RIAA Suit Rejected With Prejudice 649
yfarren writes "According to cdfreaks.com the RIAA has lost the case against the mother of a 13 year old girl accused of file-sharing violations." From the article: "The case was dismissed with prejudice, which prevents the case from being advanced against the defendant. Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request."
More appropriate title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More appropriate title (Score:4, Funny)
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Insightful)
Were they going to sue for lunch money??
Re:More appropriate title (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA has never been above scare tactics to get their way.
Re:More appropriate title (Score:3, Informative)
No, they would sue to attach her future wages and to make an example out of her.
Chapter 7 is your friend.
Nice try. But no. (Score:3, Insightful)
OT: The other interesting pla
Re:Nice try. But no. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that you can get yourself out of court-imposed debts through bankruptcy. Otherwise you'd have deadbeat dads, drunk drivers, and other scum doing it all the time to avoid paying up. I'm not sure exactly what kind of legal language prevents you from being able to do it, but my recollection is that even if you declare bankruptcy, that satisfies only PRIVATE debts -- as soon as you start making money again, the courts will garnish your wages to pay off the PUBLIC ones.
There are specific debts that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Drunk driving fines, child support, fines for criminal activity, etc, are virtually impossible to discharge.
IANABL (bankruptcy lawyer) but I am in the middle of a Chapter 7 myself and everything I have read on the subject would lead me to think that you _could_ discharge a judgment owed to RIAA. Typically judgments are dischargeable unless they stem from criminal activity/fraud/child support.
I don't know if it works this way for government-backed standard school loans or not
Student loans are pretty hard to discharge in bankruptcy. The only way to do it is to prove that paying them back would be an undue burden. Pretty much the only way you can pull that off is if something really bad happened to you and you have little or no prospect of working again/having income.
As for your thoughts about the military you are probably right. I have a friend who was forced out of USAFA after she testified in the ongoing sex abuse scandal. She had the choice of paying them back for the education she had received or doing two years enlisted to make up for it.
Re:Nice try. But no. (Score:5, Informative)
You'll find it here: TITLE 11 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > 523 [cornell.edu]. A more verbose discussion is available here [cornell.edu], which you might find interesting, if not exactly light reading.
I'll summarize (skipping the irrelevant subsections):
A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (19) that-- (B) results from-- (i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding; (ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or (iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor.
So pretty much, if any court orders you to pay something, or you agree to a settlement, you're SOL as far as declaring bankruptcy to discharge it goes. And unlike some of the other subsections, which have "outs" for things like inability to pay, or the benefit to the debtor outweighing the benefit to the creditor by discharging it, that section has no outs.
Re:Nice try. But no. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's absolutely disgusting. Any chance she could sue under whistle blower laws?
Perhaps. In her situation I think she's just glad to be done with it. If she had stayed at USAFA she would probably still in the service today. Which doubtless means she would be somewhere "over there" getting shot at right now.
In her particular case she was assaulted and tried to work within the system to get it addressed. When that failed she went outside the system. You thought what you've seen in the news media about the scandal there was bad? They don't know the half of it.
Street Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think that since the RIAA are demanding the criminalization of file sharing behavior, the file sharers should oblige them - deal with the RIAA in terms they can understand: Gang fo thugz to gang of thugz.
E.g. Form an IP Theft Crime Syndicate and respond to each lawsuit with a couple drive-bys at some RIAA member corporate offices. There are more of you than there are of them, and they are highly visible wiht a lot to lose - right out there in the open. Vulnerable.
For the financially disadvantaged (those who can't just dash out and buy a tech 9 or mac 10 or whatever they're called - toss a couple of gasoline bombs thru their plate glass (wait til everyone has gone home if you're squeamish about offing the bastards - but a more useless bunch of dickheads I really have trouble imagining) - show them what "losses" are really all about...
And speaking of fininancially disadvantaged, hasn't anyone noticed that the RIAA/MPAA thugs only pick on middle-to-low income citizens? They seem very careful to avoid going after anyone who has the real financial oomph to give them a real legal fight. This Michigan decision is not too bad, but the war is far from over, and the people are losing.
The RIAA/MPAA will no more be stopped by legal means than any other group of entrenched gangsters.
If the courts and law enforcement won't stand up for the citizens' rights, the citizens have to do it themselves.
This girl's mother could obviously afford a lawyer, and was willing to take the chance - what about all those other one-paycheck-from-the-streets victims who are having to balance next a paying couple months rent in protection money to the RIAA thugs against the possility that if they give a similar amount of money to lawyer they *might* not get stuck with an even larger fine?
I figure if the RIAA/MPAA thugs had their families threatened in the same way - to the same degree - they are threatening the families of their victims they might at least begin to understand what's at stake.
Regardless of what protestations and representations the RIAA/MPAA thugs might make, file sharing as we know it is not illegal. The fact that they have purchased legislattion supporting the pretense of its illegality doesn't change that. To those victims without sufficient funds to purchase legislation to protect themselves from unjust action under the color of Law, force becomes the only possible response.
It's a rigged system. It's ime to shut it down and start over.
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Funny)
but maybe that's just me.
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the second sentence of the second order [riaalawsuits.us] is pretty clear: "The court also ruled that the plantiffs were not prevented from bringing an action against anyone else, including Brittany Chan, the minor child of Candy Chan."
So, all that's happened is that mom has managed to shift the blame from her to her daughter. Mom gets to pay her attorney's fees and the RIAA gets another crack at the family through the daughter.
-h-
Re:More appropriate title (Score:3, Informative)
No, it means that they cannot amend the existing lawsuit. The judge's opinions stated that they can always file a new one if they want to.
-h-
Re:More appropriate title (Score:3, Informative)
All that said was they can't shortcut it and change the current case's defendent from the mom to the daugther.
And the ONLY reason they can't do that is because the lawyers messed up and dismissed the case before they added the daugter as a defendant.
So basicly the story here really is, The RIAA has bad lawyers.
the girl can't be sued? (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request. IANAL, but doesn't that mean they can no longer sue the child?
It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem in this case is the mother therefore they can't sue her.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM [ncwc.edu]
FalconPhrase meaning "For the Proceeding" referring to adults who look after the welfare of a child and represent their legal interests; usually volunteers who are also officers of the court. If the GAL is not an attorney, they must hire one for the child, but some states are starting to allow GALs to do the actual legal work. GALs are also responsible for medical care of the child.
NO the girl can't be sued. (Score:4, Interesting)
RIAA sues girl, GAL is mother, mother has immunity due to Dismissed with prejudice. Lawsuit against the girl is a defacto lawsuit against the mother. The Judge chopped that one off with an axe. There was much gnashing of teeth at RIAA HQ.
Worse yet, since the kid is under 18 they can't wait it out. Actions under the age of 18 are except in certain extreme circumstances, deleted at age 18.
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, in a "loser pays" system, the loser only has to pay "reasonable costs", not all the costs incurred by the other party. Usually, countries that use this system set up a table that, based on the type of lawsuit, gives the "reasonable cost".
Re:More appropriate title (Score:4, Insightful)
Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Mwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heeee heeeeeee wheeeeeee. *SNORT* Bah ha ha ha ha *wheeeeeze!* *snicker*
In principal I agree that music theft is bad and in all honesty, none of my music is pirated, but you gotta realize that stuff like this just makes you guys look bad. Bad as in $#!theads, not bad as in cool.
Karma goes around and it comes around, so i'd say this is due.
Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's possible that the court overstepped its authority, but would any judge want to issue such a judgement against a 13 year old who, quite honestly, is hardly a reckless tearaway. Any sane judge is going to be more lenient towards the kid than the multi-million dollar trade organisation.
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to
Not only is he trying to put himself out of business, he's trying to directly oppose the law of supply and demand. Granted, it's been argued that the S&D laws don't necessarily apply to intellectual property and the like, but charging a premium for a high-volume item is a recipe for disaster.
If anything, it's the rare live recordings that should be priced more agressively. Why would we want to pay a premium for a song that's played frequently on the radio?
I could possibly see something like 'Buy 2 songs from this EP and get the 3rd for $.50' -- which would be a win-win for consumers and the labels. Consumers get a cheap song, and the labels still make a profit on it because chances are, without the discount, the person wouldn't have purchased the song.
The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot.
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
Is this really something that should be discouraged?
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this really something that should be discouraged?
Yes! Because the RIAA is also trampling all over our rights. Guess where the bullets are going to end up?
This post brought to you by Overstretched Metaphors, Inc.
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
Are they shooting themselves in the foot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah right, like there's any EP with a third song that would be worth fifty cents.
-
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Because if the industry's failing, it's a lot easier to blame it on copyright infringement than poor business decisions, because copyright infringement is defined and illegal but poor business decisions are just poor decision, and it's difficult to prove either bad faith by the execs or that copyright infringement has no effect. And you can get a lot more money by suing people than by playing with a fair market (especially one with IP, which has zero marginal cost and the customers realize it).
Alleged copyright infringement is the issue here. (Score:3, Insightful)
You did not read the judgement, did you? (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA: this woman shared our files on p2p
MOM: no I did not, it was somebody else, maybe one of my children.
MOM: yes it was Brittany, not me.
RIAA: Ok, get the Dumb cow off the list
MOM: No, I want my legal costs paid.
Judge: nope, you should have turned in your kid sooner, so no money for you. But RIAA wants you off the list, so there you go, it has been decided.
Now what was so funny about that judgement?
Re:You did not read the judgement, did you? (Score:4, Insightful)
We let a lot of kids off with less punishment for accidentally killing another child than the RIAA wants from these kids for sharing music (and possibly unknowingly at that since the p2p apps are configured that way...).
Re:You did not read the judgement, did you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Congress will make it possible to sue the parents. What, did you really think Congress was on your side?
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
"You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to .99 cents and raise the prices on the popular tracks? Was not this what you were trying to do when that pesky price fixing scheme was discovered back when you were at Universal?"
Kind of, but not quite.
This is how the price fixing thing went down:
The price fixing judgement was a win for Wal-Mart and Best Buy. The big losers were not the record companies (as the MAP programs did not affect the price at which they sold records into distribution), but indie record stores, which can no longer get co-op money from record labels. It's also a loss, indirectly, for people like me who remember and cherish indie record stores. They're a dying breed.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Huge mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
But good news for everyone else.
Re:Huge mistakes (Score:3, Funny)
That's where lawsuits go.
Re:Huge mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huge mistakes (Score:3, Informative)
It won't stop the RIAA, but it will crimp their style.\
Easy Targets (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Easy Targets (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much pedophilia... It incredibly commonplace for any hunting animal to target the young or the weak, those who cannot fight back or run. In this case it seems most unfair. As others have pointed out, minors do not have credit cards and thus cannot buy music online, and the parents are often quite clueless. Anyhow, this doesn't help the prejudice that lawyers == sharks.
Re:Easy Targets (Score:5, Interesting)
The weak, maybe, but targeting the young is often a huge mistake. There are few things more ferocious than a mother protecting her cubs - most predators that fail to realise this don't pass on their genes.
Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don't understand what's going on.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
I agree that the RIAA's suit was unfounded, in this case. I also believe the RIAA has lost their battles and will only be wasting time and money on additional lawsuits (that will cost them, in the long run, far more than they will 'save' or 'gain' in judgements).
I'm not even sure that the RIAA can afford so many lawsuits. Sure, they're a multi-billion dollar "co-op" organization "defending" artists, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.
The reality, though, is that they likely won't stop suing, and if they even win 1 out of 10 cases, it will likely cause them to fail even more.
So I say, sue away, RIAA.
copy vs steal (Score:3, Insightful)
If a child makes a photocopy of a book he/she can't afford, then I think the described leniency should apply.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Since this was Federal court, does anyone know if this makes precedent that will force the RIAA to change tactics (i.e., start going after the kids directly)?
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
One critical difference -- do you demand the parents pay for the goods stolen, or do you demand the kid's entire college fund?
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Dunno if the RIAA is right or wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a
-h-
Re:Am I Correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to review the cases where the RIAA has acted this way and see if they pick cases where the parents may not be of means or legal savvy to fight the way this woman did.
Re:Am I Correct? (Score:3, Informative)
Bankruptcy is an option, but not all debts can be discharged from bankruptcy, including some torts. It largely depends on the situation, however. Plus, you can only get debts discharged in bankruptcy so often. Been a while since I've looked at bankruptcy law, however.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Yes.
Since a minor can not enter in to a contract then can minor violate a contract?
Minors can enter into contracts. It's just that since they can often void the contracts at will, other people don't usually like contracting with minors.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
Fair enough, but for an intangible like copyright, I am not sure what sort of damage one can allege.
Oh that's right.... It is damage because the parent didn't pay for the intangible, not that it caused a demonstrable loss. Right....
The problem is that copyright infringement is not like theft any more than tresspassing is.* If I go into your back yard and pitch a tent and
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No it is not ok.
You've just made the common mistake of replacing "copyright infringement" with "theft". In this case they become quite different. A theft from a store takes a tangible good from the store, something that might be sold to someone else. Downloading a song online does not prevent the sale to someone else.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it's the same. After all, if people copy 100 billion CDs, then it really does cost the RIAA one trillion dollars.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
"Is it our problem? If we tell you to go fuck yourselves, will it come back and bite us?"
It's funny that corps want *US* to live by human morals, while *THEY* try to sue 13 year old little girls. Sorry folks, two can play this game.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright infringement seems like such a antiquated law now that information is so freely available. Why does it stick around when a more proper venue for information should be performances that can't be copied easily? Live bands can never be captured well if their performances are tangible. I've openly recorded shows I've been allowed to (using great equipment, too) and just can't listen
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Shoplifting is a crime. As with all crimes you would need evidence to prosecute. There is an actual loss that you can measure. With copyright infringement, there is no physical loss and flacky evidence.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
So a person is a bad p
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there have been very few (if any) RIAA lawsuits that have actually gone to court and reached a verdict. From what I gather, the RIAA has set up a telephone call center via which defendants can pay setllements in order to call off the lawyers. This costs them practically nothing: they just mail out threatening letters and wait for the money to roll in.
I think this is one of the first major defeats the RIAA has suffered so far in relation to its sue-the-customers scheme, and we can only hope that it will bolster more people into challenging the RIAA's suits instead of settling out of court via their hotline. The problem is that anyone who challenges the RIAA and wins will have to then pay their own lawyers' fees, so many people decide that settling is cheaper and less time-consuming - which is exactly what the RIAA is gambling on because they want to brag about how many people their goons have scared settlements out of so far.
Re:Don't start into this filesharing = stealing cr (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, what if the RIAA (and MPAA) required that every c
Re:Don't start into this filesharing = stealing (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us. the "uniqueness" is just selfishness. A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost. It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we call it even?
Oh joy! (Score:5, Interesting)
The **AA - 3247923874932749782365926323
We're catching up!
Seriously though, I hope these rulings keep coming. Although it is wrong to pirate music and other media, you shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars in fines.
It seems odd to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
"While the case was dismissed, the mother had to pay legal fees as the Judge refused to award her attorneys fees. The reason is that the plaintiffs' lawyers had taken the appropriate steps in trying to prosecute the mother and that the mother used tactics to obstruct the Plaintiff to efficiently prosecute her."
So it's dismissed, but she still owes somewhere between a couple thousand and a hundred thousand dollars? She's fucked regardless.
RIAA's still making it's message heard: Either roll over early, or we'll fuck you for life.
How much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because your innocent does not make it all right for you to not obey the law to the full. It is something an awfull lot of people seem to forget and it is a judges job to remind them.
Pity the article does not make clear exactly what she did. but the message still remains clear, obey the law. You have some leeway and big company's can't just steamroll you but neither can you steamroll the law.
Re:It seems odd to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
ad litem defined (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking hell (Score:5, Insightful)
What company wants to sue children? We were all kids once, we probably commited minor crimes (stole a chocolate bar or whatever). But you never hear a shop keeper going "lets sue the little kid! He's a right fucker him!", they slap them on the wrist, tell their parents and keep a closer eye on them.
I didn't like the RIAA before, but when they start to sue children.. you've crossed a line no adult should even think of crossing.
Guardian Ad Lidem (Score:5, Insightful)
The parents' of this kid aren't fit because they won't let the RIAA sue her? They want a new legal guardian (again, only for legal matters pertaining to this case) appointed purely for the purpose of suing a child the parents' prevented you from suing?
These people are INSANE.
Re:Guardian Ad Lidem (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They just have no soul.
Extreme Prejudice (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe there should be a new Pepsi/iTunes ad... (Score:5, Funny)
Liability questions (Score:5, Interesting)
precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)
if i get an extortion letter form the RIAA for $36,000 because i downloaded Kelly Clarkson, can i play stupid in court and win?
"honest your honor, i didn't know that anyone could connect to my WiFi connection and use teh intarweb"
"honest your honor, i didn't know what my dumb cousin vinny was doing on the computer all night"
"honest your honor, i didn't know that that program is for illegal music"
do clueless soccer moms get off scott free? or anyone who challenges the RIAA and plays stupid?
serious question: can anyone plead ignorance in court and win against the RIAA extortions now?
i personally think that would be wonderful if true, because you can say what you want about the immorality of downloading pirated music, but the extortion the RIAA is pulling against average folks of limited financial and legal means is a greater form of immoral behavior
someone who is a lawyer speak up: has the RIAA's extortion mill been effectively shut down now?
please say yes
Re:precedent? (Score:5, Funny)
Downloading Kelly Clarkson is the surest sign of stupidity.
Cool, but she still had to pay costs... (Score:5, Insightful)
We need some corporate anti-terror legislation to stop corporations from acting to terrorize citizens. We already have too much historic and current legislation running the other way around. Of course, we used to just call it organized crime when applied to corporations, but terror as a political label is in fashion these days.
Ryan Fenton
fun with popups (Score:5, Insightful)
Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.
I really think
And when the hell is Firefox going to get functionality to block flash-based popups?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
And then... (Score:5, Funny)
This doesn't change.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Entertainment mega-corps still win big because they strike fear into the hearts of consumers. The message is simple, "don't steal our music." The underlying assumptions that many
2. It looks to me like they lost on procedure, not so much on the theft issue. The woman's got to pay anyway and that works out great for the RIAA.
3. No one cares that they are going after minors. The US has a criminal courts system for them too. Again, the underlying assumptions about the control of the music are not even on the table.
I really don't see how anything positive comes out of this story.
justice is not for the poor (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's what really happened. (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can make out with my legal knowledge (which is more then person that wrote the summary I'd say but I'm not a lawyer) here's what really happend.
They sued the mom, who had the ISP account.
They found out that it was really the daugther who was the sharer.
They asked for the case to be dismissed aginst the mom.
They then asked for the case to be changed to the daugher after the judge issued his judgment.
The judge said nope and did what they asked and dismissed the case.
So basicly I think this was a mistake on the lawyers part for asking the case to be dismissed before they got the defendent changed.
This is more of a technicality win then a real win aginst the RIAA
At What Point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Guardian ad Litem (Score:3, Informative)
The judge I work for told me that if anyone gives me a hard time, they are giving HIM a hard time and to let him know immediately. In other words he's not at least interested in having anyone mess with his GAL's. I can see why the judge did not grant it.
Indeed a GAL is protected from lawsuits at least in Florida.
The RIAA is one hapless bunch who will run themselves out of business as soon as any viable solutions comes up.
Collective funding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there already such site?
Re:Collective funding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? I've got no problem with the RIAA (and its equivalents worldwide) suing people for:
- massive copyright infringement involving zillions of songs and zillions of copies
- selling illegal copies of infringing content
On the other hand, I've got a big problem if/when the *AA goes after:
- 13 year old kids, and by proxy, their parents (who generally have little to no idea that things such as Limewire even exist)
- people who download a couple of songs for their own personal use i.e. not loads of stuff, and not to distribute further
- people who download copies of songs they've already purchased on CD, but which they can't copy to e.g. their iPod because of copy protection restrictions on the CD
- people who download a TV show which has already been shown on non-subscription services
- people who "pirate" content that is so old that common sense says it should've been out of copyright years ago (e.g. old "I Love Lucy" episodes). The concept that copyright can effectively be extended forever just defies common sense, particularly when you see Hollywood waiting for vintage content to become public domain, then releasing "their" take on it and claiming copyright protection on intellectual content that someone else invented 50+ years ago
- suing people for e.g. $100k per downloaded song, on some bogus principle that they COULD have given it to the 20,000 others. In that case, the onus should be on the suing party to come up with the list of 20,000 others, with verifiable documentation to support it
Misleading slashdot spin... (Score:5, Informative)
The other motion was to continue prosecution against her child as the same case. The court basicly said "That's just as much work as starting a new case, you'll need new court reservations, a Guardian Ad Litem = lawyer to represent the child (as the mother and child could have conflicting interests in this case) and so on anyway, and it's not cheaper either". The RIAA wanted to sue a 13yo girl. They will probably refile to sue a 13yo girl, because it was the mother's case that was "dismissed with prejudice". If they are really nasty, they will completely refuse to settle the second case just to make an example out of them. How this is a victory eludes me.
Kjella
Legal !== Ethical (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's important to keep sight of the fact that what is legal is not necessarily ethical (and vice versa). While it is perfectly legal for the RIAA to sue a single mom or her children, it seems rather sketchy in the ethics department.
I don't think that it is ethical to infringe on copyrights, and I doubt most people would disagree. At the same time, I think it's also unethical that an organization like the RIAA can pretend to be acting on behalf of artists that they routinely abuse. I think people are really starting to understand that buying albums doesn't really support the artists ($.01 - $.03 dollars to the artist vs. $12-$25 to the RIAA and retailers). Because so much money goes to this seemingly ethically devoid entity, people have no conscience dilemmas when downloading.
Every artist signing a record deal is gambling: chances are they're going to lose, but every once in a while someone makes it big. I'm much happier as a consumer and music fan when I purchase music directly from an artist. F*ck the RIAA.
The curse of digitization (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what they like to say many, many people do not believe that copyright infringement is the same as theft.
Combine this with a media format that can be copied in seconds and you have a problem.
How did the poor recording industry end up in this mess? Greed and shortsightedness.
They had a format that could not be copied easily. Vinyl was the clearly superior sounding format of the day. For music lovers a tape copy simply would not do. People could not afford to create their own records. Even the inferior tape copies could only be created from the vinyl in actual time. So people bought the original. They weren't buying the "rights to the song", they were buying the media!
Enter the CD. Better sound quality but people did not have the capability to copy it perfectly - at first. The CD came out at a price that was a PREMIUM over vinyl. Why? Because the format was BETTER QUALITY, we were told. The recording industry was happy to be selling "media format" when it suited them. We the consumers were told that the price would drop as the production costs of CDs came down. Well, I can produce a CD for about 25 cents in my house now. So why am I paying at least 50 times the price that I could produce the thing for? Where is the price reduction that was promised? It never came.
So now the RIAA have a problem. The media is now worth squat and we can make our own perfect copies for virtually nothing. Plan B - copyright violation and suing 13 year olds.
Great idea guys, sue your user base. Worse still, sue the user base who couldn't afford to buy the stuff now anyway but may be inclined to in the future IF you hadn't completely soured their musical experience when they were young by taking them to court for listening to Jay-Z.
Get a clue. Reduce your prices. Encourage artists to make money from concerts (wow, imagine, performers, performing!). Find a superior format again and make it worth buying. You are trying to contain a product that can be perfectly reproduced in seconds, from anywhere in the world, to anywhere in the world, for free. People find it hard to believe it's stealing. Good luck with your business.
Re:First intelligent thing a court has done to RIA (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody, cross your fingers and hope this sparks a trend - it should at least set some sort of precidence that other's can use to their advantage.
Re:Defendant still lost in a way... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Defendant still lost in a way... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In defense of the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In defense of the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Well, it took me some time to understand that sentence. At first I thought these BSD guys/girls were anti-intellectual, and had a lot of property. How odd.