RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings 1228
An anonymous reader writes "ABCNews is reporting on a 19-year-old college student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. He created a site named ChewPlastic.com where students could search for files on the university network. Mind you, this is not a music file sharing software, this is just a search engine. Presumably, the search engine was being used to search for music files as well. The folks over at the RIAA did not take too kindly to the idea, and sued the student. He settled but denies any wrongdoing. What was settlement, you ask? His life's savings."
Chewplastic.com? (Score:5, Funny)
Help Pay back His Savings (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Help Pay back His Savings (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's do both! (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I would say that helping the kid is a better "good thing" than paying the RIAA is a "bad thing." To them, $12,000 (or whatever the lifesavings of an undergrad) is nothing save symbolic - to him, it's a ton. If we help him out, any symbolic victory of theirs is lost, he has no financial damage, so effectively all that's happened is that 120 people are out $100 and the RIAA is up 12 large.
The problem of course is that 1) this will encourage people in the future to settle if they think they'll get paid off, and 2) the RIAA will lose whatever shred of remorse they MIGHT have had about nuking some poor kid (laughable, I know), as they'll see it as a rightful, distributed tax.
So I think you're right - I think we need to get the EFF on board, help collect a war chest, and defend the next poor bastard they try this with. That way, there will be a clear, established precedent for the next time they try this crap after that.
The sad thing in this case is they have no leg to stand on. He never collected info about what was traded, and never got the opportunity to be helpful to the RIAA by blocking mp3's (which was one of the counts against Napster). So I have little doubt the RIAA would have lost given appropriate representation.
Re:Let's do both! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if he manages to recollect all $12,000 (which I doubt will occur), he still hasn't been "paid off". He's only not lost all of his money. He would be no better off than he was before if all of the settlement is donated back to him.
Re:Let's do both! (Score:5, Interesting)
(Down with the RIAA!)
Re:Let's do both! (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, the least you could do is not send him anything. Like me.
he comes out way ahead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:he comes out way ahead (Score:5, Funny)
You mispelled "mug"
Re:Just a thought... (Score:5, Informative)
No you don't. You get a free five dollar credit IF you sign up and IF you put $100 in your account and IF you authorize PayPal to drop that $100 in a money market account that may lose value. And PayPal only tells you about the next step in the process after you complete the previous step--so each time you think "I'll finally get my five bucks!"
No thank you.
Keep Your Money... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you figure? The kid settled for $12,000. That's what's being reported by the national media. Period. If you manage to help him recover the money, that might get reported on a few nerd websites; but I don't see it damaging the RIAA's "symbolic victory" one iota.
I doubt we're getting the whole story -- here, or with the other four students who settled last month. I'd like to see someone ask them one question: "Did you have any pirated music?" I've never used Napster/KaZaA/etc. in my life. (I'm a Mac user.) If the RIAA came after me for writing one of these programs, you can bet that would be the first thing out of my mouth to any reporter who'd listen: "I have never traded music."
The software may not be as devious as the RIAA is painting it; but if these kids did in fact have pirated MP3s, then it's going to be pretty tough to convince a jury that their hands were squeaky-clean.
And BTW, did anyone else notice the kid's father beaming with pride? "He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this," he says of his son. The kid forked over his life's savings, without a hint of protest. It's pretty hard to keep a straight face listening to the nerd tell you how he beat up the bully, while his nose is still bleeding and his lunch money's gone.
One final note: This kid was a college student at a polytech school, with $12,000 in his bank account. You know a lot of college students who are sitting on $12,000? If you want to donate your money to charitable use, that's commendable; but there are better fronts to fight in this battle, and I suspect there are more needy victims than little Jesse Jordan.
My two cents. [alt-usage-english.org]
crib
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously...
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that the settlement amount is right. I'm saying that that's the only way for him to not have his life ruined utterly by the RIAA
Re:He should have faught. (Score:4, Interesting)
His particular product is effectively an information tool. It was designed to catalog information and present it to potential users.
RIAA's legal action is effectively a gag order. It says, "You can't say anything because it may be against OUR interest". Thats DEFINITELY a FREE SPEECH issue.
I'm wondering where his university stood on this issue. Did CS professors come out and defend his right to to this?? If not it's a bunch of BS. Any good professor would congratulate his student for creating free (and useful) software.
The only mildly beneficial aspect of this case is that this isn't a ruling. It cannot be used as legal precedent in court. The issue over search engines and whether they're covered under DMCA is still open.
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. It is a contract issue. Why doesn't anyone understand that "free speech" only applies to the government not being able to censor speech. If you write an article critical of the government and the newspaper decides to publish it, the government can not come in and tell the paper to remove it. That is free speech. If you write an artle critical of the govennment, newspaper, your dog... whatever and the newspaper refuses to publish it--thats business--you can always try to buy ad space but it is not a "free speech" issue.
If you sign a contract (legal settlement) and agree to do or not do something then it is something that you agreed to in a contract in exchange for some consideration and has nothing to do with free speech.
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Interesting)
If we can't write bug-free code, I certainly don't imagine legislators can produce bug-free legislation.
The primary purpose of common law is to allow for errors and omissions in legislation to be corrected by recourse to common sense and long-accepted principles in interpretation of that legislation. Lose the common law, and you lose the last vestiges of freedom.
For example: in the UK all public highways are property of the Crown ("the Queen's Highway"). The right of ordinary citizens to use public highways ("right of way") is primarily enshrined in common law. Thus any law which could be interpreted by the police as permitting them to deny right of way to certain people on grounds of societal prejudice could be overturned on the grounds that such interpretation (and possibly the legislation itself) was contrary to common law.
Of course, in practice a case may be dragged all the way to the House of Lords ( == highest court) over a period of years before such a ruling is made, but it's nice to know that a magistrates' court ( == lowest court) can't just say "That's what it says in the book, so you can't appeal".
Re:He should have faught. (Score:5, Insightful)
And just who <COUGH!>CBDTPA</COUGH!> will oversee <COUGH!>DMCA</COUGH!> the legislature? <COUGH!>SBCTEA</COUGH!>
Eliminating the common law system would allow Congress and the Executive Branch free rein to trample our rights because doing so would eliminate the only one of the "checks & balances" with the power to declare a statute, executive order or other official act unconstitutional. Just how much do you trust your elected representatives to represent your interests over those of the large corporations who have the money to pay LARGE bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H"campaign contributions" into the "reelection" kitty.
Re:Pay them $12,000 alright, in *cents* (Score:5, Funny)
With a bigass note that says (drum roll please)
CHANGE YOUR WAYS!!!
Re:Chewplastic.com? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chewplastic.com? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chewplastic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing I'm not getting, is how is this good for the music industry?
Sure, they're bullying college students, who are indecently the target audience for a lot of the stuff they produce. They might make a few grad here and there, but this is the worst possible publicity they could EVER hope for.
In yet another move to demonstrate how woefully behind the times they are, they have beaten yet another college student into submission. That's good. But I would be willing to bet that there are probably a few hundred more college students who will never buy another CD as a result of this.
I think the reason sales of CD's are down is because people are disgusted with the behavior of the Music industry. In particular, the RIAA has acted in a manner that is not only disturbing, but only questionably legal.
Wouldn't it make sense that in a time of slower sales, that they would be focusing their efforts on promotion of their products, R&D product development, cheap sales ploys to get people to.. I don't know... buy stuff? This pre-occupation with internet file sharing is not only in bad taste, but it's a complete waste of resources.
Re:Chewplastic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, RIAA, you wanted to make sure a whole class of people never, ever buy another new CD? You got it.
So He Paid Nothing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So He Paid Nothing? (Score:5, Funny)
You weren't drinking enough. My life savings were beyond zero and well into the negative.
So...under this settlement, that means they would pay me, right?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:So He Paid Nothing? (Score:5, Funny)
What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing Yahoo because someone found copyright material on an unauthorized page? GASP!
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing Yahoo because someone found copyright material on an unauthorized page? GASP!
Won't happen. Google and Yahoo are companies that can afford lawyers. They can afford litigation costs, whereas the poor college student can't. Him only giving over his life savings was probally a bargin for his point of view, since he didn't have to pay a lawyer to sit though an actual trial.
Remember, the wolves go for the weak caribu first. When they go for the strong ones, they have to spend a lot of energy running it down, and it isn't worth it to them.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA apears to want to put the fear to create any sort of software than can in any way be used to diminish their earnings, no matter what else it can be used for, into all programmers worldwide.
Bullying individuals, is not only cheaper for RIAA than attacking companies with adequate legal defense capabilities, is is sending the message to programmers worldwide just as well or maybe even better, because the victims are more like you and me.
Why didn't university help him?
Were they afraid to help him, or just plain indifferent?
It would seem that morally the right thing for the university to do would be to pay for an adequate legal defense and counter attack for their student, because the student has been a very good example for the other students in the university by creating a usefull piece of software for the benefit of his fellow students, and are being victimized because of it.
Maybe the university is afraid that if they helped the student, half the other students and their parents would be begging the university to pay their legal fees, in all sorts of cases that did not merit the universities help. We will never know, unless someone gets an interview with the persons in the university administration who made the decision not to help their student.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, to put it another way, "Just how much of a typical university's operating budget is comprised of funds from corperate sources?"
I wonder if universities are becoming less and less 'able' to help bite the hands that feed them. There've certainly been a number of high profile cases in the past 15 years where students have run afoul of corperate wishes, and the university has sided with the corperation out of contractual neccessity.
heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:heh (Score:4, Funny)
Cache of Chewplastic.com (Score:5, Informative)
The original domain is down, and he's got a Paypal link on his page to help him recover his 12 grand.
Re:Cache of Chewplastic.com (Score:5, Interesting)
when will it stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to tell you this but it's pointless. (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI I vote, it's just pointless as I contend. (Score:4, Interesting)
When the federal government takes in less money, Oklahoma suffers more. Most people don't realize we are a subsidized state (as are most of the small populated mid-western/western states).
I will if a candidate agrees with me! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd run myself, but even disregarding the money issues I'd have, there are minimum ages for members of Congress...
Show me a candidate who represents me, and I'll vote for him.
Ah now we know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody else find something wrong with that quote? His father is quite right -- by allowing him to deny all charges, they're basically saying he didn't do anything wrong...yet they take his $12,000.
Mike.
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What the RIAA said was basically this: we dont care WHAT you say, because at the end of the day you paid us $12,000 to stop taking you to court; if you think you didn't do anything, we dont give a flying fu...
This is actually quite standard in out-of-court settlements. Both sides are usually free to some regard to talk about the case, so long as the check clears. In fact, he's fortunate that they gave him complete freedom to talk, since that degree of freedom is somewhat rare.
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
barÂraÂtry Audio pronunciation of barratry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br-tr)
n. pl. barÂraÂtries
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.
3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.
Barratry is simply the judicial version of extortion. Ie, "Can't afford to fight? Whew, our accusations were groundless anyhow. That'll be 12,000$ please."
His lifes savings? (Score:5, Funny)
The news report goes on to state that the RIAA is now prowd owners of an old bike, a Pentium II numerous games, a pair of worn-out jeans and a large untidy pile of magazines.
Re:His lifes savings? (Score:4, Funny)
I am usually not a spelling Nazi, but dammit, man! How could you misspell proud!? I mean, Jesus, the w is on the other side of the keyboard! You actually had to think "W"!
Re:His lifes savings? (Score:5, Funny)
Quit targeting RPI! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I'm gonna have to start donating money to support student lawsuits rather than to build new dorms if this keeps up.
Life savings at 19? (Score:4, Funny)
Which gives me a genius idea... the only people able to operate P2P sites in the future will be minors. Great move RIAA, push teenagers into crime.
Dear RIAA, (Score:5, Interesting)
If you could please send the proper paper work we can get started ASAP. The bully only stays a bully so long, then someone comes along and beats the ever living shit out of that bully and makes them realize that they aren't allowed to be a bully any longer.
Bring it, I'm tired of you picking on all my peers and I'm ready to kick your ass. Remember when you take me to court, IT ALL COMES ON THE TABLE, and I'll subpoena everything!!!
I'm curious... (Score:5, Funny)
So, Where's the Web Site? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, you might want to tone down the "challenge" language if you really want them to take the bait. Of course, you can probably also recruit some fellow defendants from the small group of people already in the RIAA's crosshairs and make your legal defense group a bit broader. It does have the advantage of getting into the legal battles and getting some battlefield experience before becoming a target personally.
Good luck.
Screwed by RIAA, Screwed by Slashdot. (Score:5, Funny)
This world is a cruel, cruel place.
At some point it's going to backlash. (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone very wise once said "Follow the money". The major labels are the RIAA's clientelle, and I think I can reasonably assume they give their ascent to the RIAA's "business practices" (read: extortion), otherwise they'd be very upset about public relations backlash against them and their products. This backlash may happen eventually.
Now assuming that this ascent to these techniques is present, perhaps contractually, what happens when the wrong student is sued, and a very wealthy, but up to now quiet and non-pressworthy relative (such as a rich uncle that the RIAA didn't count on), steps forward and says to his nephew, "No, you are not caving, and I've secured the services of an excellent law firm that specializes in the RICO act."
As I said, follow the money. I look forward to the day when some unassuming student, that was doing nothing wrong, takes the major labels for a few billion. Yes, with a B.
Some settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
Andy is the kid's father, and he fully stands behind him, which is encouraging to read.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Apart from wondering how things have changed since I was a student that any university student can have $12,000 in savings, this just plain sucks. How the #$%^ do they get away with this? Read that again...the kid gets to pay $12,000 for the privilege of being graciously permitted to continue denying he did anything wrong!
So the RIAA knows they haven't a leg to stand on (unless you can believe they were being altruistic in not forcing a black mark on the student's permanent record -- yeah, right), and still somehow forces him to pay them all his money.
Blackmail, 'blak-"mAl
a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b : the payment that is extorted
Fear of Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just very scary how as a society we are unable to solve simple things now. I'd be afraid to open a lemonade stand because of the IRS coming down on me or someone suing me for getting sick, maybe I didn't meet some health code. And yet I probably could have made 50 people in my neighborhood happy. You're probably thinking "what does lemonade have to do with this?" A bit. Read the my first paragraph. Read the second. What kind of idea have you or a friend come up with? If not fearing the lawsuit itself, the costs associated with hiring a lawyer to make sure it's legal is certainly cost-prohibitive enough.
*sigh* I fear our great nation of innovators will be too scared to use their brains...
Re:Fear of Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sums It Up (Score:4, Insightful)
He settled
This seems a predictable outcome in a contest between Godzilla and Bambi.
Clearly, the student didn't have much money to defend himself in court, otherwise this obviously weak case would have been lost by the RIAA. If misuse of a local search engine was a crime, then may we expect RIAA to sue google for its role as people search for online music using that search engine? I don't think so.
The RIAA is reinforcing their reputation as greedy bullies, which will serve to exacerbate the problem they're trying to combat.
Re:Sums It Up (Score:5, Interesting)
In the event that the court found in the kid's favor, it is likely he could have countersued, FOR FREE, if some lawyer decided they had a good chance of reaching into the RIAA's deep pockets. The lawyer's fees would come out of the RIAA's settlement.
The way they handled this is completely stupid, in my opinion.
Grand Strategy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Upon futher reflection though, perhaps the Jordans have made a huge personal sacrifice as part of a very strategic move against the RIAA. IF, and it's a big if, the facts of the case do make it out to the public (i.e. that he was just making a search engine for the campus network, which has plenty of legitimate uses) this may be the match lighting the fuse of a popular boycott of the RIAA.
Maybe not, but whether the plan works or not, we should all donate a bit and help Jesse get his life savings back. (12000
~Kirk
Does the RIAA have a much larger plan? (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a question. Let's say that a student sets up a web-page explaining how students could use Windows' built-in Search app to find files, including MP3s, across the university's network. Would the RIAA sue the student for merely explaining how to use it?! It think they would.
Cost benefit analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
That would necessitate counter-suing, then, to recoup that $20,000, plus legal fees.
So in the end, if he wanted to fight this, he would have needed to not only argue for his innocence, but also that the RIAA was sufficiently innapropriate in suing him that they were responsible for both his legal fees (which could exceed several thousand dollars, most likely) and also his lost $20,000 from school. Conferring with a few friends who are lawyers in this field, the consensus is that to get the legal fees at least, he'd have to demonstrate far more than his innocence, but also the RIAA's foreknowledge of his innocence most likely. As for the lost $20,000, he'd have to demonstrate both the foreknowledge of his innocence, as well as an intentional effort to time their lawsuit to cause him those damages. Thats not locked in stone - different judges can apply the rules differently.
Basically, my point is that this kid lost $12,000 this way. If he had fought it, he'd have lost $20,000 at least, plus legal fees, plus potentially losing tens of thousands of dollars if he lost the court case. Worse, he could face academic punishments for failing a full courseload (that would depend on his school).
Now, I'm not saying this is fair, since I dont necessarily agree with the RIAA intentionally targetting individuals who cannot afford to fight back, but I'm just trying to make it clear to everyone here why this kid did what he did.
This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite quote from the article: "They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
Think about that next time you buy a CD and give these greedy pigs another $18.
I'm graduating (Score:5, Funny)
I'm graduating in a few weeks, here in the good old United Kingdom. My life savings....
-£12,000 student loan
-£2,500 credit card and bank overdraft
-£6,000 borrowed from parents.
£32.56 - investment account from about 20 years ago
£1.52 - current account from about 8 years ago
PIII-600, cant liquidate it cause its a tool of a trade.
come on RIAA, I've got 8,000 mp3's and a copy of "find", sue my ass so I can become bankrupt, lose all my debts, and be free with a degree!
RIAA honeypots, would that work? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Do a couple of something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=LOTR.Two.Towers.Complete.dvdrip.divx.avi
- Make a webpage with links to your fake warez and post it to search engines.
- Repeat the previous with different variations
- Wait for your ISP or the RIAA to contact you.
- Reply with a polite and legally correct letter asking for proof that you have infringed on someones copyright... This letter could be prepared by someone from the filesharing community who has studied law. Please someone fill in the details here
- Goto 1.
IANAL, would this work? A couple hundred thousand of these fake cases could perhaps force the RIAA to go after the real bad guys -- the ones that make pirating a business.Re:RIAA honeypots, would that work? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I bait the *AA into prosecuting me, falsely or otherwise, I'll lose lots of money and time defending myself. _Their_ lawyers are already budgeted for and paid. _My_ lawyers can drain my savings in a few days.
The litmus test for the merits of your little honeypot is whether you're willing to try this _yourself_ and face the risks of your own idea. Trolling for someone else to do it doesn't cut the mustard.
Independent Artists (Score:5, Insightful)
5,000 music CDs printed at a cost of 5 bucks each, and sold for 15 dollars is 50,000 dollars profit. In record contracts, usually you have to sell millions before you see an equivalent amount of money. People pay as much for a band t-shirt.
The best act of revenge against the RIAA would be to encouraged this with every local band you know. This would choke them off. Best of all, a good band could grow the business to be really huge, they would just cut out the middle men every step of the way.
If most bands did this, the big record companies would to cut back to their own traditional staples, such as classical music. And even then...
other coverage.... (Score:5, Informative)
A few weeks ago this case of the four students and the RIAA was covered:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/
Want to know what's killing the Music Industry? (Score:5, Informative)
(Please hold off your flames till you read the rest of the article...I'm *not* blaming
The reason I say that these articles are killing the music industry is that they show us the truth about the RIAA. People read articles like this and they think to themselves "There is no way in hell I'm going to give them any of my hard earned money if they're going to treat me like a criminal."
They stop recording good artists and replace them with bands that appeal to the 13-15 year old schoolgirls who will buy the CD because it's the latest fad.
They attack anyone who designs some means of sharing (or hell even *finding* files) even if MP3 isn't the frimary function of the file sharing. Honestly I'm amazed they haven't gone after the people who invented networking protocals in the first damn place.
They are more concerned about making money than they are about the art form itself, not paying attention to the fact that if they put out quality product then they *will* make money because we want to buy it.
We know what the articles read, we see them each and every day that goes by about how draconian the RIAA has become. It's these articles that are killing the RIAA's profits for they are pissing off the American Music Listener. If the RIAA wants to start making money again they need to simply do one thing...Stop pissing off your customer base and we will come back.
Otherwise I'm just going to stand there and watch the RIAA slowly die and I'm not going to give them a single penny to save them...even if that means that I never get a copy of "Weird Al" Yankovic's latest album
No Shame (Score:4, Interesting)
"You go to the site, you type in a search term, and it finds files on the network," Jordan said. Jordan compares his site to Google, the popular Internet search engine.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
But the RIAA likens Jordan's site to Napster, the now defunct song-swap service that revolutionized the distribution of music.
"The people who run these Napster networks know full well what they are doing: Operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery," Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, said in a statement issued April 3.
"The lawsuits we've filed represent an appropriate step given the seriousness of the offense," Sherman added.
[Ed: "I don't care what it is, it's ruining my business damnit!"]
"I didn't tell people what to share. I never promoted piracy," Jordan said.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
"Basically, Napster set out to create its own network specifically for music. What I did was ran a search engine on a campus network [where] the network already existed," Jordan said.
But Jordan did agree to pony up $12,000, his entire savings account, to the RIAA. Jordan and his father, Andy Jordan, felt the settlement was their best option.
[Ed: "They said they would leave me alone if I gave them everything I had."]
"They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
[Ed: "Give us everything you have and we'll forget all about it." Taking cues from Tony Saprano?]
Jesse knew students were sharing files on his network: pictures, PowerPoint presentations, physics notes, anime, and music. But he refutes the RIAA's claim he "hijacked an academic network" and "installed an emporium for music trading."
[Ed: "He's a terrorist to boot!"]
Ruining the Music Business?
Andy believes that the RIAA's intimidating tactics will undoubtedly hurt the music industry by alienating music buyers. An avid music fan for more than 40 years, he shudders at the impact this will have on the industry's most fervent fans.
"I don't know how strongly the music companies â" the people who really run the music companies â" I don't know if they realize what the impact of this misguided attempt at intimidation is going to be," Andy said.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
[Ed: Exactly what motives do you need to question? Duh.]
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
ChewPlastic.com is asking for donations to help recover the $12,000 settlement. As of June 6, the site has collected more than $1,700.
Original article:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/
This is a bad precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Sorry, dad, he didn't stand up to the schoolyard bully. Instead, he said "I'll give you all my money if you don't hit me", and it worked. This is the wrong approach. I know it's intimidating for a 19-year-old college student to be threatened by a powerful industry, but he gave in and gave them all his money. That will simply encourage the bully further, it will not help the problem.
ChewPlastic.com is asking for donations to help recover the $12,000 settlement. As of June 6, the site has collected more than $1,700.
Yeah, great. Why don't I just make that check out to the RIAA? Seriously. Tell us ahead of time next if this happens again and we'll get together a legal defense fund for him. That way the money goes to an attorney, not the RIAA.
I'm sorry to be such a jerk, but IMNSHO a settlement of this type is usually seen as a de facto confession of guilt. I understand why someone would want to back down when threatened by the RIAA, but please don't call him "brave" for doing it.
Karma to burn, damn the torpedos...
Michael
I could never settle. (Score:5, Insightful)
safe harbour? (Score:5, Insightful)
ooh, this is my first ever post. been reading for ages and just never said anything
Steal everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see this as a 2-fold effect:
(1) You deny them money to lobby and litigate, and...
(2) You destroy the hope of artists who want to make tons and tons of cash (maybe) off being signed to a music company who is aligned with the RIAA.
I think the artists are just as complicit in this as the RIAA - they create the demand for a corp. like the RIAA to exist, and they're on the front lines helping us sign our innocence away to corps. that treat us as guilty first. Yes, I feel sorry that some bands will be hurt by this action, but making a transition to a new model of music distribution and moneymaking is gonna hurt somewhere, and I believe it's going to have to hurt the artists first since any other solution seems to be a pipe-dream and blocked by greed and lobbying/litigation.
Yes, lots of people keep buying CDs. Everyone here who hates the RIAA and wants to see its end will have to do their best to steal CDs and music for all their friends and family. Be the first one to say "Hey, never mind buying the CD, I'll download you a copy and make you the CD for free."
Hell, we're being treated like criminals already. Might as well start acting like it and REALLY show them who we are.
man, this is totally fucked up (Score:4, Insightful)
Eating the weak first is a strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
But...think who the RIAA are really after. They are not after file sharing geeks regardless of the network. They are after geeks that build file sharing networks in the first place. They want to kill off the *next* napster before it is even born, by getting the message out to would-be developers that the RIAA actually *prefer* to track down and eat little people like them, and clearly have developed the staff and techniques (and moles?) to do so.
It really is horrendous and a blatant play to quash innovation in a field that is not only the next phase of the growth of the Internet, but also one that will erode the distribution Mafias of several big industrys besides the RIAA. What may be at stake here is the very concept of market control through scarcity.
I'd fight... (Score:4, Informative)
Is that "if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you" only valid in criminal cases? Can any 800lb gorilla pummel you freely in civil court? Sounds like a poor system to me, no offense intended.
Kjella
I have to agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA _is_ a bully. Someone needs to stop them.
The only thing I can do is stop buying music - which will hurt the artists I like - and listen to it on the radio. Neither truly feeding the flames, nor the coffers of the RIAA.
Re:I have to agree... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to agree... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but if the record companies don't make that advance back from sales, they recover it from the artist. Same with any publishers' advance; my father once had to pay back about 1000 GBP after disappointing sales of one of his books. That was on a 3000 GBP advance.
About 12 years ago I knew a band who had several records out, and had just returned to the UK from their second successful tour of the States. They were all signing on the dole. Heck, they came and played in a pub where I worked, in return for 10 GBP per head and free beer.
The rock'n'roll lifestyle isn't all it's cracked up to be...
Re:I have to agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of my favorite music are '70s music, ranging from pop to rock to disco, and British and Australian music ranging from pop to opera. Most of the '70s music stars are retired or semi-retired and no longer tour, so the only way I can hear their music and support the artist is to buy their CDs.
For the British and Australian music, since I live in America, it's all but impossible to go to the concerts of British and Australian musicians I like. Again, the only way I can hear their music and support the artist is to buy their CDs.
The current American music, the ones I can go to their concerts, are complete and utter crap, including both the "top 5" music labels and the independents. I can't stand most of it at all, and the rest I'll tolerate at best. So what am I to do? I don't want to support the RIAA, but if I want to hear the music I like and support the artists I like, the only option I have *is* to buy CDs issued by the "top 5" music labels.
Going to concerts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Going to concerts (Score:4, Interesting)
You can do plenty! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. You can donate to the EFF [eff.org]. You can purchase music or otherwise support artists on CD Baby [cdbaby.com], an "online record store that sells CDs by independent musicians" (not distributors). There's pleny of things you can do to thwart the efforts of the RIAA mafia.
Have it both ways. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, technically, it's still stealing, there's no denying that, but all you'd really be doing is getting the money to the people who actually deserve it, and not the crooks who are stealing from them in the first place.
If I were an artist on one of these major labels (God forbid), I'd much rather have a fan tell me that he/she downloaded my music illegally and then give me a couple of bucks out of appreciation rather than buy a CD off the rack for $17.99, and I get the nickel or dime or whatever for creating the music, while the record company makes the lion's share.
Re:Have it NEITHER way (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you see? By supporting one, you support both. The only way to fix this situation is to support artists who completely refuse to associate with the major labels or just attempt to live without all the stupid noise. Before recording technology existed, people lived their lives just fine without being subjected to never-ending soundtracks.
Or are you afraid to admit that you're addicted to their silly noise?
One last parting thought. As recently as 30 years ago, music was created by adults for adults; the "bandstand" programs were popular, middle-age adults routinely listened to music in social settings (danced to it, even!). But these consumers are a picky bunch -- they demand high quality which is difficult and expensive to produce, so the music industry has given up on adults as a lost-cause and today they're selling music by kids, for kids because children are easier to control, tempt, and addict. Think about it.
Re:I have to agree... (Score:5, Funny)
Very few articles make me angry. This one did.
Where [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] fuck [slashdot.org] have [slashdot.org] you [slashdot.org] been [slashdot.org] lately? [slashdot.org]
Re:What? No pay-pal link? (Score:4, Interesting)
(And before anyone asks, that link does actually send the money to him.)
Re:slashdot sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:silly.. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, and we know what that cult [slashdot.org]'s been up to.
Sometimes it's better to settle. (Score:4, Insightful)
What planet do you live on? Litigation is a fact of life - sometimes, people get sued. Your mission as a defendant is to make it go away. If you have a really strong case, you can make it go away by fighting and winning. If you don't, or you don't have any money, or your time is worth enough that it's too much trouble to fight it, you settle.
It works this way even in criminal cases. It's a cost-benefit analysis: do I plea-bargain to just pay a fine and get a slap on the wrist, or do I defend it and risk a higher penalty? Whether or not you did anything has little to do with it.
A good lawyer is one who advises you to settle when it would be in your best interest. Foolish pride has nothing to do with it.
ASA
Re:The lesson to be learned here (Score:5, Insightful)
He had two choices:
1) lose his life savings.
2) find a pro bono attorney and hope he doesn't lose his life savings and more.
1) The RIAA has deep pockets. He would have blown through $12k in attorney's fees in no time, had he decided to fight. I have a good attorney, and he charges $300/hr. $12k is one week of his time.
2) How many 'good' attorneys would work on a case such as this pro bono? Almost none. If the case were very high visibility (i.e. constantly in the pulbic's eye of short-sight), then he may have stood a chance of finding a good attorney who would represent him pro bono.
Re:RIAA owning the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, time to learn the basics of the legal system.
The law had nothing to do with this case. First, it was a civil suit, so don't even bother thinking about cops and FBI agents and whatnot coming to beat your door down.
Second, it didn't go to court. There was no judge involved, there was no suit, there was no precedent. They settled out of court - which may or may not have been wise of the kid. The RIAA can't use this case in a future case as proof of why someone is breaking the law and should pay them $12,000. They can use it like a bully, with unclear language saying "in a previous incident such and such paid us a large sum of money for his actions" but they can't even claim that what he did was illegal -- the settlement explicitly excluded confession of guilt.
I'm not saying (in the slightest) that the RIAA or MPAA are nice guys, or that what they're doing isn't reprehensible, but if you don't understand the way the legal system works then you will be steamrolled by lawyers if you're accused of anything similar. You can still stand up and fight the good fight if you want. Better pray you have a clued in judge though.
Re:Prescendent (Score:5, Insightful)
It only works that way if the case actually goes to court and has a ruling handed down by a judge. Out of court settlements have absolutely zero influence on the law. I don't believe any suits have actually been brought to full term - instead the RIAA has settled every single one out of court, and all (I think) without admissions of guilt. Just money. And don't bring up the last one against 3 different students -- they all settled without a judge's ruling, and none admitted guilt (yes, I checked).
Suing people doesn't make a lick of difference until a judge actually rules on a case. To date, that hasn't happened. And I think the RIAA is afraid of that honestly -- they're simply using their much larger pockets to bully the little guys into line. And, frankly, defending yourself is inadvisable. You'll wind up paying far more in legal fees than you'd have to pay them -- and your lawyer will tell you this, straight up. The RIAA can easily drag the civil suit out over a number of years - they have the lawyers on retainer and it's a minor expense to them. Having a lawyer in court 4-8 hours/month for 2-3 years could cost you nearly $60,000 for court time alone (at $200/hr, which is low). And that doesn't count time spent doing research on the case - so double or treble it.
Is it surprising people are settling? Not a bit. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb -- and you're kidding yourself if you think you do. Oh, and anyone with the resources to actually defend against this kind of thing won't be sued. They may be bullies, but they're not going to try and beat up the kid with bodyguards. Let him keep his lunch money -- there are far more undefended targets available.
Re:hummmm (Score:5, Funny)
There out of control.
There wolf.
There castle.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to talk this way.
Re:hummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Apperently RIAA has determined the best new revenue stream is racketering because that's what it is they are currently doing. We put mobster in jail for doing this, but it's perfectly legal for companies to do it. Go figure.
I nominate, if anybody happens to know it- (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Artists should leave RIAA companies... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess since it didn't contain an anti-MS, pro-Linux slant, its not newsworthy.
Re:Legal Disclaimer (Score:4, Informative)
short answer is that there was no internet privacy act signed by anyone in 1995, and the whole warez kid disclaimer thing isn't worth the bits it's stored in.
Motive and Goal (Score:5, Informative)
The goal of the RIAA is to scare people with examples to prevent the activity. It would hardly be an example if their target was a struggle, wouldn't it? They've already tried to scare the downloaders of songs. Now they are moving up the chain to those that setup the tools in their environment. If this doesn't work, they may consider a move up the chain again and sue school administration. The theory would be that school administration would put pressure on the students (various ways academic institutes can apply) to stop their activities. Perhaps deploy a strategy/policy for computer network usage to restrict it (ie IT department of the school). But this is probably an option that they wouldn't want to take since conflicts between schools and students usually end up ugly. But it would allow the RIAA to push their agenda without getting their hands too dirty, letting the schools do the dirty work for them.
"To fight the bugs, one must first understand the bugs." - StarShip Troopers