Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."
Hmm... they want to be able to meet with a ten-year-old girl in person. Now I may have been around the seedier sides of the internet a bit too much, but does that sound a little disturbing to you?
I always think that this failed and corrupt representative of the recording industry criminal cartel can't sink any lower, but they always amaze me when they do. Today I have decided to write my local regulatory authorities about price fixing in the record industry. I urge others to do the same.
I'm always amazed that it's even possible to prosecute children in the USA at all. In Germany, for example, the age at which you start to have a limited legal liability for your actions is 14; if you're 13 or younger, you can't be prosecuted for anything you do, period. (Of course, your *parents* might, and you might end up in foster care or so, too, but you can't get put on trial or sent to prison or so yourself.) I'm not sure about other nations, but I imagine that it's similar elsewhere, too.
(And it makes sense, too: when someone isn't old enough to vote, drive a car, drink a beer, smoke a cigarette or have sex with their girl-/boyfriend, why should they be old enough to be put on trial?)
butter the donkey
Does anyone NOT wonder when such outrageous stories come up? I for one do not!
This is exactly what RIAA wants, to instil a belief that they are evil and they will sue anyone, and they will win, because they are right. That they didn't care when it was granny or a child. PR does the later part of the job.
There is only one way to fight this: in court we win.
Or "democracy" but somehow I have lost faith in it.
Okay, first off, let us stop pretending the RIAA cares about it's image - it doesn't. For their current strategy - it's actually beneficial to be despised, hopefully feared. It's the front man for several big music companies and as long as their names (Sony, BMG, etc) are out of the headlines, it is doing its job.
I just wonder if it will ever backfire - in that the Politicians stand up to them. But under what circumstances? Enough bad publicity? Who haven't they paid off? I'm cynical enough to believe it isn't happening. No matter what regime - political parties themselves are machines of corruption. Always have been, always will be.
CD sales are down, but that could be due to people buying the single digital tracks they want instead of entire albums. Other than that, the demograhic with the time and money to waste on music - teens and 20 somethings - just don't care. Now, I'm talking about your typical person there - not all of them. The reason is the majority of people like to believe they will never get caught. Like speeding tickets.
Artists - this will probably be the only weak point but that means they jump from one master to another, like iTunes. Still, some have rocked the boat, I hope others join in.
I believe nothing will change for a long time though I hope otherwise. I won't shed tears when the racket dies, but don't forsee the internet killing them off for a good long while.
In their minds, I think they're trying to scare the parents of kids, but the net effect is to make the record companies look ever dumber and greedier, which is quite a trick.
They don't get that in virtually anyone's eyes, a 7 year old is an innocent. They really can't do stuff wrong.
And most decent human beings will come to the aid of a 7 year old when they're being attacked by a big bully.
The record companies should have just dropped this with a "warning letter" and moved on. They're really idiots.
What I find strange about the whole music marked situation is that despite the evilness of the RIAA, despite the high CD prices, despite the fact that there is still no user friendly way to buy music cheap and effective without getting locked in to some vendor and/or deprived of even the most minimal rights -- despite all this, people are NOT turning to alternatives. There is practically no significant market that would show how to make it better. There is no significant number of users who would simply ignore the RIAA and go for artists who directly sell their music or other channels. Except piracy.
In my opinion that says more about the customers than about the RIAA. If people are too dumb to exploit the weakness of the traditional music market -- both as customers or as startup companies -- they deserve exactly this RIAA.
That is not much different from people in a democracy deserving their Bush or Berlusconi. I never quite understand why all the people then go and blame Bush or Berlusconi instead of the idiots who voted for them.
So -- why blame the RIAA instead of all the people who keep them in power by STILL buying their stuff and abide by their rules?
I do agree with you on the fascistiod charges, but the rest of the worls were no better in past times. For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form. It is hard to tell wether the US has derived their fascim from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it. Given the time between them, it hardly matters.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Everyone over 10 has realized that the RIAA is a decaying corpse and (I sincerely believe) would boycott them completely if it were made easy.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
This is exactly what RIAA wants, to instil a belief that they are evil and they will sue anyone, and they will win, because they are right. That they didn't care when it was granny or a child. PR does the later part of the job.
Is being right worth the cost of the PR problems of being an unreasonable bully? Have they measured the growing movement to boycott anything major label? Have they done anything to respond to claims of being a cartel with fixed high prices?
I hope they have their PR campaign funded as much as their lawyers. Without a good PR campaign to distract the public from the ugly side of business and get the public back to the Ooooh Aaahhh Shiny mood, they will continue to see sales fall.
Some of us are never going back! Any PR campaign is too little too late. We have read hakespeare's plays and are familiar with The Merchant of Venice.
We know reasonable and we know what type of people demand a pound of flesh. This attack on a 7 year old girl (now 10) is what is showing their true nature.
The RIAA is no friend of mine. I don't need them. More importantly, I don't want them.
The truth shall set you free!
Frankly, just the fact that the RIAA hired some company to crack into her computer should be enough to get this case thrown out and charges filed for illegal wiretapping on the RIAA and their paid crackers. Once the crackers had access there is no way to prove they did not do the downloading themselves. Her ISP should file for theft of services too, after all the cracker used the defendant's connection to download their software.
The above of course is just from a relatively ignorant AC, any network security professionals here care to add some facts or ideas? Just in case the defendant's technical advisor(s) happens to read here, heck Ray might even find it fun reading even if he sees nothing new to him in it.
At the risk of drifting off-topic, there is a reason for the United States' lack of participation in international agreements of this sort, and the reason is not (usually) a casual indifference to human rights. It has to do with the autonomous legal systems of the individual states, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. So even if the U.S. were to sign a (perfectly reasonable) treaty restricting how its courts could operate, one could argue that the federal government lacks the authority to tell the state courts how to operate.
The counter-argument is that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to sign treaties and that should trump the state courts' sovereignty in certain situations. However neither argument is rock-solid; both sides have a point. So the way things usually pan out is that Congress doesn't ratify the treaties because the Congresspersons (who nominally represent the interests of their states, remember) don't want to sign anything that imposes a burden of treaty compliance on the state courts.
As far as I know this issue has never been put to test in the U.S. Supreme Court, so the status quo is that no one really knows how far the federal government can go in telling state courts how to operate.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Enough bad publicity?
2 005.html
Nope... Here is more..
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/cd_sales_
"For the first time since Thomas Alva Eddison began selling wax cylinders, the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.
And what they're saying is: We have a choice, and we're exercising it.
If the record labels think their persecution of online customers who include schoolchildren and and disabled mothers is going unnoticed offline, they're wrong.
The WSJ doesn't mention the failure of Organized Music (Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI ands Warner Music) to accept the reality that it's now in the digital 21st century and not the physical 1970s and 80s and that its business models need to be updated accordingly.
OM's members are in addition being found guilty - and very publicly - of one seamy practice after another and if they believe it'll all just go away, they'd better think again."
The truth shall set you free!
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I would not sign on to that either. In other words it says, "And if people decide that they don't like where the UN is going, tough shit, your rights and freedoms mean nothing in that case."
Everyone is rallying against RIAA as a whole, but there is only a single RIAA member behind this lawsuit: Warner Music Group, which owns Atlantic Records.
Warner is the very same company that gave the children of late Mr Scantlebury 60 days to grieve before they would be sued. (Warner v. Scantlebury) They only dropped the suit after it got media attention.
Warner also owns Elektra Records that is suing a woman with multiple sclerosis. (Elektra v. Schwartz) MS is a disorder that can worsen rapidly if the sufferer is put under stress.
And, apparently it did: In a March 2 letter to the judge, her lawyer basically writes that she is now so sick that she can no longer defend herself. Guilty or not, Warner Music has shortened her life just the same. I guess "compassion" is a foreign concept to them.
what has the mothers disability or income got to do witht he rights and wrongs of the story? Either they are guilty or not. disabled people can be guilty too. This is the worst example of tragic slashdot riaa bashing ive seen in a while.
grow up.
Yeah, because 10 year olds and their disabled parents on social security really deserve to be traumatized and possibly have their lives destroyed *for downloading a few friggin' tunes*. And yet you talk about ethics.
I sincerely hope you get busted and send to jail for jaywalking, copying your CD's to listen them in your car or accidentally downloading copyrighted material some day.
Doesn't COPPA laws prevent places from storing information aboout anyone under the age of 13? Thus saving the information about this perosn to sue would be in violation? Not too familar with these laws.
what i think is you as people can stop this. just mail or call your congressman and give him/her a piece of your mind. contrary to turkey, i have an impression that congressman in united states actually vaguely care about constituents and if enough number of constituents blows their ears off, they take action.
Read radical news here
Look, the RIAA's stance is that this lady's child broke the law. People break the law independent of their social or financial standing.
However it is curious that, of the hundreds (and probably thousands) of cases of copyright infringement the RIAA is probably aware of, this is one of the cases they choose to pursue.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A judgment against a child can't normally be used against the parent. At 10 years old, she's not going to have any income or assets.
By the time she reaches 18, it will no longer be reported by credit bureaus, and I suspect the judgment will expire by then.
So why would they even bother deposing the child? Maybe they want to see if the mother is just using her to get out of the case.
Her stance is that they broke the law instead. Representing that they had concrete information
about the contents of her machine from off of a closed network, using an unauthorized client
is hacking. That's a violation of several state and Federal laws on the subject. And, it's the
only way they could have concievably known about anything on her HD. It gets even worse for
RIAA, MediaSentry, and the labels. MediaSentry's in trouble for doing the hacking they did- even
if they never really hacked her machine. RIAA's in trouble for arranging the act (much like
someone would get in trouble for hiring a hitman to go do in someone...) and if they didn't get
information on her "illegal filesharing" they're also guilty of making false representations.
All of which can flow, liability wise, all the way back to the member labels as RIAA was acting
on their behalf and orders in this matter (Back to the Hitman line of thinking...)
There's a reason why She's filing under her State's RICO laws first. If it gets that far, it'll
provide the solid basis for a FEDERAL RICO suit. I'm surprised nobody's filed one against them
until now, really- they are guilty of racketeering and all. As guilty of it as a cat is guilty
of being caught in a goldfish bowl when you catch it trying for the fish in it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In the midst of all the outrage over the RIAA's choice to drag a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand, I think we're overlooking the extent to which the legal system is working to the benefit of the defense (the girl's mother, Ms. Andersen).
The defense is entitled to a trial by jury. The defendant is also counter-suing claiming (among other things) that the RIAA's case is based on evidence that was obtained through unlawful computer intrusion.
It gets better: in the U.S. we have a concept called "punitive damages," which means the court can award additional damages (money) if the party who was in the wrong behaved "outrageously." When I sat on a jury and the subject of punitive damages came up (in Middlesex County Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts), the judge said to consider punitive damages separately, and that the amount should be chosen large enough to deter future outrageous behavior. That is, when it comes to punitive damages, the amount of award is set by how much of a financial penalty would really, really hurt. :-)
So the RIAA is insisting on hauling a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand to testify against her own disabled mother. How stupid can they get? I doubt that will play well with a jury. Also, if the RIAA loses their case, they're subject to punitive damages for committing computer crimes in order to obtain their evidence.
Yes, it's rotten that the RIAA is abusing its right to force the 10-year-old to take the stand, but the defense is making full use of its own rights in this case. If you read the list of complaints Ms. Andersen is making in retaliation, it sure looks as if the RIAA has a lot more to lose in this case than it stands to gain.
IANAL but I can't imagine why the RIAA's attorneys would take the dire risk of bullying a ten-year-old in a jury trial.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Lets stop opening with "RIAA" -- hardly anyone outside of /. seems to have any clue who that really is. Instead, name the actual RIAA members that are responsible, and list a few of their high-profile artists. People should know who to boycott if they're outraged. When "average joe" sees a story about the RIAA suing a kid, he thinks "those bastards!" and then he picks up a CD at the FYE in the mall. To "average joe", there's little connection. Make the title something like "Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old". In the article, clearly explain that Atlantic Records, the label representing artists like "Matchbox Twenty" (list a few more from their website), in conjunction with their RIAA partners is engaged in a lawsuit against a 10-yr old girl. Explain that by purchasing music by these artists, one is supporting this kind of behavior, even though the artists themselves may not direct the actions. Encourage the artists to speak out against their label and its dubious tactics, suspect methods, and arguably coercive behavior. Help "average joe" understand what continued support of these labels through their artists enables. Don't let them wear one face in the mall and a different one in the courtroom. Let the artists feel the negative side of having the RIAA represent them. Maybe some day in the future artists will stand up and reject the RIAA because its tactics hurt their image. Maybe some day the RIAA labels will have trouble signing new artists because association with the RIAA will hurt their career prospects. That day will never come if people don't associate the artists with the behavior of the RIAA.
And this is what happens when you sue people at random. You are likely to get grandmothers, little girls and even dead people. None of which is good press at all. Worse, it is only a matter of time before the RIAA picks on the wrong guy, like some psycho who will find one of their offices or affiliated law firms, march in with a rifle and have at it. Or worse.
Given their "win" record so far, which is mostly people who have settled, they are obviously not making any money compared to the cost of sending lawyers to every corner of the US to sue people at random. If I were a shareholder for the companies who fund and back the RIAA, I would be wondering why they are gambling with my money. Eventually they are going to come up snake eyes and there will be a big incident. And then they may start finding it hard to find lawyers willing to take on random cases for fear they will target the next nut.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
If you read their expert witness's deposition you'll see why it happens; it's because their "investigations" are a sham. See also commentary on Slashdot and Groklaw.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It's really 4 big record companies, Universal, Warner, SONY, and EMI, who are doing this whole RIAA thing.
I have absolutely no conceptual problem with your idea.
Off the top of my head, some logistical problems present themselves to me:
-there are also a number of other plaintiffs who are labels owned by those 4,
-oftentimes the list would include 6,7,8, or more plaintiffs,
-Slashdot allows very little space for headlines
-the list would make boring reading to most.
But you make a very valid point. I should try to make sure that people do know which labels are behind each case, so they can know which labels not to buy from. And which artists need to fight on behalf of their fans.
Perhaps the answer is to name the first one in the headline. And to provide a list of labels at the end of each story.
Hmmmm.... you've really given me something to think about. Thanks.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
And if you know of any recording artists on those labels, write to them and let them know what is going on.
Thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Still trying to come to grips with this question, the following just occurred to me...
When I was young, there was a fair grounds not far from where I lived. It wasn't a complete stadium, but it had a full set of bleachers set up and a fence around it. Occasionally there were concerts where you had to pay to get in the gate. Sometimes my friends and I would go and listen outside the fence. Though we couldn't see, and lacked the comfortable seating, we either couldn't afford the entrance fee, or didn't feel it was worth the expenditure. I am absolutely certain that nobody would ever dream of accusing us of 'stealing' music as we listened outside the fence.
Times have changed. Today, with modern technology, we can have a telepresence at a performance in much the same way. A performance can be heard around the world without paying for it thanks to the digital media and the internet. Perhaps for some this is no different than me listening outside the fence? If you pay the entry fee, you get the CD in the jewel case and the inset with the words to the songs, but if you can't afford it or consider it not worth the price, and least you can hear the music while listening outside the fence as a telespectator.
COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) was overturned, not COPPA (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act).
And neither should be confused with the Copa, Copacabana, the hottest spot north of Havana...
I don't get it though, there has to be another side to this. ... Is there anything we're not being told?
What's the worst thing you could be told? That the mom is a dirty bad pirate, someone who had the nerve to download gangsta rap? Would that justify any of this? I don't think so. Don't stick your head in the sand!
What you are left with is the slimy reign of terror that Rogers and Beckerman describe. Thousands of people have been threatened this way. They face the loss of all their possesions, livelihoods and jailtime. Many if not all are innocent. They turn to next of kin when one victim escapes to promote further terror: we will get your kids next! The very tactic proves they don't know who really did what they accuse. It's ugly because extortion is always that way. It's horrifying because huge companies should not act like gangsters. The reality is so horrible that people want to reject it outright rather than believe they live in such an ugly and threatening world. That fearful denial is one of the greatest assets of any tyranny.
The publishers behind these suits are not really interested in infringement, they want to control the internet itself and shut down all possible competition. The RIAA is a shell organization for the incumbent media companies, publishers, broadcasters and others dinosaurs that want to maintain their current monoply position. They want you to be afraid to share and they dream of charging you for every trivial enjoyment of your own culture. These lawsuits lay bare the true nature of non free publishing, perpetual copyrights, monoploy broadcasting and owned culture.
It is time to make copyright reasonable again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1) RIAA lawsuits are civil suits, not criminal, and therefore not prosecutions. Prosecutions of children for crimes or misdemeanors is severely limited with special rules and courts.
2) Even in civil suits, minors are legally incompetent to be parties to lawsuits. I'm sure that if you look a little closer, if the RIAA is suing a minor directly, then it can only be because they did not know the person's age. They will either have their case dismissed, or will amend their complaint to sue the child's parent, who would be vicariously liable.
Yeah, and every soccer mom wannabe liberal advocate wants to protect their children with legal scarlet letters, introduce more "victim's rights", and put non-violent offenders in max security prisons. How many free speech rights have been threatened by the left prior to 9/11 that is now being exercised by that left in an even more crushing administration?
You're an idiot if you think this has anything to do with the Christian Right, and your bias shows. GWB may be the face of executions for the misrepresented in this country, and many people are Christian, but those prosecuting teens or less are supported mainly by those who favor law and order, irrespective of their party or religious affiliation. YOU are just selecting viewpoints that fit your political or anti-religious viewpoint. You don't want to know how many new "criminal" laws are introduced by liberals, much like most Dems refuse to believe the DMCA was passed under Clinton and focus only on the Republican Congress at the time. Hell, my state had a budget shortage, raised taxes, went after businesses, tries to reduce population flight away from the state, has high property taxes, and is increasing their police force instead of economic incentives, all under a Democrat for a governor.
Anyways, idiot, because you believe in the classification, the party, the group dynamic that GWB has you playing more so than ever; you're a SUCKER for the game GWB put forward pitting people against each other, making them impotent to the larger plan, and this plan has bee in place for, what, 5 years now and YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT. You want to fight against something, fight against stupidly long prison terms, exchanging economic aid for larger police forces, stupid laws that makes yelling pissy shit a "terrorist threat." You'll find a hell of a lot of more moderate Republicans like myself watching to see what you do and how you act, so labeling us "Christian Right" without differentiation in your views simply alienates us, much like Bush has alienated moderate Dems completely (case in point, this is why the Dems finally have a clue, seeing that Obama is getting support versus Hillary Clinton).
After all, if you attack people's beliefs all in stereotype, you are just the small GWB version of the anti-Christian coalition. Wake up--you don't win people by playing the polarizing game, but by finding the common ground and showing them the way.
btw, the youngest to possibly face murder on adult charges was 11-12 years old. Unsure if he was prosecuted as such through. Case was in Minnesota I think.
That ended five years ago:
Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty. Atkins v. Virgina,Atkins v. Virginia
Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped.
Of the 44 mentally retarded in the U.S. executed since 1976, nine were in Texas, five in Virgina, only four were executed in states outside the southern Confederacy in the American Civil War.
Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States
There have been 387 executions in Texas since December 1982. The youngest was 24 in 1985. 17 when he killed a clerk for a six-pack of beer in a convenience-store robbery. There has been almost nothing the like of that since. Executed Offenders
He was born in Connecticut, true. But he moved with his parents to Texas when he was two years old.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
> Missed the smiley there I see.
:-) This also means that many European Laws still mean squat.
Your smiley was there, I just felt obliged to mention it once again.
> Sweden doesn't use the Euro, Sweden also doesn't acknowledge the common European Law which is being setup by the European Parliament.
Er, the UK doesn't use the Euro. Neither does Denmark. As far as the European Constitution is concerned, France and the Netherlands (the latter of which I am a citizen) didn't acknowledge it either. Moreover they explicitly rejected it in a round of referendums.
> a few weeks ago a new European law was passed stating that it isn't illegal for their citizens. Its not merely a country policy anymore.
Currently, any country in the EU still has the autonomous power to put their own laws and constitution above EU law. This is the reason Sweden still has a state-monopoly on the sale of alcohol, Marijuana and prostitution are still legal in Holland, and the UK still uses the Imperial Measures
> I wouldn't be surprised if we'd get a USE sometimes.
Given the fact that any European country has a Veto-right in legislative matters, I sincerely doubt that for the coming years. Firstly it requires the Brits, French and zee Germans to agree on many things. Secondly, even countries that hitherto firmly believed in the principles of the EU project are seeing domestic support wane in the face of certain budgetary developments. Case in point being the Netherlands, which has clearly stated to Brussels that "we're paying too much and we want our cash back".
It may happen. But I think it's still a thing of the (distant) future.
I don't know one "'Christian' Right" as you put it that wasn't opposed to pulling Terry Schiavo feeding tube. Your reference to them as executing mentally retarted people is a pathetically shameful troll attempt. The only people I know and have read about who were for pulling the feeding tube were the "'Immoral demonic' Left" (see, I can troll, too) who didn't have a problem with starving the lady but didn't have the guts to say what they were doing with any more than a whisper: just be done with it and put her down. Something is terribly wrong when people will starve someone to death but won't save them the pain and put them down fast. But no, that would have been too too quick, too much like...execution...as you so fondly put it. Further disgusting is that you were modded insightful for all this.
As for your plug about the 10 Commandments, they're a useful moral code for running a country. Why people would have problems with something that says murdering other people is bad, or that you should love your neighbor as yourself, is beyond me. If our country followed even half of them we'd be far better off. Divorce? You just made your child's future a very, very painful one. Covetting someone else's newest and greatest toy? Since when did this make you happier? But I guess it would be understandable that people who lie to promote an agenda (see first paragraph about you) might not think murder is bad, and might not be interested in being nice to their neighbor-- they might be looking to stir up anger and disent for some odd reason. Keyboard courage for the win yes? Anyhow, likely your problem with the 10 Commandments being in the courtroom lies with the "Love the Lord your God" clause and the "Have no other Gods before me"? You know I've always wondered how many people would object to displaying something from the Koran in a courtroom. Would they post trolls about how the Muslims execute mentally retarted people (we could mention that they execute perfectly normal people and are willing to blow themselves up to do it; yes the Koran condones this; go read it yourself if you think otherwise)? Or how they're all in a giant conspiracy (your wording references these events as such) to kill the retards and post Korans in the US courtroom? Probably not, which is why I have a problem with you doing so over only the 10 Commandments and the "'Christian' Right".
Parent should have been modded troll or flamebait faster than you can say "biased". Why does Slashdot put up with this kind of garbage? Not to mention mod it insightful.
There was once a time when you could have a rational, straight discussion on Slashdot.
RIAA Sues Pregnant Mom and Unborn Child
Claims Both Were Present at Times of Alleged Infringment
Seeking Double Normal Settlement Fee
RIAA Files Suit Against Family Dog
Says Pooch Was Alone in House All Day -- Had Ample Time and Opportunity to Download
Suspect Responds "Arf! Arf! Grrr....."
RIAA Traces IP Address to Long-Vacant House
Hires "Ghostbusters" to Flush Out File-Sharing Ghosts
Spokesman: "Just Because Someone is a Disembodied Spirit Doesn't Let Them Off the Hook"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Someone could take advantage of the madness of the RIAA. First issue a press release that if elected, you will support the review of the copyright laws. Then watch closely for the the RIAA/MPAA to donate money to your opponent. Then come out swinging and don't stop: "My opponent takes money from people who want to put you (or your kids) in jail for moving songs from their CDs to their iPods." "My opponent takes money from organizations who sue 10-year-olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars!".
Be a real pit bull. Have many copies of the affidavits, etc... ready to hand out at press meetings and political rallies. Keep on message: Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! (don't forget to get those 18+ year olds registered to vote!)Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers!
People really do hate the RIAA when the learn what this organization is actually doing. You have a good chance of winning the election by taking the anti-RIAA stand instead of just blindly supporting them.
I wonder where Dateline is during all of this? I mean Dateline likes going after predators, and the RIAA is one due to their actions. You would think Dateline would be all over a story like this one.
I just wanted to disown him, Texas gets enough bad rap :)
Eh... Have to jump in here...
My motto has always been: "If you can do the crime, you can do the time". Sure, children shouldn't be locked up with adults but the penalties should be the same when the crime is the same, and if the punishment is the death penalty so be it, even for the retarded.
Why? - Because the crime was the same. If you kill someone, that someone is dead regardless of the age and mental maturity of the murderer.
It might be that we need to discuss the responsibilities of the guardians - should the parents be punished instead when their children commit crimes? - Doesn't matter to me as long as there are consequences to committing a crime and that they are the same regardless of who the victim or the perpetrator is.
And no, I'm not part of the "Christian Right" - I'm actually an atheist.
But back on the topic - not only do I loathe RIAA, MPAA and all similar organisations and what they stand for, I also feel that their crusade against piracy isn't about piracy or even money - it's all a matter of retaining control in a market that got obsolete about a decade ago when recording facilities came within reach of regular people. Now people can record, mix and distribute their music without anyone else profiting from it because they don't need the services the labels used to provide. They don't need to hire a studio and producers and so on, just to realize a recording and thus the ability to share your music.
But what about MPAA? - Well, their model became obsolete when the home video recorder came out. They use stupid release rules to ensure that people first have to go to the cinemas to see a movie, later they can watch it on pay-per-view tv-channels and later again they can buy a copy to watch at home. And if you live outside the USA you'll have to wait even longer for everything, if the movie comes out at all that is.
What we need is global releases to all media forms. This way the cinemas have to survive on something different than a monopoly; they would need to offer something special to make people go there instead of watching a movie at home. The facilities need to be much, much better and offer something not easily available at home. After all, people still go out to eat despite it being more expensive and everybody having a kitchen and food at home. A similar model is needed for the cinemas, not a stupid monopoly.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Do you feel it's fair to "teach someone early on not to steal" by cutting off their hands? How about torture? Putting a 10 year old child in front of a judge, jury and the world is not only extreme, I can't imagine what it will do to this poor child emotionally and psychologically. This is reminiscent of the Middle Ages...
I cannot conceive of any "reasonable" modification of copyright law that could pertain to this, however. Can you clarify?
You will have to ask my favorite copyright lawyer, Lawrence Lessing for real advice. I don't mind sharing what I think because the law is supposed to reflect the moral sense of the governed. Right now, it reflects the best interests of a few powerful companies and that needs to change. The large list of changes required shows just how far into negative territory things have sunk.
In short, my opinion is that:
Copyright is a created right that's supposed to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment. The creation clause of the US constitution was reasonable at the time and it's spirit offers good guidance today. Copyright is supposed to be temporary and government is not supposed to be a burden or anti-competitive tool. Works of merit should become public domain while they are still current and valuable to society. With electronic publication, it may be that the best way to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment is to eliminate copyright.
Penalties for any violation are supposed to be proportional to the offense. Few members of the public believe that someone should lose their house and livelyhood because they shared their music and movie collection. Indeed, most people believe in public libraries and that sharing is good. Decades of industry propaganda have not and will not convince people that copyright violation is the moral equivalent of theft and murder, nor has it convince them that jailtime and $250,000 penalties are justified where physical equivalents carry no such penalty.
As the jib jab fiasco proves, copyright should not be nebulous. It is in the public interest to establish a database of copyrighted material and it's owners. Right now, it's difficult to share because the presumption is that everything is owned and the copyright owners say that you can't.
Finally, recorded history needs to be liberated. It is outrageous that so much of the world's recorded history is owned by so few companies. A copyright database won't really facilitate use and reuse of commercial works if there's only one owner who can charge outrageous fees. Copyright extensions have robbed the public of what they rightly expected to own when the works were created. The owners have used the profits to strengthen their position and rob the public further. The DMCA must be abolished and digital restrictions should be abandoned because they extend copyright beyond the law in a way that deserves no public protection.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have purchased one CD - count em - ONE in the past six years. And that one purchase was one I struggled with as I really don't want to support this business anymore because of this nonsense.
This was an offensive litigation strategy when it started - and it's loonier still years later. I simply will not buy this cartel's product. I want them to fail and all of their shareholders to lose every single nickel they have. My bet? I will live to see that day.
And maybe not too far off, either.
.Robert
The RIAA sues 7-10yr old girls. Due to the extraordinary debt they owe for the rest of their lives these girls can't get loans for educations or achieve any success of their own in life. What does all this mean?
Simple my friend. It means in 10 years there will be a blanket lowering of the bar for how much cash you must have to get a quality piece of ass. I used to be against the RIAA because the laws like the DMCA they push for affect technology and software development and since that impacts every industry and form of production used in industrialized nations those laws literally set mankind back by decades.
Now? Who gives a fsck how soon we colonize the moon; cure aids; develop a way to join a global mental collective, bring on that easy and quality next generation ass!
If I were the artist of any of the specific songs they're accused of distributing, I'd be ashamed. Truly ashamed, at this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I wish that somebody they sue would blow up their building.