Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader

Posted by timothy on Tue Sep 09, 2003 09:05 PM
from the can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.
Murdock037 writes "It looks like the RIAA has rushed to settle with 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, after serving her with a lawsuit on Monday. It looks like her single mother will be paying a $2,000 fine to the RIAA for her daughter's song-swapping, which they had thought was legal. Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.' What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] RIAA Drops P2P Lawsuit Strategy, Goes Local 208 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering why the RIAA hasn't announced 800 lawsuits per month any more? Well, they're still suing people, but have developed a new strategy according to Slyck.com. Instead the RIAA is looking to be more localized, focused and personal with its new strategy." As another reader puts it, the RIAA "will opt to file lawsuits on a weekly basis and work with local media to give it a more geographically relevant feel." Perhaps they'll also pick their targets a bit more carefully.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Ah, yes. The multi-billion dollar company vs. the 12 year old girl who lives in a city housing project. Truly a battle of titans.
  • Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tambo (310170) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:07PM (#6917035)
    Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.

    It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?

    Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again. (Since I normally buy about 50 a year, this should even the score on this despicable incident by 2008.)

    David Stein, Esq.
    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eclectro (227083) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:23PM (#6917185)

      Actually what you need to do is buy used CDs -- the RIAA doesn't see a dime from those sales. That way you can have your music and stick your tongue out at the RIAA at the same time.

      I only buy about 1 new CD a year this route -- and that's usually with a cuopon of some sort. I used to be a much bigger spender on new CDs.

      Heh. I'm part of the reason they have seen a decline in new music sales. And I don't pirate music either.

    • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by paroneayea (642895) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:23PM (#6917188) Homepage

      Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.


      This actually isn't such a bad idea. I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative? See, I don't want to just stop listening to music. But I want to listen to music by artists that aren't under the RIAA. Anyone know of such a site, or have any plans to put one together?
      • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)

        by gid (5195) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:30PM (#6917259) Homepage
        Site that I learned about recently, but have yet to buy anything from em cd baby [cdbaby.com]. Looks to be pretty nice, I listened to some of the samples, but I've been so busy with other junk that I haven't actually decided on what to buy. :)
  • by Nick of NSTime (597712) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:07PM (#6917036)
    It was very kind of our beloved RIAA to reach such an amicable settlement with this 12-year-old girl's mother. Now 50 Cent will surely be able to afford that ivory backscratcher he has had his eye on.
  • PayPal. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:08PM (#6917043) Homepage Journal

    If Brianna set up a PayPal account to take donations I'd gladly throw her and her mom a few bucks to help cover the cost of RIAA's shakedown.

    She might even make a few bucks over the top to buy blank CDRs with. :))
    • by pgrote (68235) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:31PM (#6917275) Homepage
      $2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.

      Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?

      What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.

      This is too nice and neat. Think about it for a minute and consider the chance of this actually happening. Notice there hasn't been any press releases about other settlements.

      The RIAA is going too far in trying to protect and aging and useless distribution method.
      • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:41PM (#6917386)


        > $2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.

        > Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?

        > What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.

        All the more reason to send her money. Think of the karma obtainable by embarrassing them over a non-existent situation!

        I don't care if I send her ten bucks she doesn't deserve, if the media picks up on it and runs a heart-warming story about how a bunch of geeks came to the aid of a poor kid being abused by a big bully trade organization. If anyone pipes up and blows the true story, all the better.

  • by alen (225700) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:09PM (#6917050)
    While I'm against downloading and sharing of music I think that this will really screw the music companies in the long run. One of the first rules of business is not to make your cusotmers your enemy. There is a percentage that only steals and never buys, but a lot of people who download end buying the CD. This may piss them off enough that they may look to other forms of entertainment or look at used CD's.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:10PM (#6917054)
    I donated to www.boycottriaa.com
    I renewed my membership to eff.org
    I committed to not buying music
    And I wrote my representatives

    What did you do today?
  • Wouldn't they have been able to challenge this lawsuit with a great deal of ease by pointing out that the RIAA illegally collected information about the online habits of someone under 13? If I'm correct the Child Online Protection Act prohibits collection of information about online behavior for those under 13 without parental consent.
  • Bad press (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:10PM (#6917056) Homepage Journal
    I can't imagine that many artists the RIAA represents are happy with some of the RIAA's behavior. I am sure they are having some of the same reactions that many folks have with Clippy......"Stop trying to help me!!!"

  • by Muhammed al-Sahhaf (666380) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:12PM (#6917074)

    Do not believe the lies. The RIAA did not settle. The RIAA has achieved complete victory against the file swaping aggressors. Brianna LaHara martyred herself upon our ranks of lawyers. Our dogs will eat her stomach while our women beat her face with their shoes.

    Sincerely,
    Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf
    Minister of Information, RIAA

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:15PM (#6917100)
    I'd love to get the list of songs and publish
    which artist 'profited' by suing a 12 year
    kid.

    I bet that would play big with the public.
  • Who's next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by vitaflo (20507) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:15PM (#6917101) Homepage
    I'm just waiting for the RIAA to sue some deaf dude. You know it's only a matter of time.
  • Funny (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whereiswaldo (459052) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:15PM (#6917102) Journal
    'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'

    Did they throw in a free brainwashing session? Or was that quote a pre-fab'd one they told her to say?
  • by asv108 (141455) * <alex.phataudio@org> on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:20PM (#6917153) Homepage Journal
    Probably the most shocking quote to come out of Cary Sherman's mouth was this:

    Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

    Maybe I'm a sucker for humanity, but I believe most people don't shoplift because they think it is wrong, not because they will get caught. It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:31PM (#6917266)

      It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

      I think there's a strong correlation between the way somebody acts, and the way they think others will act. For instance, I know somebody who is more or less a compulsive liar, and I know people who are honest to a fault. The liar is constantly accusing others of fibbing, whereas the more honest people only do so when there's good reason to. The same applies to a broad spectrum of human behaviour.

      Anyway, I guess the point I am trying to make is that a comment like that isn't so surprising when it comes from an organisation that sneaks in "works for hire" alterations to the law, goes after children, sues college kids for billions of dollars, and generally acts in appalling ways. People who are of a low human nature expect others to be as well. There's no honour among thieves and all that.

    • by zakezuke (229119) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:40PM (#6917379)
      I guess I can respond to this being a human, though it's not directly related to shoplifting.

      I've found a number of lost wallets and misc items. My knee jerk responce is to find the owner as it sucks loosing money, credit cards, and misc bits of paper that are required to operate in today's world. Costco is the most common place I find abandoned purses and things, fortunatly these days they have mobile phones in them.

      Later on I think, d'oh could have gotten free cash, perhaps a tank of gas, but the moral responce wins. This isn't a fear of getting caught, it's just doing the cool thing.

    • by antiMStroll (664213) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:53PM (#6917493)
      It's interesting to see that the RIAA has such a low opinion of human nature.

      Hey, cut them some slack. They spend every work day consorting with record industry types. What do you expect?

    • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:58PM (#6917528)
      Why is this +5 Insightful? It's common sense. Why is Sherman's quote so "shocking?"

      Why do you think so many people download music? They know it's not "technically right." They do it because it's easy, convenient, and they won't be caught.
  • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:30PM (#6917250) Homepage

    Rest assured, you weren't hurting artists. You were hurting some rich RIAA execuative who likely has billions of dollars to his or her name.

    Imagine if the richest man in the world ordered a poor man to pay him a month's salary because the rich man felt his wealth was in jeopardy. Now, imagine this rich man had an army of slaves doing his bidding, who all work to make him money. Doesn't that sound silly? Well, that's what the RIAA.

    The RIAA effectively takes music from artists and gives them slave wages for their music. When the RIAA takes music from artists, the artists no longer own it.

    Since the RIAA owns the music, there's no way you can hurt the artist by downloading music. Only the RIAA hurts artists. Hopefully, people will keep downloading songs so the RIAA will go away!

  • Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chromodromic (668389) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:44PM (#6917423)
    I'm never buying another RIAA-backed CD again. Period. That simple.

    I'm a musician. I gig, I play music every day, I record music and I already own a large collection of CDs. Quite honestly, I haven't heard anything in pop music come out in the last five years, besides a very precious few artists, that I've thought was worth the $18 anyway. So it's no big loss to me.

    If a new musician comes along whose music I feel I must have, I'll either purchase a CD with a friend and share ownership or I'll employ any of a number of methods available to me to get the music on my hard drive. But since most new music has been utter crap, and it's so rare that I ever hear anything that makes me feel I absolutely must have it at my fingertips, I don't expect this is going to be a big problem for me.

    But I do have a big problem with giving another single dime to an industry that fines 12-year-olds in housing projects $2,000 for gay-for-display Britney Spears and nursery rhymes. It's comical, but it's also bullshit, and having been involved with the music industry before I can honestly say it's right in line with their standard operating procedure.

    The normal recording contract is roughly 40-60 pages long. By contrast, a typical book publishing contract is 4-12 pages. Typical recording contracts tie up artists for advances, deny artists royalties on new technology media, and itemize costs well into the future of the artists career. The record industry operates like the mafia. So as far as I'm concerned, they can go straight to hell.

    Yeah, I'll bet they settled in a day. Because the Brianna story was like the world walking in on the Devil raping a kid, so the RIAA tried to turn it into a finger wagging story.

    They suck. I wish them all, to the last of them, the absolutely very worst things in life. Fuck 'em.
  • by _aa_ (63092) <slashdot.reack@com> on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:48PM (#6917453) Homepage Journal
    Behold! Justice in action!

    Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.

    Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.

    Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.

    And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.
  • by nolife (233813) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:49PM (#6917462) Homepage Journal
    I just downloaded the Fox in Socks mp3...

    If they come after me they are in for one hell of a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle.
  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:49PM (#6917467)
    And a 12 year old girl is one of those?

    Granted, 12 year olds, especially girls, may listen to a lot of music. But I find it quite improbable that she could be among the top 0.0006%, once you look at all the college kids and 20 somethings, with far more free time on their hands, and far more varied music interests.

    I'll bet even among the small community of /., she would not even in the top 2/3.

    More likely some backroom fool just shotgunned at random.
    • A few of thoughts here:

      Don't feel sorry for this 12 year old. I'm sure people will be sending money to this family on the margins soon, probably much more than $2000. Don't get me wrong, I think they should, and I'll be sending a check for a few bucks when I know an address to send it to. DO feel sorry the six or seventh child they do this to, because they won't have the celebrity of being first that will lead to being bailed out.

      I moonlight at a club that plays a lot of live music. Musicians can make a fine living playing live music (or for those who can only make good music in a studio, autograph signings or TV appearances Lip Syncing their hits (ala Britney Spears)). What is the great good done for society having its citizens to spend a huge percentage of their income on music and movies, making a few artists, and more importantly Mega-Media houses, obscenely wealthy? How much better could that money be spent on average? Life without art would be impoverished, but giving recorded music away for free would not end music, nor leave our lives impoverished, nor would all artists starve.

      How about sponsoring music you like? How about shareware music? Same for movies. If Spielberg had a list of projects he might produce, given the financial incentive, I would donate to see the project I like produced, then distributed to patrons first who have sponsored it, then offered cheap to non-patrons. Maybe even getting some money back, if the project does really well outside the original patronage. How about $1 HDTV movies over the internet, with a suggested $1-$5 donation per viewer, if they feel they liked what they see? Only quality (OK popular) movies make money past production cost.

      I'm all for compensating people fairly for their intellectual property, but I would hardly call most music "intellectual." Granted that's a judgement call, but think of all the scientists and engineers who produce the technology that keeps the 6 billion people on this planet alive, and yet stringing 4 minutes of words together, is what possibly earns somebody millions. Granted not many win that 4 minute lottery, but it does happen, and far more often than the engineer or medical researcher who works his whole life on life saving project gets well compensated. You spoiled-whinny-self-important artists Grow Up, and see what's really important in life. Quit robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

      BTW,. Where do I send the check?

      • Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tambo (310170) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:13PM (#6917077)
        They're trying to scare us.

        That's probably not their goal - well, not their primary goal. Consider this:

        I'm increasingly annoyed about the amount of attention that this whole issue is garnering. Notice how little (OK, none) of the public debate is substantive: whether people should be allowed to download music for listening purposes; whether the interests of media providers outweigh the privacy interests of citizens; whether it's fair to allow the RIAA to charge people $15,000 - or even imprison them, or destroy their computers - in defense of fifty-year-old music tracks. It's just assumed that the RIAA has the right to lash out in order to protect its license to Johnny B. Goode.

        Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."

        - David Stein
        • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:26PM (#6917223)


          > Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures.

          Several people have suggested setting up a donation fund for her. If we could get her name and do that, and convince non-Slashdotting music downloaders to do the same, even very modest sums of money would quickly add up to a very large sum, attracting the media's attention: "Geeks Help Poor 12yo Pay RIAA Fine".

          Keep it in the news that the RIAA squeezed $2,000 dollars out of a poor pre-teen who thought she had paid for the service to begin with. If they're going to play PR games, there's no reason people who despise them can't do the same thing.

        • Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kaltkalt (620110) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:30PM (#6917257) Homepage
          That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....
        • by Dukeofshadows (607689) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:33PM (#6917298) Journal
          I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?

          Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...
        • Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:36PM (#6917327) Homepage Journal

          Even incidents like this are to the RIAA's benefit, because it keeps the issue in the public consciousness. The longer it stays there, the stronger the public presumption that they're fundamentally in their rights, that it's OK for the RIAA to take drastic measures. Hell, just look at the typical responses: "What she did was illegal, but..."


          I beg to differ. This doesn't endear them in any way. They can't scare people into buying their music, only to not copying it. That doesn't make them any money -- only buying does that.

          What the record companies need to do is embrace the new technology, and get rid of the dead meat that can't follow the times (i.e. RIAA). There's multiple ways that the record companies can take advantage of P2P file trading, they just have to blink a few times first and stop holding on to old ways.

          How? One such way could be to seed the P2P engines with music files with more than one song in the MPEG-1 container -- the first one being an MP3 (MPEG-1 layer 3) in low quality like 32kbps, allowing people to listen as much as they like, and the second part of the file being a locked high quality version of the same song, requiring unlocking. $0.50 per song per device doesn't sound unreasonable -- that's cheaper than the current $.99 for those who only wants to listen to the song on one device and the same price for those who wants to put it on more than one device.
          I am certain that many people would welcome and embrace a system like this, where files can be distributed freely, and you can listen before you buy, but only get bad FM quality unless you pay. People with no money, like kids, would be happy that they could listen to music for FREE, while asking their parents to unlock the songs they want. Others can listen to a great variety of music and find something they like, without spending hours in the record store with headsets.
          Good musicians would benefit, as they can find their way to the market without massive advertising. Record companies would get more surprise hits, and broaden their offering without spending fortunes on physical distribution. Releases would be time coordinated across the world. BUT -- it requires new thinking and embracing the new technology instead of fighting it.

          Right now, people loathe the scare tactics of RIAA and the record companies behind. CD sales go down, not up. For a very good reason. Like I said before, you can't scare people into BUYING, just into not copying. And that won't make them a dime.

          Regards,
          --
          *Art
          • Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tambo (310170) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:59PM (#6917533)
            Ah... how I wish consumers acted as rationally as this.

            Do you know what consumers see? They see "Britney Spears CD, $12" and they buy it. They see nothing of the underlying struggle of fair-use rights vs. corporate gluttony, of technology vs. copyright. They will eagerly support a monopoly without care if it keeps feeding them their boy-band fix. Their collective attention span is pitifully short and easily distracted. Just try getting the masses to boycott. The public, in short, is all talk.

            Your mother doesn't want to know what copyright is all about; she just wants that new Yanni CD. Your little brother doesn't care that he's feeding a monopoly by buying that 50 Cent CD, and your sister doesn't give a damn that buying the new Justin Timberlake disc is feeding the RIAA's legal-enforcement hit squad. They don't care. They just want their music.

            We understand the issues in this struggle, but we are a small minority. You must come to grips with this regrettable fact.

            That is why Star Wars is still not on DVD, despite our petition. And that is why the RIAAs don't see the world as we do, and act as we think would be in their best interests. Indeed, if they stopped selling CDs tomorrow and shifted to an online-downloading-per-subscription scheme - even one that's eminently fair and consumer-friendly - you know what the biggest public statement would be? "I don't want to use that Internet thing for music! Where are my CDs?"

            (Amazingly, even economists are now coming to grips with the fact that they've overestimated consumer rationalism. The models that they built on such assumptions don't seem to reflect reality... and the hot new trend in economics research is consumer irrationalism. This is not a troll comment - it's an observation by my stepfather, who is a macroeconomist at a local university. This, by the way is good news: I'm hoping that it's the start of a revolution in economic thinking - that consumers can't protect themselves from market consolidation and monopoly abuse... which is why America now has. like, two competitors in every profitable market.)

            - David Stein
        • Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Informative)

          by BrynM (217883) * on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:39PM (#6917360) Homepage Journal
          Listen to more NPR and watch less FOX/CNN/ETC. NPR has had balanced coverage and entire shows dedicated to this very subject over the last four years [npr.org].
    • by Comsn (686413) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:15PM (#6917097)
      This $2000 slap on the wrist, while barely an inconvenience for the family,

      yes, $2000 for a single mom with two children living in the projects. more like this is all they had in the checking account.
      • by MunchMunch (670504) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:54PM (#6917500) Homepage
        And the filthiest fact about this fiasco is that the RIAA was in such a position of power, I have very little doubt little Brianna's soundbitable quote about "not hurting the artists I love" was a term of the 'generously' reduced $2,000 settlement (which is of course probably all they could pay anyways).

        Obviously they've tried to turn their own prosecution of a little girl into a morality story, where she learns the wrong of her actions, and the victorious and righteous RIAA benevolently show mercy to the poor wayward lamb by reducing billions in punitive damages (losses that they've already theoretically suffered!) to a scanty $2,000. Punishing her is bad enough, but the fact that they are punishing her and making her advocate their zealous position is the most disgusting fact of all.

    • by softspokenrevolution (644206) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:19PM (#6917138) Journal
      Apparently you don't understand the following words...
      The family lives in a city housing project
      Housing projects are typically not the domain of people who can afford $2000 fines. In many cases that amount of money could pay the bills for a few months, or maybe a month, either way it is an awful lot of money. To say that it is a slap on the wrist and that it is barely an inconvinience for them is to really be sitting up in some sort of ivory tower wholly unaware that there are people in this country where $2,000 is a big deal.
    • Re:$29.99 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demon (1039) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:24PM (#6917197)
      I'm sure there will be plenty of threads here along the lines of: "$29.99 for all you can download... come on.... an "honor roll" student thought that a legit deal?"

      Honestly, I don't think they really gave it too much thought. I mean, I doubt most non-geek types who do use peer-to-peer file sharing systems give the whole subject more than a passing thought. Though as others have mentioned, I'd be interested to know exactly what kind of volume of music the RIAA claims this 12-year-old girl shared to garner herself one of 200-some-odd lawsuits, supposedly aimed at "top" file-sharers.
    • Re:Consumers unite! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dema (103780) on Tuesday September 09 2003, @09:43PM (#6917419) Homepage
      I wouldn't say "another compact disc" because not ALL CDs created have something to do with the RIAA. I am always glad to purchase CDs at shows from bands themselves. There is no better way to really give back to the music community then helping a band pay for gas to get home (: