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."
Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
PayPal. (Score:5, Interesting)
If Brianna set up a PayPal account to take donations I'd gladly throw her and her mom a few bucks to help cover the cost of RIAA's shakedown.
She might even make a few bucks over the top to buy blank CDRs with.
This is Ridiculous (Score:1, Interesting)
Collection of information of children under 13 (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't think it was illegal.. (Score:2, Interesting)
What a force-fed statement from the girl's mother. Makes me sick.
Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they throw in a free brainwashing session? Or was that quote a pre-fab'd one they told her to say?
Consumers unite! (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it unacceptable that a minor has been bullied into paying $2000 by the RIAA.
Leaving the analyses to others, I would like to say concisely that in retribution for this behavior, I from this day forward will never again purchase another compact disc. Ever.
If you would like to demonstrate your disapproval of their harassment and extortion, reply to this message and show your solidarity.
Michael. [michael-forman.com]
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.
This actually isn't such a bad idea. I've been thinking, why not a website that lists independent artists' music only, to let people know of an alternative? See, I don't want to just stop listening to music. But I want to listen to music by artists that aren't under the RIAA. Anyone know of such a site, or have any plans to put one together?
Re:Age (Score:3, Interesting)
This is very fishy.... (Score:1, Interesting)
housing has:
a) a computer
b) $$ for some kind of internet access
c) $29.99 to give to Kazaa
d) $2,000 to settle
This sounds like RIAA paid for propaganda to me. The daughter's response:
"I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
A little canned, non?
This is the prototypical case the RIAA must pursue - teenagers whose parents are oblivious. I do not think the above mentioned case is legitimate, but is being fabricated to show the RIAA means business. A scare tactic, if you will. I'm not overestimating the bad press a story like this will cause the RIAA, because I do not think it will cause any bad press to the RIAA.
Someone might want to do a little Internet research on the Brianna LaHara and Sylvia Torres and see if anything turns up. I'll bet dollars to donuts "TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer" did not do any homework on this.
People Just Don't Seem to Get It (Score:2, Interesting)
How low can you go? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are so many different ways to look at this. One would say "the law is the law," and I can't argue with that. But come on...don't they have better things to do? However, I think this does give some proof to the theory that they're only looking for people with top 40 hits...I mean, not to make assumptions or stereotype, but I doubt she has any *real* taste in music! I'm wondering what is the actual retail value of the music she pirated. I highly doubt it's anywhere near that. $2000 is bad, but it could have been much worse, judging by the other lawsuits.
On a slightly related note about parents picking up the tab when their kids do wrong...Here's one for you: what do you get when you cross a 12 year old computer addict + summer + no knowledge of how long distance charges work + an ISP with an area code that, while different from my phone's area code, is only a block away? A $1500 phone bill. Yes, I had been using an ISP over the summer with an area code that was different from mine, but only a half mile away. I didn't get it! My parents weren't too happy.
Other RIAA suits (Score:1, Interesting)
1. In Boston, MA, the RIAA sued a 29 yr old man for $250,000 in damages. The man apparently had an unprotected wifi network that broadcast a share containing over 150 albums. The case is still pending.
2. In Rosedale, PA, the RIAA sued a 16 yr old teenager for $20,000 in damages. He apparently responded to a spam and attached an MP3 file. One of the other recipients of the spam contacted the RIAA, who proceeded to sue. A criminal investigation is still "under consideration"
The RIAA is so full of lies and shit.
Let's see how many senators reconsider (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in New York, and on the subway in the morning it is the New York Post and the Daily News that are read by most people. This story made the front page of both, and both painted the RIAA as the bad guys. When that happens, you've lost the man on the street and it's game over. It's been my personal mission to do what I can to bring the RIAA down for three years, and this morning I could feel the invisible presence of millions of other Americans lining up next to me.
Methinks, my friends, that today marks the beginning of the end of the recording industry as we know it. I say that the day the last of them declares bankruptcy, we gather in Central Park with our MP3 players and party.
The RIAA needs competition. (Score:3, Interesting)
The other way to compete is through customer service. I work in one of these stores. The trick, is to make sure that the customers are able to easily find what they want, guarantee the product against failure and bad quality. This approach will attract more long-term customers as you build a positive relationship with the customer. They will gain confidence in your abilities to make sure that they get what they need, even if it isn't the cheapest around.
The point of that whole last paragraph, is to illustrate that the RIAA needs competition because its products are both expensive and they have terrible customer service. They are turning their customers into the enemy and getting away with it because you can't get away from them and buy from another store. There needs to be competitors for the RIAA. You may say "oh, there's indie labels!" hah. Indie music is shit. They can't afford to pay their artists well and the only people who will go with them won't be good ones.
In short, if there were two competing recording industry associations, we would not have the problems we face now.
Re:The fight of the century! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone else feel like pitching in a buck or two for this family? With any surplus amount over $2k going to EFF?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re: You don't think she really paid, do you? (Score:5, Interesting)
> $2,000? Come on. She didn't pay one cent.
> Read the quotes in the article and determine if that is what the mom or kid said based on the news reports. What? They all of the sudden started speaking in polished engligh? They suddenly saw the light after vowing to fight?
> What I think happened here is that the RIAA swooped in and offered them a deal. More than likely they pushed the money to her somehow and it came back. Nice and neat. That's only my opinion without any facts.
All the more reason to send her money. Think of the karma obtainable by embarrassing them over a non-existent situation!
I don't care if I send her ten bucks she doesn't deserve, if the media picks up on it and runs a heart-warming story about how a bunch of geeks came to the aid of a poor kid being abused by a big bully trade organization. If anyone pipes up and blows the true story, all the better.
Heartless ***es (Score:2, Interesting)
When they come knocking at my door I'll go down guns blazing. Then I'll pay the fines by selling the music that I've just been fined for having, which I will of course have to download because I don't actually have it. And if they come back we can keep playing the game untill someone accidentally deletes my case.
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm in for $100. Who's with me?
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:5, Interesting)
Music Makes Little Girls Cry (Score:5, Interesting)
Now Puff Daddy can put a third playstation in his Escalade and this little girl's dreams of attending college are shattered.
Oh "recording artists".. or as I prefer to call you, product designers, this is what your representatives are doing in your name.
Next time you get a check in the mail, I hope you think about this little girl. The next time you sign a contract, I hope you see that girl, along with all the college students and other individuals, whose futures are ruined, because they loved your music.
And the next time you call yourself an "artist", I want you to remember that art is for everyone and is priceless. You're worth $15.
Minors and Software Licenses/Contracts (Score:3, Interesting)
A minor can not be legally held to a contract. I started college at 17, and my parents had to go with me and sign everything right under my name. Needless, to say, it was a little embarrasing. But that aside, they had to do that because, at 17, I could not legally enter into any contracts.
What is the difference between a software license, a contract, and the license regarding music CDs? Should not these all be considered invalid for anyone under 18? (yeah, yeah, US-centric, but that's where the lawsuits are...) I know most licenses contain the clause that if the license is invalid or unenforceable, you can not use the softwate/whatever. But if it is invalid/unenforceable, how can they legally stop you from using it, copying it, whatever?
IANAL, so I could be way the hell off-base. And I am sure someone has probably tried that before, right? And I assume lost? Or we would have heard all about it?
Anyone out there have any answers?
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
If there were any real journalists left this would make an excellent introduction into abuses by large corporations...I hope 60 minutes picks this up, that's one of the few shows left that seem to have any integrity.
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
A while ago, I got into Pearl Jam when I discovered the Pearl Jam 2003 Tour Bit Torrent [no-ip.org] page. Once I got BT working properly (what with NAT and all), it's really nice. Pearl Jam actually record their own concerts and release them on CDs you can buy on their site. They also allow free trading between fans. So, people get these CDs, and then share the SHorteN files using BitTorrent.
More recently, I've been listening to Howie Day after someone played a bit of his stuff for me. After some searching online, I found that he's in the etree stuff at archive.org (here [archive.org]). So, I've been downloading those as well. Quite an amazing artist. [*]
I've not yet purchased an actual, "real" Howie Day CD, but I did stop by a local used records store (Used Kids on High for those in Columbus) and picked up a couple live PJ sets from Australia and Japan. So, while it was used, and so PJ saw nothing from my purchase, their free trading policy did make someone some money.
So, don't just take what you're given. Also, always look for a band's taping policy -- it may just exist and allow free trading. Sometimes, artists actually sound better in the live format. Howie Day and Pearl Jam(sometimes) in particular.
[*] The really interesting thing about Howie Day is the way he plays. His instrument is just an acoustic guitar. However, he also has these "pedals" or buttons that he can control with his feet. When he presses on one of them, it will loop a bit of what he just played. So, by doing this enough, he can actually jam and harmonize with himself. It's a really nice melding of a classic instrument and some technology that may just interest some Slashdot'ters.
they will think of the consequences (Score:2, Interesting)
She stole something (copyrighted material from the Net), got caught (by the RIAA) and was forced to pay for it. I bet next time she or her friends (or anyone that watched CNN today) thinks about downloading an mp3 file from Kazaa they will think of the consequences, and maybe decide that downloading might cost them more then the $19.99 they would pay on the store for the whole CD.
That's how I see it.
If you truly feel sorry for her, go ahead pay her bill.
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:2, Interesting)
After reading the article and some posts, I was irritated, tempted to rant and then surfed on. Later I came to CNN and read about it again. Pissed enough to come back and post.
BLOW ME. WTF can a 13 year old girl be responsible for? I am far far from a bleeding heart liberal. I support corporate America - I work for a hedge fund. I don't have a problem being a shark for money. But what a bunch of pricks. When I was 13 I hadn't even seen tits yet. I'd love to pry into all their documents and weblogs and I'm sure I could find enough wrongdoing to warrant a lawsuit.
Whats that? Bobby and Jenny aren't spending enough of their allowance on that shiny new miss spears disc of audio-shit? Sue them! Sue them all! Fuck you RIAA. I don't care for you invading the privacy of citizens to protect the leviathan of a markup on pre-baked music for the easily brainwashed kiddies.
Keep your copyrighted material. I'm never buying another CD. Not because it sounds cool, not because I'm pissed, but because you are TOTALLY in the wrong. Your happy happy fun time will be over soon and all I have to do is sit back and watch.
RIAA can blow me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's just propaganda to encourage others to settle quickly.[/conspiracy]
'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.'
(Any more news about the RIAA and I'm cutting off my ears.) [INSET VAN GOUGH JOKE HERE]
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to see Tom Brokaw discussing the idea that copyright in this country was permitted only because it was feared that the public domain might never benefit from somebody's efforts.
That's the story you never see in popular media. People assume that because something is illegal, it should not be legal. I'd love to see a large consumer group form with the goal of copyright reform -- that would be an organization to which I'd gladly donate money which is currently not being spent on overpriced CDs, and I'd encourage others to do the same.
I'd like to see a website provide a mechanism for meeting and discussing issues with an easy method of donation. Hell, it'd even be a great way for Slashdot to convince more people to join -- perhaps they should donate 50% of membership fees to one or more OSS or consumer-advocacy group which you could select from a list. It'd be a great way to encourage membership ("Pay for Slashdot, support a worthy cause!"), and it would provide exposure to groups which could do great things with a little more funding.
Mmmkay, time for bed.
Re:something doesnt add up (Score:4, Interesting)
Not even as gifts.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I committed to not buying music
I used to buy a lot of CDs but, gradually, came to resent both the inflated prices here in Europe and the attitude of the music industry to their customers. So, I stopped buying CDs for myself.
I continued, however, buying CDs as gifts for others; it's so easy to order them online and have them sent to a friend/relative/the girl of the moment with a nice message. Everyone likes music whereas if you send a book it probably won't, with the best intentions in the world, actually get read.
But no more. I am now on an official boycott, the RIAA is getting no more money from me.
I am sickened by the way they singled out a family living in a project was singled out(and I'm aware of how much tougher it is to be poor in America).
I am appalled the obvious way in which, as soon as they saw it turning into a PR nightmare, they quickly arranged some sort of deal and concocted these statements from the mother. The whole thing stinks.
Pity the kid who's about to become the only teenager in her neighborhood who's ability to explore new music is stunted by specific legal agreement.
And pity my friends too: they'll be getting books from now on.
WRONG! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, Congress would, just like it's up to Congress to pass federal term limits....another thing that will never happen!
Re:Wow. (Score:1, Interesting)
I actually try to make people stop buying RIAA albums when I see that someone has a new CD in their car/house. I've broken a few of my friends of the habbit of Buying music CD's. Mainly we can find non-P2P ways to 'share backup copies' of music that is non-risk, while still screwing the RIAA out of money. I hate to hurt the artists I like, but if it means that the RIAA goes down with them, then so be it.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
The model with freely distributable music as outlined in my post would handle that just fine -- record shops (or the music industry themselves) could burn as many CDs as they want with the dual-format files on them. Pay a buck or two for the CD, and listen to it in low quality -- that would be good enough for many people. If you want higher quality, go to a burning booth in the record shop, enter the ID of your CD player(s), pay the price, and get a full quality CD, freshly burnt just for you. The time for burning a CD these days isn't much longer than you have to wait in line to pay for a CD, so a system like that makes sense.
Of course, by the time the record companies get around to do something like this, and use DRM in a meaningful and profitable way, blue laser DVDs are probably on the way out, replaced by faster and cheaper solutions...
Warner, BMG, Sony and others, wake up! File sharing is here to stay, and you might as well embrace it, and think a little bit further than yesterday's technology and old-fashioned 1:1 distribution, like MusicNet really is. USE the net, USE file sharing, offer more, and SELL more.
Regards,
--
*Art
Are you kidding? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The fight of the century! (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, time to set up a fund for her and her mom, and maybe even get serious on a threat to boycott the RIAA companies, for once...
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
I was twelve when I realized people were, by and large, idiots.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
KFG
Fairness, mmmmkay? (Score:3, Interesting)
Go ahead, play with it.
http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/license.html
If you put in the assumptions:
User revenue: $1
User sessions >= 60 minutes: 100,000
Total user sessions: 100,000
Total performances from ASCAP catalog: 100,000
The result is (under all rate schedules):
Total annual license fee: $264
Even if you pulled in $100,000 in revenue, your license fee with the above assumptions would be between $1,600 and $4,440 per year.
Hey, if I could play every freakin' song ASCAP distributes royalties on and rake in $100 large doing it and only have to shell out a maximum of 400 bucks a month... well, where the hell do they come up with $15 GRAND?!?!?
Re:To the 12 year old girl... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's hilarious the paradox of the various arguments that come up in these debates. Now firstly let's observe the fact that many Slashdotters are pseudo-communists: They love the idea of "the man" giving things away for free, and everything being just about goodwill and sharing. Now consider the fact that as an example, Slashdotters berate the RIAA because they find out that Madonna or Britney Spears only made $3 or whatever/CD. The travesty! The outrage!
The paradox is that the _reason_ why big, successful artists make only a small portions of the proceeds is because the consortium of music companies pump a lot of money into "music development": Little bands that'll never go anywhere. That's the vast majority, btw. These little bands often see the label money as the "one chance", and happily sign contracts that say that if they beat all of the odds and make it big, they'll let the music industry keep some of it in an almost communist sharing type arrangement, where it supports the next batch of music development.
Maybe I've just become cynical, but whenever I see one of these RIAA articles all I perceive are a bunch of unreasonably idealistic, have-you-cake-and-eat-it-too unrealists berating big business while standing up for the little guy. Oooh, the poor little girl, who had an internet connection and a computer and was apparently among one of the top file sharers (with a 1000+ songs purportedly) is being bugged by the big bad music industry. Don't they realize that she has a God given right to rip off Justin Timberlake's new CD?
Suing someone who doesn't *USE* a computer. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait no longer! A quote from this article [www.cbc.ca] (emphasis mine):
Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think (Score:5, Interesting)
Fan sponsored music does work.
One of my all time favourite bands Einstuerzende Neubauten recently (well in the last year) launched a project asking for funding for a new album (its production costs and so forth.).
The project Neubauten [neubauten.org] offered fans the option of sponsoring them. In turn you got access to video feeds of production and other performances. An exclusive CD, sponsor discounts in upcoming tours (yay!) and access to old and rare material as well as a double CD live album free to download.
They got over twice as much sponsorship as they expected. And as a result are doing phase two (another album and a DVD upon sponsorship).
It can work. New means of artistic creation does work. One doesnt need to be tied to the old systems.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
As a recording musician, I'm interested in your opinion as to the culpability of the people who *sign* these contracts in this whole sordid mess.
Let's take a poll and see how many people don't know that signing a record contract is basically signing a deal with the devil. Sooner or later, he's coming to collect. Given that, at what point do the artists themselves begin to share some blame in their own predicament?
Obviously, no one *needs* the RIAA labels right? If you can do it yourself why can't, U2 for example? And even when we find a name musician who has "gone it alone", Prince is a good example, why don't we find them offering their works for substantially less money? For that matter, why don't more artists at least take the first step and go independent after any contracts they may have initially signed ,"to get noticed", are up?
Sincerely interested in your, or any other musician's reply.
17 USC (Copyright law) (Score:3, Interesting)
17 USC Sec. 1101 - Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term ''traffic in'' means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
So according to my (admittedly limited) understanding of this section, unless you're exchanging the infringing material for something of value, then you're not doing anything wrong. Placing MP3s in a shared directory doesn't get you anything of value. You don't get faster downloads if you share, in fact they're slightly slower. Actively sharing files actually costs you, rather than helping you.
17 USC Sec. 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users. -
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware offacts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
A clever lawyer would have said that the girl's mom is a service provider. She pays for the service, right? And unless she was notified by the RIAA of her daughter's infringment she wasn't obligated to do anything.
What's also interesting is further down:
To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
So unless there is a signature, th
HOW TO REALLY SCREW UP THE RIAA (Score:1, Interesting)
[Step One]
Pay for, and download a legal MP3 file from iMusic or Emusic or any of the other legal commercial MP3 download sites.
[Step Two]
Now that you've legally downloaded those MP3 files, you are also allowed to burn those to a CD-R (as stands to reason, but the Emusic site also says you're allowed to -- after all you're intending to listen to it on your stereo).
[Step Three]
DON'T LISTEN TO IT.
Instead, sell your newly burned CD-R (as "new") on eBay or Half.com.
[Step Four]
Congratulations, you've just created a legitimate marketplace for CD-R recordings. No one will be able to tell what's legitimate from illegitimate anymore. Your CD-R is perfectly legal to sell online, but so might anyone else's. In essence you've just creasted a legal loophole for the sales of home-burned CD-R's packed with music.
[Step Five]
Mod this up and lets start a revolution!
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Forces of Light will get the good press on CNN, etc.
Setting up a fund for this girl (Score:2, Interesting)
Age of Majority / Criminal or Civil / Fair Use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, since she hasn't reached her age of majority, why can't her agreement to pay the RIAA be declared non-binding? If her Mom entered into a contractual agreement to pay the RIAA as a result of intimidation, why can't her attorney get that set aside or whatever?
Did RIAA enter the dwelling with or without a search warrant, and stand there and watch her download the files? If not, then what is the evidence or how is the evidence substiantiated? Why didn't her attorney argue this point? Oh, are RIAA employees duly sworn and deputized to perform law enforcement? If so, then why the lawsuit in lieu of handcuffs?
If the downloaded files are to be used under the provision of the Fair Use Clause of the copyright law, then why doesn't her attorney let it go to trial and (after arguing age of majority) argue fair use? Given her age, would such a civil case even go to trial?
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
$2,000 for what? Getting someone to call up the girl's mother and say, "Give us 2 grand and we won't press charges."
Seems like they're getting more money than you give them credit for, they're certainly getting more from this girl than they've gotten in my entire lifetime, I won't pay 20 bucks for a CD with an hour of music when I can pay 15 for a 2 hour DVD with special features.
Re:I took action today... (Score:2, Interesting)
Gone are all the constraints of money and promotion. You can start producing electronica music with a 500 dollar software suite and a little bit of creativity (and patience). There is many people who are only 19, 20, maybe 21 that get their records signed. Granted they don't make a living doing it, but it's a start...
It just brings the whole thing down to earth really. Music was never meant to be shackled by a media industry which seeks to undermine all which it stood for. (profit instead of content)
There is not a more moving experience on the planet for me than watching a tear roll down somebodies cheek when the DJ spinning drops a divine track (not to say this is a common thing). Unbelievable? you take a listen, and then get back to me =)...
Re:$29.99 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What sort of legal precedence does this set? (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, I see the similarities between this and SCO. Neither wants to go to court, they both just want people to pay up, sell out, or stop using a competing product. And yes, online audio is a competing product in that it is in opposition to the fist-around-balls (TM) methods used by the RIAA and other corps in the past...
Re:question -- mod me up so we can get an answer (Score:2, Interesting)
What on earth makes you think you can't be convicted of something based only on circumstantial evidence? Happens all the time. For that matter, circumstantial evidence is in many cases [findlaw.com] thought to be better evidence than even eyewitness testimony according to various legal experts.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
It comes down to one simple thing: they made the songs, they get to decide what you pay. Don't like it? Then don't buy it, and definately don't steal it, unless you're comfortable with your principled stand being "I want it so I take it."
Find some real principles. Minimize your reliance on corporate music. Listen to local music and bands on independent labels that understand modern distribution. Don't know where to find them? Tune in to your local college station, find interesting stations on the internet, go to local shows. If after that you still feel this is ruining your life then write your represenative or take it to the streets or something but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.
Why just send her money? (Score:4, Interesting)
I say instead of just forking over money (which would be a nice thing to do anyways), donate music to her. In the articles, she said she just really loved to listen to music. So I say give her the gift of whatever music we could spare. Send her old cd's your don't listen to. Send her old LPs. Have a Paypal account set up to buy her a music instrument of her choice so she can learn music (which is a wonderful life skill with so many benefits).
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that they took money from a 12 year old (or her Mom) and pocketed it rather than donating to a music school or something is just awful.
I already have plenty of music on CD, tape and vinyl. If I want to listen to new stuff, Shoutcast seems to serve the purpose just fine.
The RIAA is so blowing it.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Interesting)
Um no.
Problem #1: Everybody's being accused of commiting theft as it is. Stealing CD's and burning them, no matter how 'amusing' it'd be, would not do anything but land you in jail. The media would be there to laugh at you.
Problem #2: You'd be hurting the retailer, not the RIAA. Frankly, I still have sympathy for those guys. I'd be disgusted if they became the victim instead of the RIAA.
That's the reason I suggested what I did. If the CD is returned unopened, they can still turn around and sell it. But somewhere they'll have a record that says "on this particular day, we had $n returns." If one day a million dollars of music CD's was purchased and then returned, believe me it'd show up on the radar of each of these retailers. Suddenly some recognition can happen. "Here is one million dollars you could have earned."
This is far more effective than a boycott. If you boycott the RIAA, then they'll claim they lost those sales to piracy.
Justifying theft (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand the overwhelming sympathy for those who steal, 12yr old or otherwise. If you were mugged by 50,000,000 mostly teenagers, would you say "aw, stop picking on the kids" ?
Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me? If I choose to release an open source project for anybody to use, that's fine. But if I make my living writing code -- or performing music -- then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?
Does theft suddenly become acceptable when it's done on a massive scale? Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?
The other argument of "RIAA is evil, therefore committing crimes against them is okay" doesn't wash either. These aren't victimless offenses, the money has to be coming out of somebody's pocket. If CDs are too expensive, then don't buy them. I don't claim the right to steal an SVT Cobra just because the $35k list price is too expensive.
IMHO, RIAA and other music associations should enforce their rights and are obligated to do so for their stockholders. Dunno of any practical way for them to ensure they pursue only unsympathetic defendants. Seems to make sense for them to ease into it, have a little consideration when negotiating with naive downloaders, gather as much publicity as possible so that music listeners in the future will understand that stealing music is wrong.
BTW, I have an adult friend who insists it's perfectly legal to make copies of her CDs as long as she only gives them to friends. The only way such attitudes will change is when people are prosecuted for it.
Not really. (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating: by purchasing used music, you are increasing the demand for used music. This makes it easier for people who buy new music from the RIAA to resell their music when they are done with it, thus indirectly increasing their new music consumption.
If you wish to annoy the RIAA and listen to music, either pirate it (which will get you sued and is illegal), or properly boycott it by spending your money on a more beneficial industry such as video gaming.
Re:We need the list of songs to embarass the artis (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:4, Interesting)
you could write a letter to
Recording Industry Association of America
Frank Creighton
1020 19th St., NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 775-0101
Fax: (202) 775-7523
Fax: (202) 775-7253
(he's the contact person for prosecution of
violations of intellectual property rights).
If he's not willing to give you the name and
address of the girl, ask him to forward your
donation to her
enough).
Re:Consumers unite! (Score:5, Interesting)
From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue. I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable future anyway.
If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:
1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.
2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.
Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)
My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.
$2000? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have heard a few mention a market blackout of all purchases of cds/movies for one month. If this could be acomplished let me sugest the perfect dates for this, It will be probably the most difficult blackout in history to pull off though, if we did we would definately send a message to the music industry, RIAA and everyone else who is listening. December 1 - December 31
Now lets show the RIAA what a
A beautiful tactic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, why haven't I seen this mentioned yet? Or am I blind?
IANAL, but if I were, this whole story would make for the most beautiful closing argument I could ever hope for. It would be worth all this negative hype when it paid off in court.
Because when it's all said and done, Joe Jury Duty can understand the phrase "It's so simple, even a 12yr old child can understand it."
Let's face it, the RIAA couldn't buy this kind of opportunity. Well, ok. Not for less than $2,000 anyway. And no, I don't think they 'arranged' for it to happen. But everyone is acting like they screwed up. If I can spin this to the benefit of the Devil's Advocate, be sure they can.
Re:Fairness, mmmmkay? (Score:2, Interesting)
Schedule A $ 624.00
Schedule B $ 949.00
Schedule C $ 1,742.00
My whole point in this is that, ignoring for the moment some of the absurd scandals in this arena, ASCAP does offer performance licenses based on both income generated and number of performances that are VERY cost effective even for the average user, even if significant income is generated in the process.
Remeber, we're talking about lawsuits listing five or six offending tracks, which presumably the offending parties very well might have purchased -- but then, remember, that purchase is for the media itself (CD, LP, tape, 8-track, whatever) and does NOT include any license to distribute by any means.
The web license do restrict to streaming media that cannot be saved (a BIG difference from P2P obviously). However, the fact that they DO offer internet broadcast licenses that are so inexpensive and so similar to radio licenses draws a rather huge question into the absurd distinction that is made between the "fair use" that has been applied to all broadcast media -- e.g. you can record from radio or television broadcast anything you want for personal use -- and the vast left-wing conspiracy that is destroying the entire music industry.
The point in bringing this up is that the RIAA is making a blanket case that anything Peer-2-Peer is flatly illegal and there is no case to be made for legitimacy when in the terms written by the actual licensing body (ASCAP) it is fundamentally a technicality that could easily be remedied and just as easily begin generating revenue at the rates already set by them.
I mean, look, to operate a radio station, a blanket license for the entire catalog for any station earning less than $50,000 is $6,200 -- for a format completely incapable of controlling listener behavior and capable of transmitting over 8,000 hours of content, or roughly 150,000 tracks of music.
All I am saying is that they have licensing structures in place for distribution. Offer people a legal island at the existing rates and SOMEONE will still have to buy the fricken CD's, but they would have a constant revenue stream from everyone regardless of if they buy a damned thing.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
First, let's suppose I think Britney Spears' music is crap and I would never pay for it.
If I go to a record store and steal a Britney Spears CD (I just want to really see if it's crap), they have lost a potential sale because I've taken the CD and they cannot sell it now. The store has suffered a loss.
Now, if I go online and download the same CD, nobody has been harmed. Nobody has lost a product, and nobody has lost the ability to make a sale.
I'm not saying it's right, but by downloading a CD that I would never have paid for, nobody has been harmed. They have not lost the sale to me, and they have not lost the potential of selling the product to someone else.
RIAA - EFF (Score:1, Interesting)
The RIAA and their cohorts of evil around the world have lost me as a customer - forever.
I have a lot of CD's purchased pre-boycott but post-napster, but they are the last.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:2, Interesting)
The EFF did not have time in this case to do anything.
This was brought to wordwide attention and settled in one day.
This is light-speed in the halls of justice.
What you are seeing is a mini kangaroo court floating out there run by the **AAs' legal departments. (With the Government rubber stamping subpoenas right and left expect a lot more.)
If this case had come up before a judge. There would have been hell to pay.
These are opening moves in a long chess game.
Settle down, Junior.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
"Criminal Corperation threatens destitute 12yr old and mother."
OR
Convicted corperation extorts 12yr old and her single mother for $2000.
Sometimes the truth really hurts....
Sympathy aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. Public outrage aside, the way this thing ended was very calculated. If they had in fact "Accidentally" sued her, they would have simply dropped the charges, as would be the PR thing to do to quickly clean up a mess
But instead, this girl whose family is living in the projects is instead going to pony up $2000 and still say good things about the RIAA?
Plus, with the way this ended, it gives the RIAA and additional "Fear Factor" where it will get folks who don't have a clue in them to say to themselves "If they will even stoop to squeezing out 2 grand of a lil' ol' girl, what chance do I stand?"
I smell a Rat.
Re:The RIAA sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and to avoid lawsuits I would like to point out that here in Sweden it is perfectly legal to download music, though not for much longer as the Swedish EUCD implementation is on its way.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I would add the following - go into your major chain with a flyer stating WHY you are boycotting their music and video selections. Hand it to the manager - if they get enough of them, then someone at the corporate level will be notified.
Second, boycott MTV/VH1 and your local Clearchannel station for obvious reasons. Again, they have to know that a boycott is in effect, so make with the flyers (but mail them, I suppose).
Third (and far less realistic), I would suggest extending the boycott in perpetuity until RIAA has a more reasonable stance and a less irritating manner. It would take a while, but losing sales during the Xmas rush and the post-Xmas sales period would definitely put them on notice that something was up.
Last, for maximum moral standing - don't download. That would only give them more ammunition. Remember, if you're going to take a moral stance, you can't half-ass it and try to slip something in the back door.
Re:Embarrass their sorry asses. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just Say No... (Score:1, Interesting)
The only way I would purchase or download any music now would be directly from the artist whether that is a homegrown cd ad a concert, or via an artists website. And the artist would have to clearly state that he/she is not in any way affiliated with the RIAA. Maybe this would prompt some real creativity in music rather than the cookie-cutter knockoffs we have today.
Back in the 50's through arount the mid 80's there was good reason for musicians to have record deals with major studios. Recording at that time was so expensive that noone could manage it decently without that support. Today almost any musician can manage to cut some pretty good sounding tracks at home on a relatively limited budget. They can also market their music via the net on a relatively limited budget. Granted they probably won't reach the multi-million sales totals that the big distribution channels provide today, but they shouldn't need to since the distributors would not be snatching most of the profits.
Anyway, until this happens - if this happens - I'll just say no to the whole thing..
Insurance is the answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a top level reminder (Score:3, Interesting)
Copy right infringement is not theft. See U.S. Supreme Court, DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) [netjus.org]
Let's keep our terms straight. It's copy right infringement. It's unauthorised duplication. That's actionable in a civil suit. But it's not theft, and it's not stealing, and it's not criminally actionable (unless you fall foul of the DMCA, but that's a seperate issue).
Donations through paypal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Buy CD's, but not from RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The library ... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know, making mp3's of music you own is legal, yes?
One buys used cd's from the local used cd shop(s) with cash. This person then copies mp3's for private use. Later, they sell the cd's back to the store (also for cash).
Is this person supposed to delete the mp3's for music they no longer own?
If they don't, I don't suppose that's precisely the same crime as illegal downloading/filesharing?
I just thought this was an interesting formulation of the situation.
Isn't it illegal for the RIAA.. (Score:2, Interesting)