RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings 1228
An anonymous reader writes "ABCNews is reporting on a 19-year-old college student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. He created a site named ChewPlastic.com where students could search for files on the university network. Mind you, this is not a music file sharing software, this is just a search engine. Presumably, the search engine was being used to search for music files as well. The folks over at the RIAA did not take too kindly to the idea, and sued the student. He settled but denies any wrongdoing. What was settlement, you ask? His life's savings."
Cache of Chewplastic.com (Score:5, Informative)
The original domain is down, and he's got a Paypal link on his page to help him recover his 12 grand.
Help Pay back His Savings (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So He Paid Nothing? (Score:0, Informative)
The lesson to be learned here (Score:3, Informative)
Case in point: my roommate was sued by a major staffing company because of "alleged" violations of his noncompete agreement. He talked to literally dozens of attorneys before he found one who was willing to take the case. On the first court date the attorney he hired filed a motion to dismiss and won.
It can be difficult to fight "the man" but patience and determinism will pay off in the long run.
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Informative)
Princeton student settled as well (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW02
http://www.prin
Re:I have to agree... (Score:5, Informative)
other coverage.... (Score:5, Informative)
A few weeks ago this case of the four students and the RIAA was covered:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/
Want to know what's killing the Music Industry? (Score:5, Informative)
(Please hold off your flames till you read the rest of the article...I'm *not* blaming
The reason I say that these articles are killing the music industry is that they show us the truth about the RIAA. People read articles like this and they think to themselves "There is no way in hell I'm going to give them any of my hard earned money if they're going to treat me like a criminal."
They stop recording good artists and replace them with bands that appeal to the 13-15 year old schoolgirls who will buy the CD because it's the latest fad.
They attack anyone who designs some means of sharing (or hell even *finding* files) even if MP3 isn't the frimary function of the file sharing. Honestly I'm amazed they haven't gone after the people who invented networking protocals in the first damn place.
They are more concerned about making money than they are about the art form itself, not paying attention to the fact that if they put out quality product then they *will* make money because we want to buy it.
We know what the articles read, we see them each and every day that goes by about how draconian the RIAA has become. It's these articles that are killing the RIAA's profits for they are pissing off the American Music Listener. If the RIAA wants to start making money again they need to simply do one thing...Stop pissing off your customer base and we will come back.
Otherwise I'm just going to stand there and watch the RIAA slowly die and I'm not going to give them a single penny to save them...even if that means that I never get a copy of "Weird Al" Yankovic's latest album
Re:Umm.... (Score:3, Informative)
This is more about a big trade group shaking down a kid in broad daylight hoping to intimidate the rest of the crowd. The $12K means nothing to them.
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Informative)
The other side of the RIAA's online efforts... (Score:2, Informative)
This incident is part of RIAA's overall online strategy. Here is a quote from a WSJ article from back in July:
Full article at:http://detritus.net/contact/rumori/200211/0123. html [detritus.net]
Yeah... sure... whatever...
Re:RIAA owning the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, time to learn the basics of the legal system.
The law had nothing to do with this case. First, it was a civil suit, so don't even bother thinking about cops and FBI agents and whatnot coming to beat your door down.
Second, it didn't go to court. There was no judge involved, there was no suit, there was no precedent. They settled out of court - which may or may not have been wise of the kid. The RIAA can't use this case in a future case as proof of why someone is breaking the law and should pay them $12,000. They can use it like a bully, with unclear language saying "in a previous incident such and such paid us a large sum of money for his actions" but they can't even claim that what he did was illegal -- the settlement explicitly excluded confession of guilt.
I'm not saying (in the slightest) that the RIAA or MPAA are nice guys, or that what they're doing isn't reprehensible, but if you don't understand the way the legal system works then you will be steamrolled by lawyers if you're accused of anything similar. You can still stand up and fight the good fight if you want. Better pray you have a clued in judge though.
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's RPI. Their actions sometimes seem like they actually hate their students, and usually seem like they only tolerate them at best.
Re:Artists should leave RIAA companies... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess since it didn't contain an anti-MS, pro-Linux slant, its not newsworthy.
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He should have faught. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:He should have fought. (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. PDs spend more time in criminal court than their private counterparts and they have far more experience dealing with the motions and tactics of a criminal case.
Granted, individual PDs may suck, but you'll find a hell of lot more true believers in the PD's office than you will in private practice.
Re:The lesson to be learned here (Score:3, Informative)
I don't want to come off as some sort of apologist for lawyers, but the fees someone charges is *not* the same thing as their take-home pay.
The fees have to cover things like premises, staff, training, legal indemnity insurance, etc., etc. Some lawyers that I know bill at around $200 an hour, but take home salaries that are equivalent to that of a schoolteacher.
Re:I have to agree... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see how supporting ClearChannel is any better than supporting the RIAA.
Re:safe harbour? (Score:2, Informative)
Registration is a required, but not sufficient, condition for Safe Harbor status.
Re:Sometimes it's better to settle. (Score:2, Informative)
apparently he was a former contractor who was charged with felony larceny by a company that contracted his services...he denied it and thought he had a good case. so when the prosecutor offered him 90 days time servered if he pled guilty he said no........
he got convicted and sent to prison for 15-30 years!!!
Re:Legal Disclaimer (Score:4, Informative)
short answer is that there was no internet privacy act signed by anyone in 1995, and the whole warez kid disclaimer thing isn't worth the bits it's stored in.
Legal advice via the school (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Just a thought... (Score:5, Informative)
No you don't. You get a free five dollar credit IF you sign up and IF you put $100 in your account and IF you authorize PayPal to drop that $100 in a money market account that may lose value. And PayPal only tells you about the next step in the process after you complete the previous step--so each time you think "I'll finally get my five bucks!"
No thank you.
Re:He should have faught. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:He should have fought. (Score:3, Informative)
First: IANAL. Everything I learned about this I learned from television documentaries. (Hey, at least I didn't learn it from "The Practice.")
Upside to PDs: there's very frequently a need for them, so as I understand, sometimes they grab a private lawyer that happens to be in the building at the (wrong) time and name them as a public defender in your case. It's the legal system's version of a lottery. ;)
Downside: PDs are very often overworked, and very commonly get handed the case moments before they're due in court to represent the defendant. A documentary I saw on the topic showed a PD getting a case, reviewing it for about 2 minutes, speaking with the defendant for about 5 minutes, then appearing in court as representation.
Additional downside: I'll grant your point, PDs do spend far more time in court than their private sector counterparts. However, in the same amount of time that a private sector lawyer would handle a single case, PDs will be juggling several (dozens?) of cases. The private sector lawyer will usually be able to do more of the research into the case and prior court cases than the PD will have the opportunity to.
Re:I have to agree... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pay them $12,000 alright, in *cents* (Score:1, Informative)
Re:He should have fought. (Score:3, Informative)
Me either, but I am married to a former PD, current ADA.
Downside: PDs are very often overworked
So are the ADAs. I know that my ADA has assembled a case in less than 24 hours becasue everything else pleads out.
BTW - If what you saw was an attorney going to trial with 7 minutes notice, that was an ethical breach by the judge and the defense attorney and the defendant should be able to have the conviction thrown out. Any ADA worth their salt would have objected if they knew about it.
a private sector lawyer would handle a single case
This isn't true. Private attorneys carry a large caseload as well. At no time is a money-making private attorney working on just one case.
Further, a PD will know the ADA and the judge. In our town the PD and the ADA are assigned to a courtroom for an entire year. They know who to trust and who not to. They know what will piss the judge off and how to keep them happy.
I was just refuting the "public defenders invariably suck" comment. I don't deny that the system is loaded towards those wealthy enough to pay for their own attorney. I deny that the PDs suck without exception, or even that sucky PDs are in the majority.
modding this "Off-topic" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
I'd fight... (Score:4, Informative)
Is that "if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you" only valid in criminal cases? Can any 800lb gorilla pummel you freely in civil court? Sounds like a poor system to me, no offense intended.
Kjella
The actual reason cd sales are down is... (Score:3, Informative)
If I understand basic accounting correctly, then releasing 20% fewer new titles should reduce expenses somwhat (admittedly not by quite 20%), so suffering only a 7% drop in sales should look like an increase in profits, unless you are expiriencing losses other than in sales.
I have learned of much of the new music I listen to through CDBaby.com [cdbaby.com] and I'm sure that the RIAA companies are not very happy about losing customers to artists that don't care much for the typical [indie-music.com] record [workopolis.com] company [auschron.com] contract [outersound.com].
It seems the companies are once again not being quite honest about thier losses, the causes, and, it seems, thier motives.
Re:What's next? (Score:1, Informative)
Untrue. Universities like MIT (specifically the Media Lab) get money from edia companies. I'll bet UCLA does too.
Motive and Goal (Score:5, Informative)
The goal of the RIAA is to scare people with examples to prevent the activity. It would hardly be an example if their target was a struggle, wouldn't it? They've already tried to scare the downloaders of songs. Now they are moving up the chain to those that setup the tools in their environment. If this doesn't work, they may consider a move up the chain again and sue school administration. The theory would be that school administration would put pressure on the students (various ways academic institutes can apply) to stop their activities. Perhaps deploy a strategy/policy for computer network usage to restrict it (ie IT department of the school). But this is probably an option that they wouldn't want to take since conflicts between schools and students usually end up ugly. But it would allow the RIAA to push their agenda without getting their hands too dirty, letting the schools do the dirty work for them.
"To fight the bugs, one must first understand the bugs." - StarShip Troopers
Re:I'd fight... (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, one does not get a lawyer appointed for civil cases. The "one will be appointed to you" line that you see on television is part of the US Miranda warning [bbc.co.uk] which is only applicable in criminal cases.
However, there are many advocacy groups such as the ACLU [aclu.org], EFF [eff.org], FIRE [thefire.org] and others that may provide free counsel in civil cases that fit their profile.
The "system" as you refer to it is typical in countries with a common law [infoplease.com] background. Most European countries follow the Romano-Germanic [infoplease.com] legal tradition which is entirely different in its approach than the common law.
entire snopes article (Score:1, Informative)
Status: False.
Origins: This
is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already. I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably, could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender). As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong. I can now, though.
Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states:
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money . . . is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."
That's it. All this means is that the Federal Reserve System must honor U.S. currency and coins, not necessarily anyone else. U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but a debtor does not have to pay in legal tender, nor does a creditor have to accept legal tender. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead. However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified. So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused.
Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all. The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept. If a restaurant doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers). Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount.