RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader

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

This is really messed up, why would they think they have the rights to abuse people like this. They're trying to scare us.

Re:The RIAA sucks

They're trying to scare us.

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

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

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

- David Stein

Re:The RIAA sucks

I bet if they had any idea that ~~BrItNeYgUrl91*~ was a 12 year old kid they probably wouldn't have really pursued the case. Would looking like a bunch of shithead monsters, or the whole "we don't let anyone get away with it" display, really be worth it to them?

Embarrass their sorry asses.

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

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

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

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

Not to mention that this kid is living in public housing.. The RIA is not only extorting 2,000.. it's $2000 they probably desperately need.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

Actually, I think it would make sense to make fines proportional to income. A fine ought to deter everybody the same, but a $500 fine is surely a greater deterrent to somebody living on social security than somebody who makes $200k a year. (Hereby I conclude this episode of tangential leftism. Good night.)

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12?

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:Oh please.

I am dazzled by the lack of knowledge by "Jerry" (1) The child did not know she was stealing. A website fooled her into thinking she was downloading these songs legally. This is akin to someone setting up a fake checkout in a store. Who would be prosecuted in that case? I would imagine in any court in the land would prosecute the person who put up the fake checkout. She had no intent to break the law, and the website in question had intent to mislead her. (2) In Jerry's opinion appearently there should be an income limit for owning computers. Tell me, how musch should one make before they are "allowed" a computer? How much did this computer cost? Thrift shops regularly sell 300mhz machines for around $100.00 in my area. Is it O.K. for a poor person to spend $100.00 on something that her child will need to gain job skills in the future? Or should poor kids just play with sticks and Boxes? (3)This I find in particularly poor taste: The assumtion that public housing families are all on crack. Sorry buddy, not every poor person is on crack, just like not every rich person is a thief. (4) Finally, how do you know the mother doesn't have a job? The vast majority of assistance recipients do work. (5) Corporate welfare costs American taxpayers 8-10 times more than poor person welfare. Whos robbing us taxpayers? Poor people who NEED the money, or Rich people who use it to eek out another few million? Maybe Jerry should spend some time in the real world instead of in his insulated lifestyle. The American public should be outraged by what the RIAA has done to this family, and I for one willk not buy one more CD until they give this family back their money and issue an apology. I agree that musicians have a right to protect their creative properties, and that companies have the right to make money from products they produce. But the fact is that the record industry is a Dinosaur wallowing in a mud pit. They need to make a product that the public wants to buy instead of using litigation to attempt to make income.

Please, let's do this...

I haven't donated to the EFF or to any other cause... But this whole thing has me so steamed I'd gladly toss a few bucks to help this unfortunate child and single mother out. Let's make their day and give the RIAA the finger in one fell swoop.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

"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."

I say we buy $2,000 worth of CD's and return them the next day.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

"Or how about: Shoplift $2000 worth of CDs and burn them on the Capitol's steps. I think that would send a message, and garner huge media time."

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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

Where was the EFF in this case?

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.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

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.

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

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

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.

The web site in question that she paid $29.99 for access to all this "free music" is here [thedownloadplace.com]. You should really check out their faq page, quite a funny read seeing as how they basically are charging you for a link to kazaa or a kazaa networked app.

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 /.'ing Feels like.

Re:Embarrass their sorry asses.

Hi,
you could write a letter to

Recording Industry Association of America
Frank Creighton
1020 19th St., NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

(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 ;-) (this should be embarassing
enough).

Re:The RIAA sucks

That's because the media has no incentive to report on the other side of the issue. The media makes its money through copyright, and they're not about to give anti-copyright people a voice. That would be fair and balanced....

60 Minutes? R U kidding?

That show with the weekly MUSIC INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHST?

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:60 Minutes? R U kidding?

PBS Frontline continually impresses me. Don't give up all hope.

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..."

Re:The RIAA sucks

I dunno. I was thinking about this. I asked myself why it was right that I didn't care that people were downloading music, but computers getting hacked and people being sued for millions of dollars(settling for thousands) is so hard for me. I realized that the truth is, the RIAA is ruining peoples lives. Like something out of a nightmare best left in Soviet Russia, the RIAA is indiscriminately cutting people down for a crime most sane people would put on par with jay walking. These lives don't deserve to be ruined for personal non-commerical infringement.

Re:The RIAA sucks

Give ME a fucking break. Most people think getting slapped with a law-suit ruins their life for at least a little while.

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.

Re:The RIAA sucks

but don't rationalize your petty criminal behavior.

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).

What sort of legal precedence does this set?

I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?

Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...

No Precendent, just Encouragement: Liberty Lament

The settlement was reached before the case went to court. Since it was negotiated between two private parties without the involvement of a court, the settlement sets no legal precedent. Our legal system could be easily abused if this were not the case :-J

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:The RIAA sucks

Ah... how I wish consumers acted as rationally as this.

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

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

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

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

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

- David Stein

Re:The RIAA sucks

Bad idea. What if you get a new CD Player? Does that mean you have to buy your whole music collection over at $.50? If it doesn't, then that means there is some way to transfer the ID to another device. Enter device ID piracy. Modded CD-player.

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

Listen to more NPR and watch less FOX/CNN/ETC. NPR has had balanced coverage and entire shows dedicated to this very subject over the last four years [npr.org].

Re:The RIAA sucks

Even worse, popular media never brings up the idea that copyright protection extending 70 years past the creator's death just might be a little more than needed to fulfill the original purpose of copyright -- encouraging creators to share their work.

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:The RIAA sucks

They have these rights because they were given them by you.

Then where do I sign up to take them away?

Re:The RIAA sucks

At either the voter registration office or your local gun range. Depending on how much patience and faith in the system you have.

Re:The RIAA sucks

They have these rights because they donated tons of money to the republican and democratic parties. They bought the congressional votes.

Re:The RIAA sucks, Yup, and here's what I think

A few of thoughts here:

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

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

How about sponsoring music you like? How about shareware music? Same for movies. If Spielberg had a list of projects he might produce, given the financial incentive, I would donate to see the project I like produced, then distributed to patrons first who have sponsored it, then offered cheap to non-patrons. Maybe even getting some money back,