's hope the judge sides with him on this one.


      I for one would love to see an actual list of the "thousands of employees that have been laid off" in the music industry due to piracy, according to the RIAA. Sheesh yeah those pop stars are out begging in the street, and they're the ones that keep the SMALLER percentage of the royalties...

Hate to say it...

[nebaz]

IANAL, But let's say for argument's sake that the kid is right and the record companies are 'colluding'. That seems immaterial to the charge that he violated copyright violation. Statue of Limitations I can see, but you can't use wrongdoings of others as a defense for your own, unless they are directly relevant to this case (extortion claims? But isn't that how all lawsuits work? Sue or settle?) If the case had no merit, then it shouldn't go forward at all, but I don't see how this 'collusion' defense addresses the charges at hand.

Re:Hate to say it...

[skorch]

Well, IANAL either, but my guess is his defence pertains directly to the case at hand: that being whether or not the RIAA really represents a monopoly and whether or not what they are doing is in fact extorsion. This would determine whether or not they even should have the legal right to sue anyone at all, or to act on behalf of any group of organizations that should be legally required to operate in competition with each other. If his claims are found legally true (I think it's pretty obvious that they are true, but from a legal standpoint does that hold water?) then their lawsuits are technically illegal themselves.

If these five separate companies were actually acting individually, and not as a monopolistic cartel, then they should each have conducted their own investigations of wrongdoing, and each have filed their own separate lawsuits for the individual violations of their IP. But them all acting together as one big organization kind of gives the game away and removes any doubt that these are saparate companies only as a mere formality. They are acting as a single entity with no free-market competition in mind while holding these proceedings. But that's just my layman's view of the situation, and I just hope the common sense I hope I applied to this analysis parallels the actual law in some way.

I just don't know if you can come up with a more textbook definition of monopoly (and all the reasons why they are bad) than what the RIAA seems to represent.

Re:Its was about time, but the sad fact is

[Dr. Eggman]

That's what they said about Big Tobacco. Any attempt is a good attempt: It encourages and enboldens others, even when they fail.

Re:Ok...

[pla]

Oh, wait... were they talking about the kid's charges?

Right - The kid's charges.

After all, the US recording industry has lost three major price-fixing cases in the past 20 years, with absolutely no effect whatsoever on how they do business. CDs cost the same, radio stations still live and die by pay-for-play under various names, and the industry still rapes both the artists and the fans that let it exist in the first place.

So why would just one more teaspoon make the ocean overflow?

Did you RTA?

[the_REAL_sam]

He was 11 when it happened, and the statute of limitations is up. Furthermore, his sister already had rights to everything he downloaded, since she owned the CD's.

I think the RIAA is going to lose this case, and it's going to set the stage for how the RIAA's patterned lawsuits start failing, time after time.

The last argument, in particular, should be able to defeat any RIAA lawsuit in court, since people buy and sell CD's all the time, and the RIAA can't prove what the person owned the rights to at the time they downloaded copyrighted music.

"His defenses to the industry's lawsuit include that he never sent copyrighted music to others, that the recording companies promoted file sharing before turning against it, that average computer users were never warned that it was illegal, that the statute of limitations has passed, and that all the music claimed to have been downloaded was actually owned by his sister on store-bought CDs."

Am I missing the point?

[one_red_eye]

Why are the record companies chasing after people who will never be able to pay the fines? Why aren't they going after the REAL pirates, the people that burn copies of CD's and sell them for profit on the street cornet. I thought that was the definition of piracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringemen t_of_software

• Creating a copy and giving it to someone else. This constitutes copyright infringement in most jurisdictions. It is not infringing under specific circumstances such as fair use and fair dealing. In some countries, such as Israel, creating a copy is completely legal, as long as it was done from non-profit intentions.
• Creating a copy to serve as a backup. This is seen as a fundamental right of the software-buyer in some countries, e.g., Germany, Spain, Brazil and Philippines. It can be infringement, depending on the laws and the case law interpretations of those laws, currently undergoing changes in many countries. In the US, legal action was taken against companies which made backup copies while repairing computers (see MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. (1993)) and as a result, US law was changed to make it clear that this is not copyright infringement.

And collusion sounds like what the oil companies do to maintain the high price of oil, working together for mutual benefit. Who needs monopolies when you have collusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
:wq