RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents 1098
cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."
SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?
I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.
This is predicted in fictional writing (Score:3, Interesting)
3 Things (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!
The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.
Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.
Re:Of course (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:My take on this... (Score:1, Interesting)
and then look at his sig:
"Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
jwagner@usa.com for references and quotes
If that's all true, than you sir, are truly the most retarded person I think I've ever seen on the Internet. You post to
I think tomorrow's headline on
Either that, or that's truly a worthy troll post, complete with realistic website to check up on you.
Re:My take on this... (Score:1, Interesting)
Suggestion for action... (Score:5, Interesting)
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
sounding familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.
what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"
any wifi owners contacted? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Well gee, I just got this set up. Whats kazaa?"
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
they've got it all wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sharing is the best way to stimulate a market, if I like a piece of music, I want to tell others about it. It enriches them and raises my social status (or at least sense of worth). This is what "tape trading" used to be all about and it is exactly what file trading is now about. Sucky music doesn't stay in my shared directory for very long.
The truth is that the RIAA is fighting against the very essence of civilized culture, they are doing their best to defend their short term interests while ignoring the fact that without an enthusiastic audience they will be the first to loose. When no one is willing to pay money for the next one hit wonder's overproduced album, and the record companies slowly starve there will still be a million independent artists working hard for our attention, they do know how to use the current technology and they will be the ones benefiting the most from all this.
If you ask me, this issue has already been won. All they can to is try to intimidate anyone they can. This attempt to get parents to "police" their children will only reinforce the idea that "sharing is cool." It makes sharing, and resisting the media conglomerate's influence immediately anti-authority and anti-establishment, forbidden fruit, therefore immensely cool. It's over.
File against the RIAA members (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
But if you give that minor a pair of scissors or a car and they commit a crime, the neglegence claim melts away. A parent/gaurdian/adult can't be responsible for every illegal action which could be committed by a minor in their care. Especially not when the parent has few warning that the crime could be committed or it would be impossible to predict that crime being committed.
Their are many uses for a toothpick. I'm sure one of the possible uses is stabbing a person in the jugular. If I give a kid a toothpick and he stabs a friend in the neck, killing him, would I be responsible? No, because I have no way of predicting such an action. (Unless, of course, the kid I give a toothpick to is a violent psychotic. But not in normal circumstances.)
Taft
Some serious questions about the RIAA's laws... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
The "I Don't Know" Defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you allowed to withhold evidence that would implicate another person in a civil trial? If the RIAA asked you, while you were on the stand, for a list of all the people who have been in your house in the past month, could you say, "blow me."? It would seem that these facts do not directly relate to the charge that you did or did not pirate the songs. Can you be forced to testify in a civil trial or only in criminal trials?
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Torts primer:
All torts have five elements, a duty owed, a breach of the duty, causation between duty and harm, any harm caused, and any defenses.
A parent who owns a computer might have a duty to supervise her children to ensure that the child doesn't cause a harm (copyright infringement, harassment, etc.), in the same way that a parent who owns a gun might have a duty to superviser her children to ensure that they don't shoot someone in the face.
Now, where things get screwy is in the damages caused. If the negligently supervised kid shoots someone in the face, the survivors ("heirs", though that's not the right term) of the deceased might be able to sue for that negligence. Maybe they'd win $1,000,000 out of the negligent parent's homeowners insurance policy, or something of the sort. The problem is that even if you can show that the parent has a duty to the RIAA to ensure that the child doesn't use the instrumentality (computer) to cause harm, that the parent failed to do so, and that the failure to supervise then CAUSED (very important word) some quantifiable harm to the company/organization, it's hard for me to understand the dollar amounts attached to these lawsuits.
But that argument's been rehashed a thousand times. I just wanted to give a little primer on how the parents could be implicated in the wrongful acts of their children.
(IANAL...Y) (figure it out)
Check this site out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Suggestion for action...COPY PROTECTION (Score:5, Interesting)
Try your best to do this with a copy protected CD and maybe kill two birds with one stone in the process.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally: We'll find out soon enough. The RIAA has gotten a lot farther than I thought they would.
Busted for downloading... or uploading? (Score:1, Interesting)
For example, a paragraph from his article:
Which is followed immediately by this:
Cary Sherman states they targeting those offering files for others to copy, not targeting those that DO copy.
Is my understanding of the RIAA's actions incorrect, or is Ted Bridis using the incorrect terminology in his linked article?
One word sums it all up... (Score:2, Interesting)
I bet if I could make money off of lobby for an unconstitutional law and be able to pull off legal extortion, I'd have no problem scaring people like the RIAA.
I will download whatever I want and feel that no one person or group can stop me from it.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, even the owner doesnt have the responsability to rescue. They just have to try. There is some assumption of risk on the part of the user.
Negligence generally gives weight to who can avoid the risk most easily. Also taken into account are cost to eliminate risk, vs damage if risk happens.
Therefore if it costs $1M to clean up my ice patch, but only $1K if someone slips, I am not negligent, even if I could have cleaned it up.
Of course, the opposite is true, it costs $5 to clean the patch, and $100k if someone slips, so in fact I am negligent.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why you see these huge lawsuits in cases like drunk driving for example. They'll sue the driver, and the bar and car maker and anyone else. Then using the obvious guilt of the driver, they get a jury to find him 90% liable, and toss the bar and car maker in at 5% each. But opps - the driver is a broke drunk asshole. Guess what, in many cases and in most jurisdictions, they can enforce the whole judgement against the guys who are only 10% liable.
This is the fun, much trial lawyer loved doctrine of joint and several liability. It leads to great stuff like the driver intentionally sabotaging his case, having made an under the table agreement with the plaintiff that they will not try to pursue the judgement against him.
Or the very common case where the supposedly evil insurance company pays as required for the scumbags defense, and he tanks his own case having made an agreement with the plaintiff that they will only pursue whatever part of the judgement is owed by the insurance company. The trial lawyers love doing that one against the homeowner's insurance companies. In fact, I bet that will be a big line of attack for the RIAA - going after the homeowner's policy of parents whose kids are downloading.
In light of this, please give generously to John Edwards campaign - over 60% of his current contributions have come from trial lawyers. That's where "The Common Man" John made his millions of dollars.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if I go and download a bunch of songs, burn them to CD and then delete them off the machine.
If it's a truely anonymous system. Aka, no camera's, no logging in, no sign in at the desk, how do they know who did the downloading?
Tragically I think the answer is that they'll have to take the anonymous access away or limit access to content to protect themselves from liability.
Let The Backlash Begin (Score:5, Interesting)
As the article states:
"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash."
Run the risk? I'm sorry, but they just created even more backlash by mearly mentioning the POSSIBILITY of going after these individuals.
How can they possibly go after the parents of children who are downloading music illegally? Most parents have no clue what P2P applications are, what they do, and what kids are using them for. If your son or daughter steals a CD from a store, you don't get fined for it, your child takes the blame. And even then, in most cases, the child involved pays a small fine and are left up to the parent's discipline. Sometimes the penalty can be community service, or juvinial court. At this point it's less risky to steal physical media than it is to steal digital work from the comfort of your own home....
Once again the RIAA is throwing their weight around, and once again the DMCA is burning people who don't deserve the law on their backs. I'm sure this type of action scares some, but it also makes many others want to buy less and share more just to stick it to "the man."
It hadn't quite hit home yet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Music is an art form; it's meant to be shared. The thought that people are going to be fined between $750 and $150,000 for posessing and sharing something they find beautiful is a reheprensible form of censorship.
responses from file traders (Score:2, Interesting)
-Play Dumb: "Really?! Thats illegal?!"
-Scapegoat: "Its my damn kids again. Ill give 'em hell for this!"
-Repentitiveness: "Well is there any legal way to download this music?"
The first 2 responses are just a reaction people give instead of showing shame and guilt. It is very rare that someone gives the third response. However when they do I am very helpful. I am very eager to tell people about the many venues (sometimes) free music can be obtained. I'll spare you guys, because you are already aware of iTMS, etc.
My $0.02
-D
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
From dictionary.com:
liable \Li"a*ble\ (l[imac]"[.a]*b'l), a. [From F. lier to bind, L. ligare. Cf. Ally, v. t., Ligature.] 1. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; answerable; as, the surety is liable for the debt of his principal.
-psxndc
Re:Misleading at best (Score:3, Interesting)
What really scares me is that, honestly, there is no defense that anyone will believe. The RIAA could just pick someone at random - someone who never shared any music at all - and present a made up dir list to the court. The person will say "hey, you've made a mistake!" and the judge will say "do you expect me to believe that?" and that'll be the end of you.
That's just one of the many sides to the slippery slope we're on when we insist on making ideas ownable.
Re:Suggestion for action... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would turn it into profit. Pure profit.
Sure, I would gladly sell them any CD in the store they wanted. Thousands of them if they want. Let 'em clean me out if they want to to prove their point. I'll gladly take their cash, Visa, Master Card, whatever.
I will gladly refund their money the next day... in store credit. That way, I have their money! And I have locked them into eventually purchasing something from me later at least the value of what they returned, as I can simply refuse to refund cash. Its my store. I make the rules. Thats the way business is. Ever seen a customer present a form to sign or an agreement to a retailer? They simply won't do it. But anything business wants, they just slip it in the form they demand the customer sign before the sale will consumate. Thats the neat thing about business. You can ask for anything and most sheeple will sign it. They may not like it and grouse, but they will pay.
Let 'em protest all they want, I have their money invested now in my accounts. Drawing interest.
And, if I am a big enough guy, I hire little minimum-wage minions to take the flak from the irritated public while I enjoy my luau in Hawaii.
Recording Tax Proposal ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Needs to be compiled (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay... so can't we just rent? (Score:1, Interesting)
Can't a company just buy 1000's of copies of audio CD's and rent them out like a online videogame or DVD rental place? You could make a list of cd's you wanted, then they would be sent to you as they became available (perhaps two at a time) and when you were done with them you could mail them back, and upon return another two would be mailed out. This online place could then charge users a flat monthly rate for this service. Then you could just "sample" the music to see if you like it. If you did you could buy it from a store, provided you were honest and didn't burn it by the time you sent it back and rented another one
There isn't anything wrong with renting is there? People rent DVD's and videogames all the time even though those can be duplicated in that transaction.
Re:*sigh* I give up on RIAA music for good (Score:3, Interesting)
1500 Records
333 Music
4AD Records
4th & Broadway
5 Minute Walk
510 Records
550 Music
550/Fox
57 Records
A Vision/Teldec
A&E Latin Music
(...rest cut to avoid lameness filter...)
so exactly, what is an indie label? Maybe they should start putting stickers on CDs that say: "NO RIAAA INSIDE"?
Re:responses from file traders (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Boycotting CDs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
No it isn't. e.g. if my roommate is found murdered, it's more likely that I killed him than one of the random 6 billion people who _don't_ live with him, but that's pretty damned far from being sufficient cause to get an arrest warrant.
Probable cause is not just a greater possibility that someone could have committed a crime--e.g Lectlaw says "The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Sumner
Re:How You Can Change the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Average people (the ones who decide the election) usually don't give a shit about anything other than taxes and other personal interests. Hell, your average person probably doesn't have a clue about what a copyright or a patent is.
Finally, one last fact: the US government is 100% corrupt. Campaign contributions are pretty much legalized bribes -- you donate money and the politician suddenly starts to represent your interests. Businesses interested in strong copyright laws generate billions in these contributions. Unless you have a way of exceeding that, nobody will ever pay attention to your ideas about copyright reform.
If you are still not convinced, remember one simple fact. There is money to be made from strong copyright laws. There is no money to be made from the lack of copyright laws.
No Info Available? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any laws that require ISP's to keep track users & IP's? From the laws that I have looked over (without doing any real research) it looks like the law only requires them to turn over any relevant info availble.
With what has to be mounting cost I can imagine that small ISP's are dumping this info so when the request comes in they say- "Got nothing". How much longer before the cost gets to high for the larger ones?
Just a thought
Re:Of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Bring it on! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have over 100 GB of commercial works by many of the companies you represent on my network. Two computers my roomates use run Kazaa and Winmx non-stop sharing from the network drive. LimeWire runs on the server itself. We share over a cable connection, and I recently had DSL installed. Typically during the day there are thousands of uploads, so many sometimes LimeWire crashes.
And guess what? I have the money to fight you. The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case. It is unconstitional for private companies to issue subponeas because due process is not observed and there is no legal forward.
Sorry, but I am just begging they come after me. I have the cash ready and I come from a family (yes, it's sad I know) of very sucessful lawyers.
Re:One of these "targets" has got to be an RIAA pl (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets say ping pong balls are a very hot commodity, and i find a way to duplicate them below sale price (for free lets say). I decide to put all my ping pong balls on my front lawn for people to see. Besides the aesthetic disaster of a front lawn covered in ping pong balls, what crime is committed by me? Isn't the crime committed by those that take my ping pong balls? Why is prosecution not focused on people who download the music?