RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader 1688
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."
The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
what bothers me... (Score:2, Insightful)
fp?
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad this will screw them in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
something doesnt add up (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno, I just felt like they arent real people after reading this article.
I took action today... (Score:5, Insightful)
I renewed my membership to eff.org
I committed to not buying music
And I wrote my representatives
What did you do today?
Bad press (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
They have these rights because they were given them by you.
How evil can they get? (Score:3, Insightful)
These people paid for a service that they believed to be a legal and appropriate way of getting music online. Like oh, cable TV, maybe? There is NO EVIDENCE one way or another that these people have legally done anything wrong, but they can't afford to not settle.
Again, Fucktards. That's not nearly nasty enough, but it's all I can come up with right now.
did the RIAA write the apology? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think she meant to say, I'm sorry that you (the RIAA) won't be able to buy a new Benz this year because of falling sales.
Re:Good to see they let her off easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, $2000 for a single mom with two children living in the projects. more like this is all they had in the checking account.
We need the list of songs to embarass the artists (Score:5, Insightful)
which artist 'profited' by suing a 12 year
kid.
I bet that would play big with the public.
donating money (Score:2, Insightful)
Where can we donate money to help this girl and her mom out?!
I'm unable to find any contact information for them, or any place to donate. Does anybody have a way to contact them or know of fund?
Surely between all of us we can match a measly $2,000.
I think it's high time we make an example out the RIAA.
Re:Collection of information of children under 13 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why RIAA will continue to "win" these. They carry the big stick.
RIAA Marketing 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like the RIAA has completely forgotten the value of a young, enthusiastic fan base can have on an artist's popularity. I'd think as cynical businessmen, they'd recognize that metric right off.
Even if Brianna and her single mother couldn't afford a single one of Britney's (or Artist X's) CD's, Britney and the RIAA are better off having Brianna talk to her friends about how great she is and the like, and sustaining the culture of interest around her. Which for music artists, is the primary thing generating their revenue, and it's something that works best for younger people. The Japanese comics industry knows this well.
For me as a 30-something, well, I can afford one of Britney's CD's, but I'd be adding no further value to her market mystique. I wouldn't be effectively an unpaid volunteer for Britney, as Brianna would probably be happy to be, were the RIAA not stomping on her.
Re:Good to see they let her off easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sue Kazaa for $2029.99 (Score:1, Insightful)
The Best RIAA Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ouch (Score:2, Insightful)
I was one of the few that believed that partaking in copyright infringement against the RIAA was immoral [slashdot.org], out of general principle, and made you no better then them. I now understand that hindering their revenues streams by any means possible is a just action - a righteous act against a truly oppressive and immoral beast.
Fuck em. I can't believe that they did this.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
RIAA trying to get more customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with their sales may very well be pirates, but while suing may deter people from pirating, common sense just tells me it won't get more people buying their product.
This has been said before I believe but, I download a lot more porn than I ever have music (no, not child porn like the RIAA claims is rampent), yet online porn sites are some of the most profitable out there.
People want music online, but for the last couple years there was no legal way to get it online legally. Porn was immediately available online. Sure, you could rip a CD, but that is not the easiest thing to do for the computer newb. If I were to ask my parents to rip me their Yanni CD, there would be zero chance of it getting done.
The RIAA missed the ball. Back when p2p networks (mainly Napster) were starting up and getting popular, THAT was when they needed online music services. Not years down the road after suing everyone and their 12 year old kids.
Smart move from the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
1-They settled at an incredible speed, thus turning the story into an over and done with non-story and closing a very ackward chapter in their litigious history.
2-They imposed a fine big enough to financially harm the [poor] family and act as an efficient deterrent for the girl and her mother but small enough not to outrage the public.
3-They showed consistency in their current policy. If they hadn't fined the mother, other people could have claimed unfair treatment. Not that it would have changed anything for them legally but it always sits well with the media.
4-RIAA is evil. I know it's irrelevant to my post but this *is*
Re:$29.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The RIAA sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Then where do I sign up to take them away?
Re:Good to see they let her off easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
To the 12 year old girl... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Collection of information of children under 13 (Score:2, Insightful)
I call shenanigans on this whole "saga".
The whole thing just reeks of publicity stunt. It's on the same intelligence insulting level as the "look what will happen to you if you smoke marijuana, kids!" tripe.
Re:The Best RIAA Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You don't think she really paid, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Best RIAA Quote (Score:1, Insightful)
That's not wrong in their book o' morals, suggesting they lack scruples completely.
What sort of legal precedence does this set? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...
Re:something doesnt add up (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it probably went down more like this. Even if they had a pro-bono attorney, the case would have cost them more than $2000 to fight, and they would probably lose anyhow. Then what? Mom's even deeper in the hole and perhaps even faces loss of custody of her kid, whom she could no longer provide for at all.
$2000 is cheaper than any dealing with federal court (where copyright cases are tried).
-Isaac
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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:something doesnt add up (Score:3, Insightful)
As a set up, this would be a work of genius. I mean something like this was going to happen sooner or later anyway, right? So - wy not get it out of the way early and under controlled circumstances.
Now, the very worst case has happened and lo! They paid up. Paid up without a gumble, but full of contrition and remorse to boot.
So when a genuine little girl gets targeted by they can well hell - the last one paid up no bother - what's your problem?
As for the rest of us, what possible excuse can we have for not stumping up your protection money when hard pressed single mums pay up without a murmur?
The scenario is a little too paranoid even for my tastes. On the other hand, real life is turning into a bad SF parody day by day.
Re:The Best RIAA Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's Evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they would, had they known it.
This is one of the most outstanding examples of Corporate America's anti-social behaviour I have yet to see. They have stood over an essentially defenceless pair of unfortunates and demanded Two Grand out of them. Is extortion a legal activity in the US now? Just what do they think they are doing? It is this kind of behaviour which justifies in so many peoples minds the murderous actions which took place in New York just on two years ago. Note: Both acts are wrong and two wrongs never make a right. I am outraged by this. It's totally over the top. In just two words It's evil.
Could /. have quick whip-round and collect the money to pay off the extortionists? Perhaps not, that will only encourage them.
Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
A response? (Score:2, Insightful)
Use the same sites that've been used to generate Flash Mobs to organize some small groups of people around the nation to stake out some CD outlets. It doesn't have to be some full blown "protest", we could walk around in front of the stores for just enough time to get the attention of CNN, or the local 10 O'Clock news, but in many different cities across the nation, and at the same time...Make sure that someone has a sign showing a RIAA dragging a 12 year-old girl by the scruff of the neck....
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
[snip]
sue another music lover...opps you lost revenue for another 2000 songs...
Why? You weren't going to buy them, anyway. And if you share them, you might get sued. And everytime someone gets sued, more and more people stop sharing (which means you run out of songs to download).
So, at most, it's a futile resistance unless you can convince more people to join your boycott.
Lets face it, if you want to punish RIAA, stop buying their CDs *and* supporting artists that are part of them. Time to start the low blows, kick the nuts and the head dies (to paraphrase MAD magazine).
That said, I'll say it again (not that anyone cares): I believe downloading MP3 for which you have no rights is wrong and so is distributing them. Whether it's stealing or not, is a matter of semantics.
261 top downloaders? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
More likely some backroom fool just shotgunned at random.
Re:Good to see they let her off easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Look for this article in a year.... (Score:3, Insightful)
(translation for those who haven't read 1984: Prove the RIAA actually sued a 12-year old girl, and that this story isn't a careful fabrication designed to spark fear amongst those who are downloading)
Mom should've known better? (Score:2, Insightful)
No one is addressing this glaring disconnect between the conceptions of regular users and the situation as seen by both techies and the RIAA. Her son might have understood what he was doing, but he is a minor, and she is legally (and monetarily) obligated to cover the civil damages. She didn't even know it was wrong. Did she miss the full-page ads in National newspapers? Doesn't she read Slashdot? It doesn't matter (except for her). This is a case of miscommunication, and the reprocussions in popular media will only make the RIAA look like crass bullies. That is a good thing. This was a major misstep on their part.
Re:The Best RIAA Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Sharing vs downloading (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong if I found the file on the web, downloaded it and kept on my disk if there is no any legal disclaimer attached to the file, so how should I know that this file is not for downloading? Maybe it was a free sample. Or even a piece of a free music, I don't know. Again, unless the only way to download it was to press "Agree" button on a "Terms" page. But if I found a direct link to MP3 than there is no way I am informed that it is illigal to download this particular file - there are tons of legally free music on internet, how should I know which one is legal for downloading and which one is not?
The internet is designed in a way that if I don't break someones password (or hack in another way) then I don't break any law when i download a content from the web. Of course if the content has some legal warning and I am forced to agree as the only way to get the content and I break the agreement - than I did something illegal. Otherwise - EVERYTHING I download is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.
IMHO, I am not supposed to do any legal research for EVERY file I download. Instead, the content provider should make sure that their content is legal for downloading and have (if required) any legal warnings that I have to agree in order to get the content. If the content provider failed to do so - RIAA should go after him/her. Not after me. Of course, the content provider is the person published the content, not the author of web-site software and not a hosting company.
Hmm, on the other side, if I have found occasionally the music file WITHOUT any legal warning, downloaded it and re-published on my site, then how have I violated any law if I did not know any legal nature of the file from the first place? Thus, the only person should be charged for illegal publishing and sharing and downloading must be the person who's leased the content (from RIAA) by signing EULA, viloated that EULA by ripping off the content and publishing it at first time WITHOUT providing a proper legal disclaimer in a way that I cannot get the content without reading AND agreeing that disclaimer.
Conclusion: RIAA must go ONLY after original person who ripped off the CD and shared it's content without any legal warning. The rest of the world must defend themselves in the court and if such defence is failed - change the constitution which would be failed to protect us from RIAA abuse.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA View Of Humanity (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA views the average person (customer) as a morally bankrupt thief who will steal at every opportunity, unless they are constantly subjected to campaigns of fear and shame.
Offensive. Not that the RIAA hasn't already earned my lifetime contempt and made it my mission to make sure no one in their cartel ever sees another dime of my money. Then again what is a few dollars in lost music sales when you can shake down single moms and 12-year-olds for thousands.
Re:People Just Don't Seem to Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. But at the same time, people should only be punished "an eye for an eye". It's ludicrous to think that downloading a song is so heinous a crime that a person should be fined thousands. At most it's a misdemeanor, a slap on the wrist.
What use is a "free" country if large corporations and/or organizations can extort large damages just "to send a message"?
Re:To the 12 year old girl... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why do the artists continue to sign up with the RIAA labels? Are you telling me there is a person on this planet that doesn't know that record companies screw artists? So are they stupid, or what? Even if we grant that new/unknown artists may need (and I'll get into that in a sec.) the RIAA backed labels for exposure, what's the excuse for acts with a successful record or two under their belt? It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently. Do you think a band like U2 needs their RIAA label to promote themselves now? Why is Phish signed up with Electra? None of these guys have figured out that by dealing directly with their fans, they might do better? Artists are in it for the love of the music right? At least the one's *you* listen to I'm sure.
And about that exposure thing I mentioned earlier...why do bands need the exposure that the siren-song of the Big Record Label offers? What's wrong with staying small, playing the local clubs, printing a few CDs and Tshirts and basically staying in control? Touching thousands with your music isn't enough, you just have to be on MTv's TRL with Carson Daley? What? It's a Bling Bling world I guess.
But, if that's what they want...go for it. I don't begrudge them one bit. It's a free country and they can do what they want with their music, even if that includes selling out all control to the Labels. But I won't feel sorry for them when the machine eats them up and spits them out not owning the shirt on their back. Not one bit. There's a lot of people getting screwed in this whole mess, the artists are the last ones I'll shed a tear for. THEY perpetuate this whole thing. Fuck them.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run (Score:2, Insightful)
Haven't you heard of DVD? People are already looking at other forms of entertainment and this is why the RIAA is fighting to make sure consumer spend all their money on CD instead of spending some on CD and some on DVD. Sure, they may piss off some people in the process, but they believe their choice is : lose some sales because a few angry people are boycotting their product or lose a lot of sales because people are buying DVD with the money they saved by sharing CD instead of buying them.
RIAA afoul of COPA? (Score:2, Insightful)
My understanding is that COPA is supposed to protect the personal information of a child under the age of 13. Infact, isn't it illegal to keep any identifying information on a user under the age of 13?
When the ISP turned over the name on the account, did they turn over the parents name and the girl was fingered because the mother didn't use Kazaa, or did they specifically release this girls name?
I think this should be investigated further..
Re:they will think of the consequences (Score:1, Insightful)
~~~
Re:$29.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking a 12 year old girl who is book smart. That doesn't mean she has common sense. Common sense might make you go "hmmm" but when you can get 12 CD's for just a penny, Kazaa could easily confuse a 12 year old into thinking that she could have unlimited downloads for $29.95.
I don't think she's stupid. In fact I think most people are unaware that this is an illegal activity, especially if they are paying for a service.
Radio? (Score:3, Insightful)
But you get to listen to the radio don't you? And you get to listen to it for FREE (heaven forbid!). How is downloading music, which RIAA has equated with "theft," different from taping music off the radio?
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, let's do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
question -- mod me up so we can get an answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I read about how they release a subpoena on 'x' who downloaded 'y' songs. Now, what I want to know, is, apart from having a packet sniffer in sharman networks, how can they know what you download. Sure, they can interrogate your ports, if they've reverse engineered the fasttrack protocol then they can maybe list your songs...but how do they know how much your downloading, and how do they know that those songs are even music...they could be someone just f$#@ing with them. And finally, I thought the fasttrack network operated on a PKI set up, with the heads of the network holding the keys. If so, how the hell are they even interrogating your system unless their also liscencing the keys...in which case, they would have to get them from the same guys that give you kazaa.
If anyone can shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated
They should all be ashamed of themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a terrible thing for such a big company to do!
I think we should all boycott any band affiliated with the RIAA until the RIAA agrees to pay the child's way through the college of her choice. A nice set of CDs from her favourite artists would be an added touch, too.
She's poor and they're picking on her!
The RIAA is just a nasty group of miscreants that I would love to see vanish from history as a failed example of another misuse of economic power.
Ignorance and the Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but the 10 O' clock news does.
It's image. If the RIAA looks like a bully with a select few of these lawsuits, that's the image they'll get. The power of the media is surprising and all it takes is a few buttons pushed to give the RIAA bad press with the press.
I usually hate stories like this but I have to eat my own words here.
The NMPA can kill independent artists easily. (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm yeah, lets start with www.cdbaby.com all independednt artists
What happens when the independent recording artists whose recordings are made available through cd baby, vitaminic, etc. get sued by major music publishing companies for writing songs that are "substantially similar" to popular songs? Even if it's an accident, it can be a six- to seven-figure accident; just look at what happened to George Harrison [columbia.edu].
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:1, Insightful)
</bs>
If it was "Free speech" than everyone should have equal opportunity to get their point across. Who elected them anyway? The corporations, or the people? Or are corporations people too?
I still don't see how those people who say money is free speech can honestly say that giving money to politicians so politicians will "consider" what you have to say, isn't bribery. It'd be like giving $10k to a judge and saying "I'd like you to consider my opinion when ruling in this court case."
Re:To the 12 year old girl... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're being overly critical!
It isn't the artist's music, once they sign their rights away to a record label. They don't own it, the RIAA does. Often times, the RIAA never compensates the artists for sales. Artists making money from music sales is rare. Furthermore, the labels often require the artists to compensate them when the artist performs music publically, like in a concert. This is called selling out.
Now, I disagree with the war in Iraq, but I will use a common argument. Under Saddam Hussain, the Iraqi people had food, water, electricity, and so forth. Nevertheless, Saddam was still a ruthless dictator who order the tortures, rapes, and murders of Iraqis. Now, under the RIAA, the artists get an initial compensation for their music, but they are abused and screwed by the RIAA continuously.
The goal here is to destroy the RIAA. When the RIAA no longer exists (what a dream), the artists will be forced to sell their music directly to music listeners and receive 100% of the revenue rather than 1% of 1%. How horrible!
And then the band realizes they must choose dirt-cheap Internet based music distribution and reap the rewards. One can only hope this is how it will work.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I loathe protected devices like that. Macrovision, CSS, software hacks. All of it shit. My girlfriend actually bought Max Payne, but because of the copy protection, it REFUSED to work on either her DVD Drive or burner. Worked find on my computer. She is scarred. She refuses to buy another PC game because of the experience.
Also, why should I have to pay to play it on other devices? I have a walkman, a CD head unit, a stereo, several computers, and a DVD player. That's some pricey, and not to mention MADDENINGLY complex amount of units to keep track of.
Now you see the problem the RIAA has in "embracing" the digital world. They are stuck believing they have to protect everything, when in reality that protection does absolutely nothing. They really have their work cut out for them. But they can rot. I don't feel sorry for them one bit.
Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent post is the correct answer to all of this mess, but unfortunately, it is just plain infeasible. Perhaps it will be feasible when more people get sued for sharing music.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
>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.
Or what percentage of the damages they collect will be going to the artists who created the music, as opposed to the giant, insatiable, and irrelevant corporate maw. (Hint: 0%)
that's cool how they put words into her mouth (Score:1, Insightful)
bullshit. sony/universal/emi/the riaa put those words in her mouth. so check it out:
this corrupt association of record companies bought a law called the DMCA. that happened largely due to the efficient functioning of democratic forms in the united states (something like 57 million people download files, right)? that is, because we live in a democracy, these corporations were able to buy a law. corporate lobbying undermines the possibility of a functioning democracy. what a beautiful politcal system to force on the rest of the world with guns and other fabulous killing technology like smart bombs and the joint air-to-surface standoff missile. but back to the main point...
so next, in our democracy, these corporate entities filed lawsuits based on information they subpeoned from internet service providers. keep in mind they didn't have to get a court order for the subpeonas. this is because in the united states, corporate entities have the same rights as human entities. one of the lawsuits is aimed at a 12 year old girl. her mom wanted to get rid of all the extra stress and attention that the lawsuit would bring, so she settled for $2000.
the next development: the superpower formed by corporate entities adding all their money together (RIAA) used their influence over other corporate entities--which, collectivley, can be called the american media. the corporations fed the corporations this STUPID statement that a 12 year old girl said. this is probably what the phone call sounded like:
collection of corporations #1: uuh, yeah? collection of coporations #2? yeah, hi, this is Mr. Reject over at collection of corporations #1. we settled a multi-corporation lawsuit for $2000. you see, the 12 year old owed about $600,000 to Sony, $1.2 million dollars to EMI, and about $6 million dollars to universal records. we settled all those lawsuits for $2000. then, upon reflection of our corporate aims and, of course, what is Good (tm) and Just (tm), the 12 year old girl said "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
collection of corporations #2: oh, wow collection of corporations #1. that is a tremendously insightful and quotable statement that 12 year old girl said. we'll go ahead and uncritically pass it on to the entire american population, representing it as her words.
i am troubled deeply by what sony/emi/universal/the riaa is doing in your country. incidentally, i live here, but i do not feel allegiance to this corrupt hell hole. that makes it your country, not mine. but i digress. a bigger problem underscores and makes possible what the record companies are doing: our corporate media. these monkey fucks are bought and sold, and we digest their feces as truth and objective reporting. its a lot like how we morons digest the idea of our government as free and democractic. why are we so stupid? the media is being used in this entire shennanigan to pass on the riaa's threats. a bunch of corporations(the recording companies) are abusing our legal system, and then paying a bunch of other corporations (the media) to distribute fear and and propaganda to our populace. 261 targets is nothing out of 57 million. if i lived in a country of 57 million people and 261 of them were murdered, i wouldn't feel threatened. there is no reason for file sharers to feel threatened. the reason we take this seriously is because the riaa and the media are cooperating to brainwash the people of the united states.
i see a lot of cries for boycott on this issue, but its always directed against the recording companies. "get cds from indie labels, etc." that's all well and good, and i support that. i would rather stick a fucking knife in my mouth than by a stream of bits organized with artistic integrity by britney/christina/metallica. i cry for a boycott of corporate media. why do we listen to these fucking idiots? why do we accept their agenda uncritically? the media is bought
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
They were bought only because you have a system which allows these rights to be sold. In theory, the USA is a democracy - and is controlled by the people. If this is true, then only the people could have given them these rights, or to look at it another way, the rights are for sale only because the people allow this.
They need to sue Kazaa (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Charging per device takes away my right to own that which I purchase. It ruins the first sale doctrine. I do NOT want to give the media companies more rights then they already have, they are already greatly abusing the rights they do have.
Re:Sharing vs downloading (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA & SCO - Amazing Parallels (Score:3, Insightful)
In both their cases, they have used intimidation to practically extort large sums of money, not necessarily from those who are in the wrong, but from those who cannot [afford to] defend themselves. Once again, our country's established legal system, which purports that you are innocent until proven guilty, has displayed itself as a system that is unavailable to those without sufficient funds to protect oneself under those same laws.
The parallels are amazing, when one thinks about it. In each case, we have a large entity that is more concerned with using scare tactics and intimidation than with the pursuit of honest, open discourse. In the case of the RIAA, they happen to have the law on their side, although their means are reprehensible and beyond contempt. In the case of SCO, they are in a gray area as to whether their claims are legitimate, but again, if they are, they are using essentially the same copyright laws to lean on those who use Linux to try and generate cashflow by forcing them into paying licensing fees.
Ironically, in neither case have we really seen the large entity step forward with a definitive example or proof of the guilt of those they are suing. Has the RIAA produced a lengthy list of filenames, dates, IP addresses, and so forth for any of the 261 people they've sued? To my knowledge they haven't, and they aren't even obligated to do so at this point since no one they've "chosen" to sue has the resources to force such a disclosure in a courtroom.
And for anyone who continues to live under the false pretention that the RIAA's sole consideration in pursuing these lawsuits is the trueness of their cause, consider what the most recent AP update about the 12 year old has noted:
In other words, now that they see that they are winning their extortion war, they are raising the prices. If I recall, I believe the low end limit on copyright infringement penalty was $150 per case -- if so, why did they feel the need to punish a 12 year old and her mother by laying down a $2000 settlement? They clearly already had their press exposure, and could have turned a potentially damaging PR nightmare to their side by dropping the fine to the minimum allowed by law. The fact that they didn't points to their true motivation.Londovir
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't matter if there were. For the most part, big media is one way or another connected with RIAA members.
It's a message. (Score:3, Insightful)
The message is, "We don't care how big or how small you are, or how insignificant you think you are or how bad a place you think you live, or what you think you are entitled too, We're going to come get you and make you pay what you don't have."
It's going to backfire. Threatening a 12 year old girl goes down wrong everywhere. The days of those idiots packaging and selling people their own culture are over. People are going to make and package their stuff without the middle men.
Re:261 top downloaders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I think you just struck on what will now be my leading comment when telling people about this. I personally think the RIAA is just going for the first ones they could find. It's still a really wild internet out there and the actual users within their grasp is probably a lot smaller than they are letting on. Thanks for that spark of deduction.
This Whole Thing is Just a Silly Scare Tactic (Score:2, Insightful)
The cost of suing everyone in the filesharing community would exceed the GNP of the United States. They are hoping that a small handful of suits (Only 261 shows how expensive it actually is) will have a widespread impact on filesharing activity.
But if you ignore them, the *will* and MUST go away because there is no financially viable alternative for them. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive, and the plaintiffs in these cases are college students with NO MONEY.
Therefore this is a money losing proposition for the RIAA. If you want to beat them, CALL THEIR BLUFF.
-- Keep on trading in the free world.
This smells like a cover up of sorts.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the marketing assholes at the RIAA had an idea to try to scare little kids and parents into turning off and uninstalling kazaa.
How many people heard about this from the publicity and did just that. Alot more than you probably think.
It just brings it closer to home for alot of people.
And $2000 isn't chump change for the majority of people, although I doubt they actually paid anything.
Once again they managed to make it seem like they saved someone millions by letting them off with a $2000 fine.
Senator writing time!!!
Re:$29.99 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
They have these rights because they donated tons of money to the republican and democratic parties.
Your lack of capitalization makes an excellent point. The American government, it can be strongly argued, is currently neither entirely democratic (everyone's voice heard) nor fully republican (elected officials ensure that everyone's voice is heard). But at the same time, your representatives understand that they don't stand a Democrat's chance in Texas of getting re-elected unless they at least pretend to be open for input; and, surprisingly, quite a few representatives are receptive to your suggestions.
Instead of complaining about how your representatives are hopelessly in lust with special interests, consider writing a letter or making a phone call. If everyone thinks that one voice won't make a difference, no one will speak. And then we'll end up with nonsense like the DMCA and 140-year copyrights.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
The Law. Vs. Fairness (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, just because it was legal to persue this girl doesn't mean it's moral. It's wrong. Anyone that has a heart should be able to see mitigating cirumstances were potentially at play. While I do not know the details I think it's safe to say that the mother had no idea what he daughter was doing was wrong. Most children of that age, unless they are techno-geeks, do not know that it's illegal. To COMPOUND THIS PROBLEM, Kazaa got paid $30 by these people, which they erroneously misinterpreted as being payment for unlimited commecial downloads. So what are we left with here? My bullet-point list:
1) The RIAA has their head so far up their a$$ they haven't seen the sunshine of humanity in 3 years.
2) What the 12 year old did was, in fact, illegal.
3) Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
4) The letter of the law and the practical application are, unfortunately, up to bastard lawyers. I'm not condeming all lawyers, only the 80% that are rat bastards.
5) The RIAA will lose their battle because they are defending an antiquated business model. They will go the way of the dinosaur or evolve. My guess is this is the first chapter in their PR laden death.
6) Charging someone $2k for damages when it's obvious it's bad PR does NOTHING for your image or your cause. It actually damages it. They spend much more than $2k hunting this person down.
7) All they had to do was say they had legal ground to do this and SCARE THEM. They didn't have to take it that extra step and actually sue. Not in this case. Use judgement. It's that little voice you hear called your concious and the less you listen to it the more you chuck your karma out the door.
8) What the hell role does Kazaa play in all of this? Is it possible to seek damages on them? It's obvious people are getting the wrong impression from Kazaa.
60 Minutes? R U kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
I grew up watching 60 minutes. Even when I was a young teen and didn't care about politics it was fun to watch the people squirm. Now we're as likely to get a twenty minute fluff piece on Tricia Yearwood, or Chicks with Dixie, or Nicole Kidman, or Sheryl fucking Crow.
Even they despise themselves [kansascity.com].
Morely summed it up himself: "Thank God for the ratings," Safer added. "If it wasn't for the ratings, we wouldn't all be millionaires."
There is no respectable television news anymore.
None.
Re:Sharing vs downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
$2000 isn't even going to cover RIAA's lawyer's fees for going after the girl, nor the fees for the company that collected all the Kazaa information. RIAA is losing money on this, but they do it to scare people, not to make money.
They have this delusion that when they scare people away from using P2P networks, they scare them into buying CDs.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's have her collect more than $2000 and put the money away for college or something. It's bad enough that these RIAA pricks probably scarred her for life - at least some good can come of it.
Re:$29.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the arguments I've made all along is that the RIAA has completely failed to educate people on this topic. You're supposed to know what copyright is and how it works to know you can't do that. Is a 12 year old supposed to know that? Is the average Joe even supposed to know? Maybe. But consider this:
- Radio is free. Buy a set, or build your own, and you get music.
- Radio makes money from ad revenue. So radio's not exactly begging you to go buy CDs.
- A logical conclusion can be drawn that the purpose of buying a CD is the convenience of playing a song whenever you want. Nobody ever though of buying a CD as a license to hear the song!
- When you rent a movie, it's spelled out for you in that FBI warning what you can and cannot do with a movie. You can't show it publically, for example. (I remember noticing that in grade school on a rainy day when they decided to show us Star Wars.) CD's have no such warning.
- Computers come with CD-Roms, which are perfect for putting CDs into.
- Blank Audio CD's are sold as audio CDs.
One has to ask, how's the general populace supposed to know what's happening here? How're they supposed to know it's 'wrong'? Why did the RIAA wait until it had blown out of proportion to start all this shit?
If they want my sympathy, they can forget it. At this point, even if they come out with a great MP3 service, I really don't think I can drag myself to get my credit card out. Taking $2,000 from a 12 year old girl who couldn't possibly have known better? And the protestors think Nike is bad?
David Vs Goliath (Score:3, Insightful)
And David just goes home, chugs a beer, and thinks about how he's sure lucky he got off on this one.
I would like to see these bastards go up against something religious... it's one of the few things that might give people backbone. Confidence in our legal/government systems backing 'em certainly won't.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have offered to go to bat for this family, did they do it? This was their high profile opportunity to challenge the RIAA and challenge them for gathering data on a minor.
No Precendent, just Encouragement: Liberty Lament (Score:4, Insightful)
The effects of this settlement will be to simultaneously make the RIAA more bold and to weaken the resolve of its victims. The RIAA will be encouraged by this case because it escaped the potential public relations disaster of having to press a lawsuit against a 12-year-old from the projects. It not only got the story to go away, it also got the family to repent, thereby encouraging others who have strayed from the path of Righteous Consumerism to return to the flock. Today has made the RIAA more confident of its ability to bully its own customers, and it will be more aggressive with its litigation campaign as a result.
This is a significant defeat for the opponents of the RIAA. They allowed the RIAA to turn a public relations disaster into a minor victory, and it happened simply because RIAA lawyers got the family to settle before EFF lawyers got her to fight. This war over electronic property rights is primarily a war of public opinion. The RIAA does not hope to stop file-sharing by directly suing every file-sharer. The purpose of these lawsuits is to marginalize file-sharing in the cultural consciousness as "piracy," to make it a fad just like M.C. Hammer or the Boy Band du jour. Had the EFF gotten the family to aggressively contest the case, they could have inflicted heaps of public relations damage on the RIAA. Their failure to take advantage of this opportunity is a considerable setback.
Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this issue. Why is it that we(society) pile heaps of money on people with natural talents?
Why do people that can "just do something" get paid so much more than the poor schmuck that actually busts his hump digging the drainage ditch on the side of the road?
Why do we reward someone for being born with the gift of being able to carry a tune or run really fast versus the person that has overcome a learning disability (minor or severe, doesn't matter) to become a teacher? How can you put a price on what value a teacher adds to society? Why are cops and teachers and firefighters and ambulance drivers paid such paltry salaries?
The best example of this lop-sided economic situation that I can think of is professional athletes vs. police officers (note I am not a cop or a professional athlete, heh). Think of what a cop does, ok, think of what Shaq does. A Senior police officer in Houston Texas tops out at US$44,500.04 (must have 12+ years experience), in Houston, home of the 5th Ward. Shaq made US$19,285,715 from 2000 to 2001 that's nineteen million dollars, basically because he was born with "tall and strong" genes. Who offers society more value? The cop that you expect to save your life in the face of any danger? Or Shaq who can dunk a basketball? Loaded question I know, but that's what it boils down to.
The sums of money that RIAA artists and pro athletes make is patently obscene.
If you have the time and/or inclination one day, flip to MTV and watch Cribs. It will make you sick to your goddamn stomach. That program is an inside view of the actual Decline of Western Civilization.
I Will Never Ever Buy Another CD! (Score:3, Insightful)
The government didn't outlaw e-mail when they found it was hurting the postal service. Now just like e-mail, we have found a less resistant more convenient path around an already established system. Of course we still need the postal service to send physical packages and such, just like it is nice to actually buy the CD to get all the artwork and actual documentation that comes with it. It is natural that things will change over time, and there is no reason to punish or thwart new systems because they undermine old ones. This is going to continue forever as long as technology gets better and things naturally evolve.
I can support my favorite artists when I buy concert tickets. Screw the RIAA!!! You hear me RIAA??? Screw YOU!
Part of the real agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Kazaa [kazaaplus.com] website:
"Download and buy"
Search, download, share
24 hour customer support
Only $29.95
From emusic [emusic.com].
Unlimited mp3's - One low monthly price
Download Play Burn
Get 50 free mp3's
From ITunes [apple.com]:
Instantly buy and download music
Share music within the same household
Search using more options
Quite similar, eh? You pay money to (someone), and in return, you can search for, and download music to your PC. How is the casual user/parent supposed to know that only one of these 3 services is not quite legal? And by using it, you are liable to be sued into financial ruin by some nameless 'association' you've never heard of.
The only mention of "copyrights", and not violating such, is 2 or 3 mouseclicks away, couched in dense legalese. Nowhere does it say on the Kazaa site that use of their service does not constitute a legal transaction. And even then, you paid money. Kazaa appears to be as completely legit as the other two.
The real upshot of this might be to drive people away from the legit services.
Downloading music = lawsuit. Guess I'd better not download music from anywhere, cause it's too damn hard to tell what is legit.
Again....
emusic - $10/month
iTunes - $0.99 per song
KazaaPlus - $29.95
You pay money to (someone), your modem connects, you download music from (somewhere), you listen.
You and I know the diff, but put yourself in Brianna's mom's place.
"We're not downloading any music online, from anywhere, ever again."
This just makes a market for better P2P (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sharing vs downloading (Score:4, Insightful)
Re-read the parent post. He's not arguing the "ignorance of the law" angle. He's arguing "ignorance of the status of the MP3". Say I download a song titled "MC Chuck-A-Luck-gimme dat baby.mp3" under the assumption that it's been released for free download by MC ChuckALuck, the copyright owner, because he's released a lot of songs that way. But, uh-oh! "gimme dat baby" is the first track off his new album, and somebody else ripped it from CD. Am I to be expected to somehow know this? Or am I not supposed to download anything without a signed permission slip from the copyright holder, my mother, and a priest/rabbi? Passing counterfeit money is a crime too, but no one who does it unknowingly is ever punished, because they didn't know it was counterfeit. Claiming "ignorance of the law" would be saying "I thought passing counterfeit money was legal". Same with MP3's, yes?
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING. "Stealing" is unlawfully depriving someone of property that was laefully theirs. Copying music is copyright infringement and is covered under totally seperate laws from property theft. "Theft" and "stealing" have a specific meaning and downloading MP3's in violation of copyright law does NOT fit that meaning. Don't bother trying to argue the "lost revenue is the same as stealing money" angle, because THAT'S not true either. Songs are not property, nor is money that you "might have earned". No ifs, ands, or buts, pal.
Re:Too bad this will screw them in the long run (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
What IT do YOU wish to protect, because that sounds like a motivation for your position. Who are you defending with this statement? The RIAA, who have been convicted of price-fixing (definitely against the law), who are famous for gouging their artists, who are buying our congresspeople and suing 12-year olds, and yes, college geeks?
The core of your comment is dead-wrong on two, albeit to some eyes, subtle, counts. The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers. Since when do you defend salesmen? Second, no one, not even those admired artists, creates in a vacuum. They live in the same social milieu, the same web of relationships, the same ocean of memes of all sorts, as every other human member of our social species. Your statement is not really wrong, but it is entirely incomplete, and this issue is not black and white. Even property, under the law, even in America, is not sacrosanct, though it may seem sometimes like it is. Government and society have the legal power to override the rights of property owners for a variety of reasons. Copyright was never meant to be even that strong. It was supposed to promote an incentive to create, not stifle it, and now there is an equally important reason - while you're busy defending the 'rights' of any copyright owner to do anything he or she wants in order to 'protect' that "copy"right, what happens to civil liberties, freedoms, privacies, ability to resist coercion in a number of open and subtle ways, adherence to ideals of honest day's work for honest dollar (instead of the older definition of piracy, or highway robbery), and on and on? I happen to think quite a few of those are more important than absolute copy"right", especially for a bunch of parasites like the RIAA.
Best idea yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more about 80% of people not having the same perspective as you. You're likely to be someone else moron, if that someone else is picking the proper perspective to look at your actions or puts you in the proper setting.
Maybe 80% of people are just being their normal human selves trying just to live their own little happy lives. Who's the moron if the only addition to the issue between you and them is the fact that you bitch and moan?
Maybe 80% don't care about copyright issues they consider as totally irrelevant to their lives. Maybe they see music as a total commodity and don't see any loss in the great scheme of things with the hoarding of works and creativity that the record companies are investing in?
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean civil behavior don't you? After all, none of these people are being accused of even as much as shoplifting. It's more along the lines of making unauthorized copies of a library book and leaving them on your front steps on a busy city street where anyone can pick up a copy. It's just copyright infringement. The point is, illegal or not, the punishments are absurdly out of proportion to the acts (at least to anyone not on the RIAA payroll).
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ooooh, I've got a better one! We gotta give them fair warning first, right? So we could leave a severed horse's head on their doorstep and scrawl "CEASE AND DESIST" on the door in blood. It's more due process than they'd give us.
Even better, we could use the severed head of one of those hideous pop idols they're always trying to cram down our throats--it's not like it's murder or anything, pop idols aren't really people anyway.
On a more serious note, though, it's not just the RIAA pushing people around, it's all the giant companies, who all seem to be in the same business: fucking everybody out of as much money as they possibly can. While I personally abhorr violence (outside of video games and message boards anyway), it doesn't look like anyone's being left with many other options. Who has the money to countersue these bastards? I certainly don't, and neither do any of their targets (extortion doesn't work nearly as well when your victim can fight back). The corporations, and the RIAA in particular, have forgotten a few very important things:
1) Americans are damn near the most violent and brutal people on the planet.
2) Bullets are much, much cheaper than lawsuits (they're cheaper than CDs, too).
3) Judge Lynch's court is *always* in session.
Kudos for such bold and controversial posts. America might not be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave anymore, but it's nice to see there's still a couple of them left.
What happens if I tape the radio? (Score:2, Insightful)
Turn Pirates into Online Merchants (Score:2, Insightful)
If there were software that would make it relatively easy to set up an online music store you could turn a "bunch of pirates" into a legion of online merchants selling music. Such software would not be trivial, I know, but we're talking about changing the world.
It seems to me that the vast majority of musicians would prefer a market where the "cream rises to the top" rather than the promoter-driven, sexy-packaging market that exists today.
With the proper software, thousands of online music merchants could specialize in specific genres, artists, eras, whatever. Imagine online music utopia. It would be great for everybody but the RIAA, the dishonest, disliked, obsolete, greedy middle man. What fun!
No one likes to get gouged. The artists are ready, the consumers are ready, the RIAA sees the handwriting on the wall.
All we need are a few good coders to give P2P users, a.k.a. music fans, the tools they need to change from music pirate to music merchant. I'm not a coder, but someone did a pretty good job creating MP3.COM. What if that web template were available to anyone for $500 a pop?
Revolution, bay-bee!
--
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side and it binds the universe together.
Re:The fight of the century! (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one wont support them when they chicken out to get a settlement. OTOH if they had fought and been fined, and would be glad to help by even a large amount.
They've built the culture they do business in... (Score:3, Insightful)
The music industry has always liked to push the envelope encouraging the kids to be rebellious and not to 'take it' from their parents. So now they want to be the heavy? Heh. Doesn't that beat all?
Ever see what happens when a kid hasn't been disciplined through life? When the kid hits 14 and the parents start flipping out because little Zack is doing drugs and ripping off cars? Ever see them try to wrest back control of the kid's life? It's almost impossible by then.
When you've been raised under a certain set of rules - that's the reality you understand. When you build, condone, or at least promote a culture that shows how cool it is to be a gangsta, don't be surprised when those same trained kids rip that gangsta's music; after all, he be in that '64 yo - he don't need the bling.
It's too late to stop what they started already. The rebellion is visiting them now for a change and not just from the kids. Two years ago, very few outside the industry even knew what the RIAA was. I assure you that today, a lot more do now.
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... Justice? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to make some corrections to your statements. Theft and copyright violation are two different crimes. Violating a copyright does not constitute a theft. The girl received and distributed relativly low quality copies of copyrighted materials. This does not make her a theif.
A trade, as you say, is for one item of value for another item of equal value. A disc of plastic does not cost $15. The record producer charges more than the mere cost of production in order to PROFIT. A fair value for a CD would account for production costs, and give a fair salary to those who worked on the recording. And that value would decrease with every copy that was sold. But that's not what happens. This is what I like to call, unfair.
I stand by my statement that art is priceless, and that is not absurd. Truly benevolent works of art carry no value, cannot be posessions, and are made for many, many reasons, none of which are profit.
I do not believe that I ever implied that the RIAA did not have the right to demand compensation (I don't think copyright violation is a prosecutable offense, because it's not criminal, rather litigeous, though I may be wrong) through litegation. Just that it is a despicable and childish act to do so.
Stop buying CDs now (Score:3, Insightful)
just my opinion,
Lispy
RIAA just does not get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws are meant to reflect society's values and the rules we want to live by. Prosecution and punishment for violating laws serves two primary purposes: 1) as a deterrent against people who would engage in the behavior and 2) as a punishment for people who engage in the behavior.
The act of shoplifting (which is actually the general crime of larceny) is illegal because there is a general consensus that the behavior is wrong.
But I would argue that the purpose of this law is almost entirely to serve the punishment purpose of laws and not the deterrence.
Most people do not shoplift because they feel it is wrong to take someone else's property. This is our shared value. We don't refrain from doing it because we are scared to go to jail.
The problem for the RIAA is that they have a legal protection through copyright but they do not have the consensus anymore regarding the behavior. They are at serious risk of society eventually desiring a change in the law. I think the RIAA knows this and why they want to "change the attitude" of people.
Currently, the behavior is clearly illegal. But many people in society now feel that the property right over copyrighted music should not be so absolute. The RIAA, however, insists on keeping the status quo and therefore will not change its business model.
I suspect what will happen is that in 10-15 years, the current music industry will be radically changed. Maybe songs will be licensed. Currently, you buy the physical media which contains the music. Many people want more flexibility in what they can do with the underlying content. The RIAA does not want more flexibility. One side has to change, and I think the RIAA will be on the short side of the stick...eventually.
Suing your consumers will speed up the process. I am actually glad the RIAA is doing it. I feel sorry for the people being sued, as most probably do not have the resources to defend themselves or even pay a settlement. But the overall effect will be to alienate its customer base and further the process of people demanded changes.
Re:Better late than never: emusic = RIAA and blows (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I sympathize to an extent, but if the contract doesn't mention the method of download, you're not covered one way or the other. Your ad absurdum argument re: spyware, etc., on the download service doesn't really apply. If you'd made an argument about the service being Windows-dependent (if the DM's ActiveX or a Windows executable), that may have had some wings. However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you get a parking ticket, should you only have to pay it if you make more than $30K? What about fines for other crimes?
Re:60 Minutes? R U kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
In Canada our news is not quite to corporate-whorey. We also get BBC feeds as well. Those BBC interviewers go right for the throat.
BBC Interviewer: "So Mr Prime Minister, with (can't remember name)'s death, would you say you have blood on your hands?" Blair: "Uh..."
pathetic! (Score:1, Insightful)
12year olds download JLO,Eminem,...-kinda music,
what else would you expect from them after showing them off your big mansions in MTV Cribs?
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is, it's not up to you to decide how the material is distributed, nor is it up to you to decide the price. When you decide to attempt to do either one of those things, you risk suffering the legal penalties.
You may disapprove of copyright law (or the concept of private property for that matter), but if you do, the way to change things isn't to blatantly violate the law, but to create alternatives that law-abiding citizens can participate in that work better. So far all I've heard you do is take the easy way out and condone violation of the existing laws. It must be fun in never never land.
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you shitting me? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's great about the evolution in the computer industry is that you can use an old PC and still get the work done. You don't need a 3GHz Pentium to download music. You can get older computers for a very low price. Perhaps the computer was even given to them by a family member. If an average MP3 is 5 MB, you only need 5GB for a thousand songs.
$2000 is a lot of money for someone in their situation. Chances are that the girl didn't even know this could happen, and the punishment is far greater than the crime in this case.
Re:The fight of the century! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not talking about aiding the family because "they weren't any wiser", but because the punishment doesn't fit the crime NOR the payment ability of the accused. While $2000 may be a "slap" to lawyers and other people who do well, if it means losing several months or years of paychecks after rent is paid for a poor family, it's a major punishment -- much harsher than if someone with more money had to pay the same.
Regards,
--
*Art
Sometimes I wish ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that whenever someone says "stealing mp3's," someone else jumps out and says "It's not 'stealing!'"
Notice they don't deny that it's wrong, or that it's taking something without paying for it, or acquiring something they didn't earn and don't deserve - they just want some props for picking up on a ridiculously trivial legal technicality.
It just gets a little tired, seeing the same stupid thing, over and over, you know? You see a few do the same thing with the word "pirate", too. And of course, there's the devoted fanatics over the semantics of the "hacker/cracker" pair. It never ceases to amaze me how every time one of them posts, they seem to sincerely believe they're the first person to ever try to explain the difference.
The bottom line is that these people really have nothing of substance to offer regarding the underlying debate, so they resort to ranting about the language. In my book, they're just one small step above spelling/grammar flames.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. Seems to me that in a game of chess, no-one cares about the pawns. You even gambit them given a chance. All that matters is the kings, and not losing more games than you win. In this case, I think we should change the rules and give power to the pawns. Without them, there would not BE a music industry.
Regards,
--
*Art
Sympathy for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
We've been around for a long long year
Stole an industry's soul and grace
We were 'round when Brianna L.
Had her moment of fear and shame
Made damn sure the lawyers
Took her money and gave her the blame
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
We hung around on the Internet
When we saw it was a time for a change
Killed Napster and its administrators
Sean Fanning sued in vain
We wrote a hack
Into the Britney tracks
When the downloads raged
Now it's on your Mac
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
We watched with glee
While our attorneys
Fought for a hundred grand
From every music fan
We shouted out,
"Who killed the Dead Kennedys?"
When after all
It was us, you see
Let us please introduce ourselves
We're a cartel of wealth and waste
And we've laid traps for the file swappers
Who get sued before they press Escape
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
Just as every kid is a criminal
And the corporate thieves are saints
As heads is tails
Just settle our lawsuit, sir
Cause you're in need of some restraint
So if you meet us
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Obey all our well-paid politicians
Or we'll lay your life's savings to waste
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess our name
But what's puzzling you
Is whether we're insane
Whoo whoo
Whoo whoo
Re:Simple Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, actually "cartel", but it's much the same. And then there's "supply and demand" coupled with "music is cheap or free".
To have a chance of getting "big," at least prior to the advent of MP3s, you had to sign up with the RIAA-affiliated record company and hope against hope that some no-talent hack in the front office would champion your disc and actually promote it.
The urge to make music for other people is frequently an obsession, so the record industry basically plays on it. Since they know you'll probably make music, even if you're having to put a hat on the street by the subway, that all they have to do is offer you lottery-like odds of getting paid. Just enough do to make it look attractive--and how many poor people go to 7-11 on even more remote hopes to play the lotto?
Partially, it's also a supply and demand problem. There is ALWAYS another musician to replace you. So you don't have a choice since the big companies have cartel-exclusive distribution deals with Sam Goody's, etc. but they can always get another boy band/hair band/whiny chick on a guitar. Increasingly, they don't even bother but simply hold auditions and look for dancers with nice teeth and bods that they can fake the music for.
There's also, quite frankly, an underappreciation on the part of the public of how much work it takes to be a musician. I used to handle organizing groups for a service our music school would offer, providing low-cost live music for local charitable organizations.
There's low-cost and then there's insane. I was frequently asked to provide a quartet on $50. Not per person, for everybody. I couldn't even get college students to give up their Saturday or Friday nights for $12.50. The rationale of the people was, well, we're only paying for a couple hours' playing so we're paying better than minimum wage.
Except that there's the setup and teardown, there's the hours of practice you put in the rest of the week, all leading up to those two or three hours on the gig.
So: consumers don't think music is "worth that," a bunch of slimy lawyers (but I repeat myself) have gotten a legal-on-a-technicality monopoly through a cartel, and there is always the kid down the block willing to play his Casio for free.
- an ex-musician
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
note: I just used that as a silly example of what I would imagine a 12-year old girl's screenname would be; don't know what her actual name was -- sorry about that
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with a bit of common sense or compassion.
Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.
So was slavery. Law != ethics.
The "Think of the children!" sobbing gets zero sympathy from me.
Way to be a heartless bastard.
Re:NPR, PLEASE! (Score:2, Insightful)
It is best to get the news from numerous sources and the facts are usually somewhere in between the views.
GODDAMNIT WILL! (Score:-1, Insightful)
GO AWAY, YOU ARE PATHETIC