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

[Anonymous Coward]

In regard to the link you posted "an example of when the cops screw up":

It's a shame that the only direct penalty against the government in this case was $2 million, which to the USA Federal Government is less than pocket change.

What should have happened is that the specific officers/agents/officials involved should have been publically identified, fired, and then prosecuted and incarcerated just as though they were private citizens who had taken the exact same actions. My bet is that if this happened, they would be in prison for a long, long time. I bet further that if this did happen, the incidence of abuses of power like this would suddenly see a dramatic reduction. You tend to be far more careful when it's your ass on the line and not a meager fine paid by your organization. And why should some thug (legitimate law enforcement + Orwellian surveillance powers = band of thugs) be allowed to cause you direct and personal harm by depriving you of the most basic rights in the name of trading freedom for security, while the worst thing that could happen to said thug is that (maybe) he could lose his job? At what point did we decide that this is a great way to run things? -- I missed that meeting.

Not fair, you say? When the government abuses authority it should be held to a much stricter standard than when a private citizen behaves in the same fashion (at least triple the penalty, and criminal *not merely financial* sanctions). Those who say they are fit to govern us and be our authorities do so voluntarily, and they should also be understood as saying that they are prepared to be held to such a standard. For any other line of work, this idea would be too extreme, but the people who are capable of depriving us of life, liberty, and property on a large scale hold a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility should go along with that.

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?

Ok...

[TheRealFixer]

The record industry has suffered enormously due to piracy. That includes thousands of layoffs. We must protect our rights. Nothing in a filing full of recycled charges that have gone nowhere in the past changes that fact.

Uh... yeah, no kidding. I thought the RIAA's past legal failures should have already taught them that. Oh, wait... were they talking about the kid's charges?

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?

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.

[aichpvee]

Maybe I'll donate to a dictionary since they educate people on the definition of "imply".

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[Speed Pour]

I'm not an idealistic type...at least not often. I do think sometimes the right thing to do has to be done in the wrong way. Sort of the Robin Hood thing. Sure he was stealing, which was illegal, but he was stealing from manipulative people who perpetuated wrong at every turn. And the end result of his theft was to help far more people.

This kid, in my own opinion, isn't trying to "fight the machine". I believe this kid is simply trying to weasel his way out of getting in serious trouble, and the best way he knows how is to challenge the companies that forged the law rather than challenging the law as it pertains to his case. It's a rare defense, mostly because it doesn't work very often. The difference here from all of the other times this has been tried is that there are some unique elements. First, 5 of the largest companies in the country are targeting a single 16yo boy, which stinks of bullying tactics. Second, the kid is using a counter-offensive that actually speaks to millions of people because it's what everybody is already thinking.

Sure, the kid broke the law. Yeah, he did get caught and he's going to get sued for it, and probably lose. But, and this is a great time for a 'but'...This needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. If it wasn't this kid, it's going to be somebody else who isn't going to capture public attention as well as a minor will. A judge and jury will be far more willing to side with the kid than an adult that could reasonably afford the music.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[whoever57]

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?

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[CRCulver]

I'll consider donating to the ACLU when they stop paying to defend terrorists [foxnews.com]. I'm not having my money spent on that shit.

And when were the prisoners in question validly tried and convicted? Looks like you should go back to the OP's point "accusation is not conviction". I'm all for punishing terrorism, but it's statistically likely that there are a few genuinely innocent people in Guantanamo, and some good ol' all-American trials would separate them from the people that should go away for a long time.

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.

[h2g2bob]

All very good, sir, until they suspect that you are the terrorist. Then I suspect your views may change.

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.

[lordlod]

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.

Over five years, for David Hicks at least.
Still yet to be charged.
Still yet to have any substantial evidence against him released.
And recently announced, no guarantee that time served will count towards any future sentance.

Re:This puts a grin on my face.

[smidget2k4]

Quoted from the ACLU's website, because I think it is a very good, valid point:

"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. "

I would hardly call that a cop-out answer. The second amendment is there to provide a right to state militias to hold arms to protect themselves against the federal government should they need to, which is somewhat loosely what the National Guard is, though I don't think anyone would really know what to do. Interpreting it as a right for individuals to bear arms, you lose the point of the amendment. Technology has simply evolved beyond muskets and cannons. In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.

Would you really trust individuals with a tank? How would the police even stop that? The dangerous escalation that would come from an individualistic interpretation of the second amendment would be fatal, simply because the second amendment is outdated.

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:This puts a grin on my face.

[srvivn21]

In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.

At the risk of going wildly off the story's topic, I have to disagree. Look at the situation in Iraq. The terrorists (resistance fighters, whatever you want to call them) don't have tanks. They don't have missiles (unless you call the RPG a missile). They don't have body armor. But they seem to be holding their own. One might say they have a good chance of "winning".

Given a strong will to not be over-run, and the support of the population at large (go ahead and try to tell me that these people are able to acquire and plant explosives without being noticed) you don't need fancy weapons to hold back a vastly superior armed force, as long as that armed force cares about image.

Even that condition is debatable. Witness the Chechens. Their Russian adversaries don't seem to be nearly as squeamish to civilian losses as the Americans are (see Wikipedia's entry on the Battle of Grozny for a taste), but still the Chechens resist (3 Soldiers Die in Chechen Rebel Ambush). Granted in that battle (click here for one account and some lessons that should have been carried into Iraq), both sides had heavy arms. But here are some good quotes that help make my point:

One experienced sniper is capable of doing what will prove to be beyond the capability of a tank, gun, or entire infantry subunit: disable a commander, destroy a gun or mortar crew, control one or two streets . . . and, most important, instill in the enemy a feeling of constant danger, nervousness, and expectation of a sudden shot. Everyone fears the Chechen snipers in Grozny. . . . There are many cases where a sniper wounds a serviceman, and then kills the wounded person and those who come to his aid.[20]

The sniper could also use an RPG in conjunction with a sniper rifle. A real problem for Russian troops was identifying snipers who shot at them and then donned a Red Cross armband and mingled with the local populace and the Russian soldiers he was killing. To counteract this, Russian checkpoints began forcing the Chechen men to take off their shirts. Soldiers would look for bruises on the shoulder from weapon recoil, for powder burns on forearms, or for a silver lining around cuffs (from mortar or artillery propellant bags). They also smelled clothing for gunpowder and looked for traces of it under fingernails or on arms or legs. Russian forces also employed snipers, but not with the same degree of success as the Chechens. A March 1995 article decrying the neglect of sniper training attests to this fact.[21]

The correct mix and employment of weapons in the city were also important. Grozny was a three-tiered fight (upper floors of buildings, street level, and subterranean or basement), and the weapons had to fit. Russian tanks could not lower their main gun tubes and coaxial machine guns low enough to shoot into basements harboring Chechen fighters. To correct this problem, the Russians put ZSU-23-4 self-propelled, multi-barreled, antiaircraft machine guns forward with columns to fire at heights and into basements.

The use of artillery and air power in the city was counterproductive in many instances. Indiscriminate bombing and shelling turned the local population against the Russians. The locals included some Russian citizens who were inhabitants of Grozny (and who found it incomprehensible that their

Its was about time, but the sad fact is

[knightmad]

No one can wrestle the Media Cartel in the legal arena and win. They will beat him into submission, extending the suit until he has no more money (or will) to battle. What I really wish (wishful thinking, actually) is to see the DOJ getting involved, just like with Microsoft. Then we maybe can see some real action. Until them, better stick to WWE, american friends.

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: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.

Not really that smart of a kid, necessarily

[patio11]

The kid had nothing to do with the legal arguments -- the reporting is just following the convention that your lawyer speaks with your voice and your authority. Its probably the same set of lawyers who worked when his mother was sued and, inexplicably, were not called in when his sister got issued a default judgement for $20k. (Yikes! People, when the process server gives you papers, READ and ACT ON THEM. Default judgements are 64,000 flavors of nothing good!)

Maybe sort of...

[Frosty Piss]

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

Well, sort of. There is of course a lawyer behind it. A 16 year old might have a gut feeling that these things are taking place, but I'm guessing his lawyer suggested this particular approach...

Is youth and time an effective weapon?

[istartedi]

Since he's under 18, can he even enter into a contract? Can he effectively use the court system by himself? If he can't, it's all in the hands of whatever attorney will help him (I'm assumig he's not an idle rich kid, and that he basicly has paper-route money).

This is intriguing though. For adults like myself, who have little time to spare and much to lose, quick settlements and/or rapid capitulation to affordable terms are usually the only way out. In other words, if the *AA extorted 10 percent of my wealth, it might be enough to make them go away, and it would be more expedient for me to let them do that then spend half my wealth fighting them.

OTOH, if I'm a 16-year old and I can legally ride my bicycle to the court house and file claims all summer as an "interesting lesson", then what could I lose? That has a certain appeal to it; but I doubt it will fly. They'll probably drag it out until he's 18, and can be subject to things that will bother an adult.

Still though, the idea of a smart kid sitting there in the library putting up his time and zero money, pitted against corporate lawywers who charge their clients 100s of dollars an hour, is intriguing. Even if he loses, he wins, unless they force him to pay court costs--then he's screwed.

Donate to the cause

[Harmonious Botch]

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/

Re:Magic money tree ?

[thrillseeker]

If the recording industry is hurting soo badly, where the hell are they getting the money for all theese lawsuits & lawyers ?

Dumping their SCOX?

Re:Good luck with that

[kfg]

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

The Five Labels Found Guilty Themselves Once

[chromozone]

"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

Re:Yay!

[jkauzlar]

All but two stores in the popular Tower Records chain just went out of business. They still have online sales, but I'm sure there's a lot of retail employees that lost their jobs.

Obviously, their mistake is in not raising prices to cover their losses. Maybe if they raised their prices high enough all the illegal downloaders would realize what a mistake they've made and start buying their music.

It's called unclean hands

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yay!

[CorSci81]

I think Tower Records suffered from the big boxes like Walmart and Best Buy flexing their corporate muscle more than online piracy. When selling physical media + accessories is your only game you aren't left with the resources to fight a company like Best Buy in a pricewar when they decide to sell CDs $3 or $4 cheaper than you can and make up the difference by selling you a shiny plasma TV. I would maybe buy piracy as an excuse if suddenly Best Buy or Target or whomever suddenly decided CDs were no longer worth selling, but that hasn't seemed to happen.

Court docs

[FienX]

Fresh from Pacer

14 - Defendant's Answer [PDF]
14 Exhibit A [PDF]
14 Exhibit B [PDF]

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."

Re:Smart kid

[wile_e_wonka]

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).

SiteAdvisor - p2pnet,net

[westlake]

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.

Here's why this is funny...

[merc]

This is exactly the kind of thing a 15-year-old kid would boast to his friends about... "Hey, if these fuckers came after me, why, I'd counter-sue their ass for defamation and slander, and .. and libel!". Except he's actually doing it. Yeah! That's funny! (you can +5 me funny and stuff for pointing that out!)

*blinks*

Re:Yay!

[tkrotchko]

"think Tower Records suffered from the big boxes like Walmart and Best Buy flexing their corporate muscle more than online piracy."

Not to mention Sony/BMG selling music direct to consumers through their club for $6-7/CD. I'll bet Tower paid more than that wholesale for their CD's.

So the choice is free (illegal), discount (direct), discount (online), discount (walmart), full price (retail/tower).

Is it any wonder that fewer people choose to pay full price at Tower? It's the worst possible choice.

Not good

[saladpuncher]

Dragging a 16 year old into court before a jury will hurt the RIAA more then anything. Most juries will side with the "poor" kid before they would hand judgment to a team of high priced lawyers.
Think about it:
people tend to dislike huge corporation
people tend to hate lawyers for huge corporation
No matter what happens the media will report it and public opinion will be on his side. Even if he is guilty this is a massive PR debacle. Setting an example works if the person can be portrayed as EVIL and VICIOUS (like for profit pirates) not young children. Whatever RIAA lawyer thought this was a good idea should be fired...into the sun.
So I say please keep suing grandmothers and children. Come on RIAA...aren't there Eskimo retarded paraplegics in wheelchairs who have AIDS that you can go after? Please do.

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

What I don't get

[bagsc]

..is if you steal a $15 cd from a store, you have a right to a trial by jury, but if you're accused of stealing $30,000 of music online, it's only a civil case, so there's no right to jury. Certainly, if these copyright infringement cases were tried by jury, almost no one would be prosecuted...

Besides, what 16 year old has $30,000? That's more than most 16 year olds make in two years of working - why not throw him in jail for two years? The average bank robbery nets $5,000 or so - has he really done the equivalent of 6 bank robberies?

Re:What I don't get

[gnasher719]

'' .is if you steal a $15 cd from a store, you have a right to a trial by jury, but if you're accused of stealing $30,000 of music online, it's only a civil case... ''

He isn't accused of stealing $30,000 worth of music. He is accused of stealing $40 worth of music, and they want $30,000 in damages for that.

What now?

[d0sb00t]

-RIAA, order of events-

*RIAA finds downloaded music*
RIAA - "let's go sue the mother"
*RIAA looses case*
RIAA - "let's go sue the kids!"
*RIAA eventually looses this case as well*
RIAA - "hmmm... who are we going to sue next?.. Hey! They have a cat!"

Good thing they didn't have a baby...