RIAA Sues 12-Year Old Girl 1872
tcp100 noted an article running at fox about
The RIAA suing a 12 Year Old girl: "'I got really scared. My stomach is all turning,' Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother."
Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they drop the case, then all of the other people they're suing will (quite publicly) ask: "How come it's okay if a 12-year-old does it, but not if I do?" Because really, if it's unjust to do it to a 12-year-old girl, it's unjust to do it to anyone. Little girls just catch the public eye more because they're sympathetic characters.
It's a lose-lose situation for the RIAA. I love it.
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that minors can't asssume debt, it's that they can't enter into legally binding contracts. That's why the cosigns are required. Credit card agreements and loans require written legal contracts.
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the mother paid $30 to allow her daughter to download music on kazaa.
This may be enough to give the Mother an out. If she can convince the court/jury in a civil trial that she paid her $30 to Kazaa in good faith for the product/service, expecting that she and her daughter could use it, then she should be able to beat the RIAA. Many everyday Joes and Janes do not have any concept what current copyright law really is, so I can see where if she paid her money, she would expect to be able to use the software. Hopefully someone will work the case pro bono for her since this would be a good case to fight.
The RIAA has and continues to make a mess of things for itself and everyone else. If they would have just taken advantage of music downloading back in the Napster days instead of acting like a bunch of Fat Ass Morons, then everyone could have been happy. Now instead of profiting, they continue to pi$$ off their current, former, and potential customers. The quicker the RIAA dies, the better off music will be.
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Greedo: Hey little girl, would you like to come home with me and share some files?
Little Girl: Eeeek! Help help help!
Ghost of Charles Bronson: Time to die little man
*bang* *bang* *bang*
Greedo: Gurgle gurgle
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
Her mom shoulda signed up with the ISP, no? So her mom is the one paying the ISP bill.
And her mom is probably the one that registered Kazaa.
And if the RIAA claims they don't know any personal details about the people they're suing -- then how did they get the name of the girl?
Unless her mom did something weird like register a bunch of credit cards in her daughter's name in order to get credit. But, nah, no one would do that
(Just curious
Did the RIAA get the 12-year-old's name? Doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've not seen anyone confirm or deny the following scenario, but I was thinking about this question this morning.
I suspect the mom, who was likely the owner of the ISP account (billed to the mom's credit card) is the one who actually had her name on the suit since the RIAA got her name through subpoena'ing the ISP. But in a brilliant PR move, the mom is telling the press that the RIAA is suing her daughter (since the mom had nothing to do personally with the copying.)
This is the only scenario that makes logical sense to me, but I'd note that it is 100% speculation.
--LP
Re:Poor? Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Poor? Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor? Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
A high-speed internet connection is a $30/mo investment in your childrens' education. Her priorities are right on track.
Re:Poor? Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know the machine wasn't a gift from a wealthy relative or a hand-me-down from a friend? Also, many apartment complexes offer built-in internet access these days. How do you know they don't live in one? Section 8 housing is in all sorts of unexpected places these days, now that the government got smart and stopped putting 1000 low-income people in one building, but rather one or two in 500 buildings. My complex offers free internet access, and also have section 8 units. Crab crab all you want, but a computer as a tool is no more an extravegance than a screwdriver or power-drill. After all, shouldn't the mom be able to create a resume to get a job with?
To put it another way, your assumption that all the people using computers are wealthy is quite erroneous.
Life imitates Art (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, someone with a billion dollars to fight back. If they are truly doing blind suing they should hit one of those sooner or later, and if they don't, that says something about this "blind suing" that they claim to be doing.
Suing blindly leads to uncomfortable lawsuits.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Try again.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they do!
My newphew is part of the video production class at school. Using older PowerPCs they produce the morning announcements, which include music clips. He is encouraged, and required to download music to add to the schools's archive of music. Not doing do would greatly affect his grade.
It goes without saying the teacher involved is doing something that could get the kids sued... it didn't change the credits reflecting that napster was responcible for providing the music, since changed to kazza.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
Leave me out of this, OK? I value my privacy and don't like being used in examples.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
I also prefer to spin around in my Ford Focus. It's easier to park, the kid usually beats me to the Porsche anyway, and it gives the folks I lay off less ammunition to call me a money grubbing SOB.
And for the record I don't use Kazaa, I use the Darwin port of Gnuetella on my Ti-Book. Just for the hard to get titles I can't find on Amazon. Hell, some Grateful dead dubs are ONLY available on the net.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't download MP3s because they lack money (at least not in all cases). They do it because they like music. They share because they have an excess of available bandwidth (which costs money), storage (which costs money), and actually subscribe to the idea that sharing is good.
The RRIA is alienating music fans because of a misperception that they are losing money due to digital media. They are like SCO, unable to competantly respond to market forces and using legal means to attempt to gain income. These despicable bastards are making me consider a boycott on recordings from their members. I buy (or bought, until the RRIA went evil) a lot of CDs, and don't share MP3s (I don't put Kazaa or other Virus-to-Peer applications on my home computers).
Its time artists took control of their creations before groups like the RRIA eliminate their fans. By the way, I don't include talentless has-been sell-outs like Metallica when I say "artists" ;)
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
"RIAA TO BEING WHIPPING CHILDREN"
In a statement released by Riaa president Slain Brosko
"After unsuccessfully using price gouging, poor music quality and then obnoxious lawsuits to drive our customers from the stores, the little bastards are still trying to buy CDs! We figure after we whip a few dozen children, they'll all learn to stay home and just download content that's being shared from other countries. Though on that front we've just heard from Donald Rumsfield that he'll loan us a couple stealth bombers to take out those little bastards too!" The president then burst into some manical laughter for a few minutes before eating a wriggling frog from jar and pulling a lever that dropped a rather cute dancing girl into the jaws of a Rancor.
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Downloading copyrighted material IS illegal, and I doubt you'll catch any higher ups doing it
I know someone who's father is the president for a very very very large IT corporation, and he's got 30gigs of mp3s available for anyone to sift through at all hours of the day. Although his father might care about this, he certainly doesn't.
Higher ups tend to have more money to spend.
Yes, but they can be just as lazy as those who aren't as rich, and it's a hell of a lot easier downloading the latest single off Kazaa than it is to walk into the store and buy the album. And did it ever occure to you that rich people might be rich because they don't like to throw money away, are thrifty, or know a good deal when they see one?
Higher ups probably don't have the knowledge to get on a P2P network, or don't care enough,
Only a fool would think someone richer is either dumber or more ignorant than they are. <sarcasm>Yeah, they probably don't even know what the internet is and still send birthday wishes via telegram.</sarcasm>
RIAA vs Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Cocaine IS illegal too. Of course, no one at the top has ever used it...
So is drinking under the legal age. Didn't stop Bushettes from being caught.
Murder is illegal too. Didn't stop Skekel from being caught.
Here's one (Score:5, Interesting)
I really hope they don't shut Napster down. I've been using it to introduct my kids to rare old stuff that you can't find anywhere else.
I looked up the story online (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cs867main.a
Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses. They must be millipedes to have all these feet they keep shooting themselves in.
OK, cheap shots aside; what will this lawsuit serve? They obviously know they won't get much money, if any, from a girl living in a city's subsidized housing system. This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.
Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not a "majority", but certainly enough to elect a president.
According to CNN [cnn.com]:
Bush received 50,456,169 popular votes.
Gore received 50,996,116 popular votes.
According to yesterday's article in the Washing ton Post (reprinted by Yahoo) [yahoo.com]:
About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services...
I think the winner is pretty clear.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, the DMCA is a bit like prohibition. Once it was enacted and the entire alcohol industry moved underground and nothing else changed. Congress later realized fighting it was stupid and a waste of time and repealed it.
File sharing has moved from the once semi-legit but mainstream napster to the semi-underground anonymity of gnutella and kazaa. Continuing the witch hunt will only drive people onto FreeNet, where they'll be virtually impossible to catch. The more they dig, the deeper underground it'll go. They can never win.
I'm not condoning any of this, just a prediction of how things will go over the next few years.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be. Traffic engineers will tell you that the speed at or below which 85 percent of the public is travelling is actually the safest [motorists.org] for a given road. Politicians and crooked police departments will tell you something very different, though, because while "majority rules" may be the safest way to set speed limits, it certainly isn't the most profitable.
Apart from that off-topic rant, the original poster does have a very good point: when the laws do not reflect the values of the populace, respect for the law in general is endangered. The DMCA is teaching today's kids the same lesson that the old Federally-mandated 55 MPH national speed limit taught me when I was a teenager: that lawmakers in this country have their heads up their asses.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you manage to find a way. Teaching your kid that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is morally wrong is a very important lesson. If people hadn't realized that we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, etc.
If you're still having trouble explaining it to the kid, maybe use this as an example: "Jimmy, you know how it's bad to push someone, most of the time? Well, if you see that somebody is about to be run over it is a good idea to push them out of the way. Laws are like that too. Most of the time they're good, but sometimes they're bad. Until you know the difference, it's probably better to think of them all as being good, but when you grow up you'll realize that sometimes they're bad."
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question for file-sharers is: at what point does sharing become a valid act of civil disobedience. For the most part, it is clear that we are not there. While I strongly believe that sharing songs, stories, ideas, and information is a natural human right (essentially the right to free speech and the right to use one's own property as one sees fit), I am not sure that sharing 1000s of copies of the latest top 40 hits really makes this point.
Personally I don't like your characterization of file sharing as "stealing". Indeed, the penalties for shoplifting a CD are lesser than those for sharing the information contained on the CD! But while the former directly deprives the store of an actual scarce good (the physical CD), the latter does not (i.e. the record company still "owns" the music and can make all the copies they like).
But as long as there are legal alternatives such as buying non-RIAA-member-produced music, you have the right approach: support alternatives. It is only in an unlikely, but perfectly possible (using "trusted computing" combined with heavy-handed DRM) future that file sharing could become an act of civil disobedience. The requirement would be that it was literally impossible for an individual or non-affiliated entity (e.g. independent record labels) to produce and distribute music, movies, stories, etc etc. However, if that does happen it is still a long way off-- and smart people will support alternatives now, so that such a future will never come about.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this point of view is unpopular here - but I don't believe in granting rights to people based on the amount of money they have, whether they have very little money or a ton of money and are looking to rake in more.
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Even someone who commits murder has not given up any rights. Rights may only be abriged through due process. The DMCA claims to abridge theses rights without providing proper due process. This is yet another unconstitutional clause of the DMCA. Unconstitutional law is not in fact law, it is null and void. The issue has simply not been brought before the supreme court yet.
I am not familiar enough with the NET act to comment on it, but I don't see the relevance in what you stated above to copyright infringement.
Traditional copyright law was never intened to criminalize individuals in non-commercial activities. It was created to provide lawsuits that seize ill-gotten profits from those who exploit a work and to redirect those profits to the copyright holder. Traditional copyright law is exceedingly effective in accomplishing this task. Traditional copyright law is effective in giving people an insentive to create.
Todays story is a perfect example of how copyright law becomes a disaster when it it improperly stretched beyond it's designed purpose. Copyright law is not supposed to smash little girls sitting at home. It is not supposed to make FELONS out of some sixty million ordinary Americans.
Copyright law is supposed to seize ill-gotten profits and turn them over to the copyright holder. This 12 year old girl in a city housing project has no "ill gotten profits".
-
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is some truth to this. However, big players like clearchannel have traditionally accepted payola from the RIAA to boost a particular's artist play time. In fact, we are at a time when most songs don't get airtime UNLESS riaa pays for them. You could almost say that File sharing services are a modern form of radio (and thus, free advertising). However, this is a control issue. The RIAA can't determine (in advance) which artist get "top downloads", therefore, they sue...
there was a point there somewhere
Re: Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
> It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.
The only thing missing is that it was on FOX instead of The Onion.
Re: Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. This would have made the thing much more credible.
Thomas Miconi
=============
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
I know her! I bought a box of Camp Girl Cookies from her! She was trying to raise enough money to buy a flag, as all they can afford is a piece of sackcloth, but they salute that raggedy old thing and sing the Star Spangled Banner at the top of their little tuberculosis ravaged voices like the bravest little patriots you've ever seen.
Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see you argue that in front of a jury of parents.
I double-dare you, in fact.
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Funny)
It's called deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)
To the extent that making and enforcing laws is "social engineering," you're right. The whole concept of private property is social engineering (see Locke's Two Treatises of Government [hanover.edu] for a detailed explanation). Most of us approve the sort of social engineering that gives us government, laws, and property. Under this system, "instilling fear" into lawbreakers is exactly what lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are about. It's called deterrence. This is one of the principal purposes of the law.
Re:It's called deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree for the most part, and it's this point of view which causes so many draconian laws to be passed.
Man is by nature a SOCIAL animal. We live by the herd. It's in our instincts (and by "our" at this point, I am speaking of people in general, NOT specific abberations) to, in essence, do what everyone else is doing. Why else do marketeers, politicians, etc try so hard to convince the "buyer" that everyone else in the world is doing something, even if, in fact, only a small fraction are? Get enough people to believe that everyone is doing something, and pretty soon, everyone WILL be doing it.
Accordingly, any child properly raised will know the mores, morals, and values of his society. You say that one of the principle purposes of law is deterrence - do you mean to suggest that, without threat of governmental punishment, people everywhere would start running around stealing and raping and burning? I certainly hope your view on humanity isn't that dismal. No, most people follow the basic rules of social conduct because its in our nature to do so, and the subliminal threat of social ostracization (known as the emotion "guilt") is FAR more of a deterrent than any stated legal penalty.
Will a starving man, looking at an unattended loaf of bread, say "Gee, I shouldn't take that. I might get locked up"? Certainly not. (in fact, in this case, the "deterrent" could serve as encouragement - jail time means a bed and three square meals) Does a man, upon seeing his wife in bed with his best friend, stop to consider the personal ramifications before pulling the trigger? I would doubt it. Do 90+% of drivers on the road every day keep EXACTLY to the speed limit out of fear of getting pulled over? (remember, 5 MPH over is STILL breaking the law) No. And in many circumstances, adhering to the speed limit is MORE dangerous - woe to the car going 55 when everyone around them is going 70.
The only way that a law is a REAL deterrent is if the penalties are orders of magnitude worse than the crime. The starving man above wouldn't hesitate to take the loaf of bread if the only penalty is jail time - but he might if he was looking at having his hand severed. A casual file trader isn't going to think twice about swapping a few MP3s, unless he's looking at penalties in the thousands or millions. However, this is NOT Justice, because if enforced, the penalty is several magnitudes worse than the crime. And a slavish adherence to overreaching punishments will lead almost inexorably (and I'm talking historically, do the research) into a police state. There hits a point where the laws are seen as justification unto themselves (ie, "If it is illegal, it MUST be immoral,") and that's when personal freedoms start going away.
This is why laws and society clash. When a government starts making laws which run contrary to the general behavior of society - like attempting to enforce a 55 mph speed limit when, as traffic engineers will tell you, traffic will generally find the correct speed on its own - it starts to create stress and social fracturing. The primary purpose of laws is, and should be, to remove those that behave contrary to the general will of society FROM that society. Murderers, rapists, rampant theives, etc. And, on the LARGER scale, society should be left to sort itself out. The only question is exactly what balance to strike between societal freedom, and legal rules governing conduct.
The alternative is a downwards spiral of ever more laws, with ever more increasing penalties.
Amnesty program (Score:5, Insightful)
What this will accomplish is to scare off all those borderline-computer-literates who found a neat program called Kazaa and thought downloading music was fun. Most of these people have never even considered the legal ramifications of what they are doing. Simply being threatened a little, or sued and then "mercifully let off" will cause people who have no interest in the issues at stake to delete their kids' Kazaa clients to make sure that never happens again. These people will then go back to watching television and shaking their head over this whole Internet thing.
Since this same demographic probably buys 80% of popular music, the score will stand: RIAA 1, angry informed minority 0.
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Informative)
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." I don't think the RIAA will care that they are going after children.
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine how the music we take for granted today would be affected if the RIAA and ASCAP existed 150 years ago. Great compositions, folk music, etc. from the 19th century would still be under copyright and inaccessible to anyone without the necessary greenbacks. Jazz artists everywhere would get sued for incorportating classic themes into their solos. Cash-strapped symphonies would need to drive away an already too-small audience with higher ticket prices. Small businesses wouldn't be able to afford to put music into their products. Hell, we probably couldn't even sing the national anthem without stuffing a dollar into the panties of some RIAA whore.
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is really bad for business, at least from my experience.
Before we were old enough to get jobs (legally) in school the kids would all save up our paper route money and buy a new tape and a pack of the-cheapest-blank-tapes-made. We couldn't afford to buy more than one new tape every couple months, so we'd copy our friends' tapes on a dual-deck cassette player and we all got our music fix. It's not like Mom was going to buy me the latest Anthrax tape.
Guess what? When we got jobs we traded up to CD's and went out and bought albums. The illicit trade of pirated materials by children had created a consumer group of adults. We were hooked at a young age and the RIAA was better off for it. To this day I've only ever downloaded songs off of Napster that were out of print, and a couple songs from a box set from the iTunes store - I like the CD quality and longevity well enough to pay for them.
Even if they don't care about engendering bad will, going after children is going to eat into their profits.
Shouldn't target RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not do what they're doing for profit. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not have the resources to fight any sort of legal action. They have said publicly that this is a fund raiser for more suits.
So, they're raising money from, and making examples of, people who will not get their day in court (becuase they can't afford to) in order to support their (often corrupt, as shown in price fixing court cases) businesses.
You don't need glasses to work it out. Maybe you could go and explain how the record companies are really trying to do the right thing to some poor, scared 12 year old they're bullying.
Get a clue, man.
gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Funny)
nip it in the bud!
Re:gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think the bell won't toll for everyone else at some point.
Re:gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Funny)
I hope so!
-John Banks
girlie mp3 warez shutdown (Score:5, Funny)
Re:girlie mp3 warez shutdown (Score:5, Funny)
Cary Sherman,
RIAA President
Hehe, spoke (Score:4, Funny)
"When reporters visited teh apartment last night, Brianna..."
WILDCAT?!? Is that yuo?!?
Says a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
You can tell a lot about the RIAA based on the fact that they are willing to pick on a 12 year old girl!
At least pick a fight with someone CLOSE to your own size.
That's just one more would-have-been future customer that how hates the RIAA and won't be buying their CDs when she has money.
Re:Says a lot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Says a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
- Oisin
Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
If the piracy continues the recording industry may we wiped out, then would would all those poor executives do? The can't all join SCO.
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Never sue poor people (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe the can take a cut of the income from her paper-route.
Good direction for discourse.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really going to help the cause against the RIAA's draconian retributive lawsuits, as it will appeal to the hearts of the populace at large. Bad PR, RIAA, baaaaad PR.
RIAA doesn't mind bad PR (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree this looks really bad on the RIAA (I don't remember minors being targetted before), but those who think this spate of publicity is going to stop them are dead wrong. They've already shown that they're willing to go to any length to kill the file-sharing phenomenon.
I can see the outcome of this case right now: The RIAA will probably have to respond to the negative publicity and probably drop the suit against the twelve-year-old girl. The rest of the cases will go on as planned. One poor target isn't going to be the downfall of their enforcement operations.
Re:Good direction for discourse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? You buy a stereo once, and get all the free music you want.
You think the average person is aware of business models behind the products and services they receieve on a daily basis?
The mother's quote at the end of the article is priceless. Of COURSE what they were doing is illegal. It's called copyright infringement. Is it theft? Hell no. But it's still illegal. I suspect the RIAA will quietly drop this case and move on to someone else who won't make them look so bad.
Everyone on this site knows it's copyright infringement. But the lines are blurred to the 'average joe'. IF you can listen and watch for free just by buying a radio/tv, why would the internet be any different? You get a FREE web browser with a computer, an have access to a lot of free information (like newspapers that you can just pick up and read at a bookstore/library), why would downloading music be viewed any differently?
Good Lord (Score:5, Funny)
And in further news, the RIAA and SCO have teamed up to kick a 6 year old's puppy. Film at 11!
Thanks for the free press, RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
This is precious, just the kind of screw-up the RIAA didn't need. They sued frickin' Tiny Tim [fidnet.com]. That's about one degree shy of suing the burlap sack boy [snopes.com]. Way to go RIAA, we couldn't buy better press.
Fox being one of the four (Score:5, Interesting)
Your grain of salt for the article:
Fox is one of the four motion picture studios in the MPAA that do not share revenue with a major U.S. record label. (The others are Disney [losingnemo.com], MGM, and Paramount.) Anything that makes the RIAA look like the bad guy benefits Fox indirectly, as every dollar spent on recorded music is a dollar not spent on a Fox movie.
City Housing Authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling Quote - Public Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
Public perception is that file sharing is NOT illegal. When there's a gap bewteen public perception and law, public perception usually wins. Public perception was that alcohol was not worthy of being banned. We no longer have prohibition. Public perception of drugs is that 'Drugs are bad, M'Kay?'. The negative effects of the drug war are felt more by non-voting minorities than the white majority, so the horrific drug crime laws we have in this country are allowed to continue.
The RIAA and other **AAs aren't convincing anyone. Young mothers and children beleive that file sharing is an OK thing to do. Therefore, it is and will continue to be. Law or no, public perception is going to win this one.
Re:Telling Quote - Public Perception (Score:5, Interesting)
The family paid the money, they just paid the wrong people.
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
I disagree with the RIAA's ability to serve its own subpoenas, and this article might throw a little sympathy Brianna's way, but let's be totally honest here. Yes, Mrs. Torres, your daughter was doing something illegal. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Re:"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" (Score:5, Insightful)
You, of course, have never:
But wait! Those last two are legal now. Kind of. Sort of. Maybe. But only because case law precedent has decided so.
See, in the US, they aren't actually legal, it's just vanishingly unlikely that you'll be successfully prosecuted for doing them.
Do you begin to see how this works yet?
Parents' responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
My first reaction was "they won't pursue this". But consider the reason behind these lawsuits: to make an example of people. Now they can also show that parents are responsible for their kids' downloading. Obviously the family can't pay out too much, but don't expect them to be let off the hook.
Not sayin' I agree with it... I'm just sayin'
Why the child? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad Media for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking about the possiblity of something like this last night when I was listening to NPR's report on the RIAA. All these lawsuits and going after downloaders have already created a bad identity for record labels. Before all this, most people didn't know about the labels, they primarily knew the about the artists. Now there are major negative connotations with the labels.
So, now the primary demographic they need to spend money, teens and college students, will now associate labels with persecuting them, asking colleges to violate their privacy, suing a 12-year old, and going after grandpa. Grandparents, a large part of the senior citizen voting group, will start to see themselves as potential victims.
If the studios want to make money from selling CDs again, they need to both drop the price and start really creating albums again. I remember albums that were created very well that the flow from song to song made listening to the album a joy, but now with pushing the crap they are now, they make an album just a collection of tracks of which one or two might be neat to listen to for a few months.
The RIAA needs to sack the lawyers and send their marketing people back to school for the fundamentals.
A diffirent view (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't be the popular one around here, but I thought this quote was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The mother thinks the daughter's age allows her (the daughter) to do whatever she wishes! Hey, she's 12, give her a gun and tell her to shoot the number - it's not like she's doing anything illegal, she's a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud!
As the law stands, she IS doing something illegal and the law is (pseudo) blind to age.
This has been all over the NYC radio news this morning, and yes, they are slanting it towards Brianna being the victim.
(Don't mod me a Troll, just because I have a slightly different opinion...)
Bad for RIAA, good for the rest of us (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad it won't last. This particular case will get resolved as quickly and quietly as possible. You'll be able to feel the breeze from the RIAA quickly brushing it under the rug. Or, worse, if they're smart they will dismiss all charges (and give little Brianna lots of free music) in exchange for her too-cute 200-word essay on "Why Filesharing Is Wrong".
The EFF and other RIAA opponents could get heavy mileage out of this case if they tried, but I fear they just aren't coordinated enough to counter the RIAA's spin.
It's also a matter of computer EDUCATION... (Score:5, Insightful)
She's paying $29.95 for KaZaA service. Now, unless they paid for the application (didn't specify), maybe they were referring to their ISP service? Kinda like when users point at their computer and say "My modem".
Dig deeper (paraphrase):
"We just listen to the songs and then just let them go. We don't save them."
Obviously these folks do not realize that KaZaA saves the files to their harddrive and automatically "shares" them. They don't even know they still have the song! Not to mention that they probably download the song over and over if they want to hear it again. Don't laugh, I've seen my dad do that. He didn't know, literally, that just because he downloaded a song via napster that he still "had it" and had no idea on how to find it if he didn't use Napster to get to it.
I cringe at the thought that my own dad can't use a computer and has no inclination to learn. I've literally shown him a dozen-times how to open up windows explorer and browse through to find stuff, but he doesn't use his computer very often and by the time he wants to find something, he's forgotten again. It's not that he's stupid (to the contrary, he's a professional musician, a retired machinist, etc etc), it's just that computers are something he very rarely uses and he just doesn't have the dedication it requires to learn the basics.
But that's Joe Average User.
This little girl might know a bit about IM and kazaa and how to use Internet Explorer, but I doubt it goes much beyond that.
In oher news (Score:5, Funny)
A RIAA representative said "SInce this kid is not going to forget this lullaby ever again, were thinking of lobotomizing it so we get back our intellectual property"
Jury Nulliffication (Score:5, Informative)
So what is jury nullification? It is the principle that jury's may find a defendent "not guilty" if the law is unjust. This harkens back to British colonial days and is the primary reason we have juries in the Bill of Rights: both the defendent AND the law are judged. It is the Peoples' last check against unjust law when the three branches of government fail.
A prominent case of this was when William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was charged with assembling Quakers for worship when only the Church of England was permitted to assemble. (Again, pre-Revolution colonial days.) Though the jury found that he did indeed do just that, they gave a "not guilty" verdict on the grounds that the law was unjust. The judge held the jury without food and water for a couple of days and imposed fines, demanding that they give a "guilty" verdict, but they refused to budge. Events like this are what inspired our nation's founders to recognize the right of juries over the judge and the law. Jury nullifications also played an important role in overturning Prohibition. Juries often ruled against the law even when finding that the law had been broken, thus making Prohibition unenforceable, and I believe some regions of the nation still regularly have non-violent marijuana prosecutions lost due to jury nullification.
Jury's are unfortunately not informed of this right when they go to trial. I believe during the slave days the government realized that it was near impossible to get a conviction for violating the Fugitive Slave Act since people in the northern state juries, which was the only place the law really had any use, would rule "not guilty" on the grounds that the law was unjust. And so the government sadly decided to stop telling juries of their right to jury nullification.
So how does this apply to the RIAA? Well if enough 12 year olds, or any one else for that matter, being sued millions of dollars for downloading music take it to court then the People (ie-the juries) could toss out the cases as being unjust. Given enough of these rulings, the law could be forced to change to reflect what the People consider just or the RIAA could be forced to change tactics. Though this will remain unlikely if we do not go back to informing juries of their rights. (Plus stacking the jury by having the prosecution quiz them instead of making it truly random also undermines things...) So write to your state and federal legislative representatives today and demand that they pass laws requiring judges to inform juries of their "jury nullification" rights!
Lack of RESPECT for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people on slashdot point out that copyright infringement is against the law and that file sharers are the problem.
In my two above linked past postings, I argue that file sharing is merely a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that nobody respects copyright anymore. And it is only going to get worse.
If copyright holders want some respect, they need to act in a fashion deserving of such respect. Let's see. We have
I just don't care about copyright. Sort of like prohibition. If the copyright holders, like the government, want respect, then they need to set a better example.
What is the purpose of copyright? When does anything ever fall into the public domain?
In my above linked posts I argue that...
- It is not that people don't understand that what they are doing is illegal, it's that they don't care. There is no respect for copyright or copyright law.
- Someone argued that the RIAA will put fear into them and that this would fix the problem. The problem is not lack of fear, it is lack of respect. The RIAA may generate more fear, but they will at the same time get even less respect.
- The only way the problem will really get fixed is to fix the broken copyright (and patent) system.
- The RIAA is fighting a losing battle. They are guaranteed to lose. (We now have alcohol to drink, and a 70 MPH speed limit on roads where it matters.)
- Someone pointed out that slashdot is full of knee jerk paranoia. I responded to that in one of my above linked posts with a long list of the abuses that justify such paranoia. They ARE out to get us.
The latest efforts seem to be that even mere compilations of facts should be able to be copyrighted.The Moral Is... (Score:5, Funny)
Time for EFF to do a "reverse-sting" - have 12-year old girls pose as 35 year-old male file-sharers with the goal of drawing more RIAA lawsuits.
(The reciprocal of how law-enforcement snags pedophiles in chat rooms - they have 35 year-old men posing as 12 year-old girls).
Culture! Think about the culture. (Score:5, Insightful)
Law = collective prejudices of society (Score:5, Insightful)
If a sufficiently large number of people - more than it takes to elect a president, say - do not understand a law or its basis to the extent that they regularly break it, eventually it falls into desuetude. That's why Prohibition ended: it was unenforceable. Equally, if enough people decide that certain people shall not be rewarded for certain activities, that business plan is doomed. (and vice versa, of course, hence the fruits of the cult of celebrity.) In the UK, you cannot legally make money selling handguns to people. In the US you can. I do not believe there is any absolute moral standard for this difference: it reflects different views of different societies. If the RIAA pushes things to the point that a lot of people turn round and say, in effect "We didn't understand that was what copyright meant. Now we do, and it sucks", then ultimately that business model will fall.
Perhaps successful musicians will only be rewarded for live performances. Perhaps music will only be sold in conjunction with some other service, as has been suggested by the guy who thought the telecoms companies should buy up the studios. Just as a record company can lay off an exec because of a downturn, incompetence or whatever, we the people can decide to lay off an industry. When we started to travel by air, the railways could not impose a tax on air travelers to recover their lost revenue. But the airlines were certainly taking away the railways' monopoly on long distance intracontinental travel.
I think one thing that obsesses some people here is the idea that the most sacred thing there is, is property, and that anything which apparently removes my property is theft. (Strangely, many of them will claim to belong to a religion whose founder was extremely anti-property, but I leave that one for the psychoanalysts.) Yet things are constantly encroaching on my property. It gets old, it wears out, it falls out of fashion, and one day I will die and it will cease to be mine in any very meaningful sense. Somehow, the suits in the RIAA need to realise that they need to adapt to society, rather than the other way round. But they won't...they are actually frightened, and behaving like frightened men in a position of power.
Times change (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a 12-year old girl in 'government housing' is being sued seems to indicate that the file-sharing issue is not an 18-24 age group issue. It is apparant to me that people of ALL ages are sharing files, some of which are music.
I had an argument with a friend of mine recently. He lives in LA, and is, like EVERYONE there, it would seem, affiliated loosely with the entertainment industry. His stance was that the artists are working and ought to be paid. If not for the RIAA, their music wouldn't get distribution. To make money, they require distribution, and the RIAA is the only one in town through whom they can find it.
My perspective, being in Michigan, unaffiliated with the music business, experienced with technology and trained in the performing arts (theatre degree--marketable as galoshes in the Mojave), is vastly different. I understand that artists, like everyone, are working for pay. However, the advance of technology has been marginalizing the RIAA/record producers for some time now. I believe that technology has come to the point where artists, assuming they are enterprising and not lazy asses, can entirely circumvent the recording houses. Sure, they might not have instant distribution, but AFAI am concerned, when they take it upon themselves to market themselves and what art they have produced, any success is well-earned and not as likely to crumble or fade, as would an artificial creation of the industry (Menudo, Brittney, Tiffany, etc.). Additionally, since they chart their own course, they are free to take whatever artistic tangent they care to explore. In my opinion, the RIAA stifles artistic expression in all but the few artists whom they have contracted whilst on cocaine binges, and who would sign anything to get more blow.
I can't really elaborate any better, seeing as my boss is sure to see me typing madly on non-company business. But, in short, I believe that the RIAA, etc., are close to joining the buggy whip industry: their raison d'etre is about to expire, thanks to technological advances, and their realization of this threat of extinction is evidenced by their willingness to blindly sue a 12-year old, financially disenfranchised girl. When a corporation feels it must go after kids to get its pound of flesh, I believe that its social contract to provide whatever useful services to society has effectively expired or must be revoked.
The Defense Arguments will be Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
The defense arguments will be interesting when they undoubtably say the clients didn't have the technical knowledge to understand that "download and listen" really means "download and provide." It's possible that users deleting the file transfer log line in Kaaza (erm, not that I know what that is or have ever seen it before) may have assumed the file was gone too. But lo, the hundreds of songs they "just listened to" were saved and now available for mass download from their machine by the whole world.
Sheesh this is going to be fun!
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IS OUT OF CONTROL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wheels, incandescent lights, circuits, building materials, plastics, adhesives, machines, our knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology. Everything we know, understand, and utilize as a culture is all based upon the intellectual developments of preceding generations.
To suggest otherwise is to start history at a convenient point.
The great composers adapted ancient folk songs into their work. Jazz musicians then played wonderful creative games with the works of great composers. And then the Rolling Stones came along and claimed ownership over those jazz standards. Anyone who believes in the right-of-ownership in pop melodies has a very small understanding of music composition.
Can you imagine how stifled creativity and progress would have been if the "wheel" was patented.
The lawyers and the big corporations are attempting to create ownership over our cultural heritage, and ultimately they are trying to maintain in unsustainable business model in the face of new technological developments. It is neither our national responsibility nor our legal right to maintain business models that have been surpassed by technological evolution.
And remember: 99.999999% of musicians in the world are doing it for free because they love music. (Myself included).
Peace.
It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like we finally have a case that'll make this circus stop.
The best part: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, except for her name," Weiss then went on to say. "And her address. And phone number. And her Kazaa details, and who her ISP is, and a bunch of the stuff she downloaded. Nothing except for that."
Re:Media Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:haha suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In case of /.'ing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In case of /.'ing (Score:5, Interesting)
CNN - Owned by AOL Time Warner (Warner Music, etc.).
MSNBC - Joint Venture with Microsoft (not about to attacked RIAA).
ABC News - Owned by Disney (we know how they feel about Copyrights).
CBS News - Owned by Viacom (also owns MTV)
Fox, as far as I can tell, is the only one not totally in bed with the RIAA and if there is anybody who can piss them off and get away with it it is Rupert Murdoch.
Re:Why so much per song? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, if you make a copy of a book, sell 100 copies, and get caught, you can be sued for 15 million dollars by the publisher.