RIAA Sues a Child 1093
dniq writes "You may remember the previously posted story about a case against a mother, which was dropped by the RIAA right after her lawyers moved to dismiss the case.
Well, guess what? The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the mother's daughter - now a 14 year old girl - and moved for appointment of a guardian at litem."
This sort of thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
See WMD, video games consoles are all sold at loss, Apple is dying, BSD too and others that I have forgotten...
Life is getting soooo boring...
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and also add "downloading stuff without paying for it is OK because the product sucks and I wouldn't buy anyway."
But if it sucks so bad, why are people downloading it in the first place.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse morality with legality. Their separation is at the core of our legal system's methods for making itself fair and impartial--the rule of law evaluated by balanced minds.
That said, I don't think the existing copyright regime is morally justifiable either.
My copying of another's work costs them nothing, it's not like stealing their car. You do not have a right to be reimbursed by what you percieve to be an opportunity cost. Simply put, the opportunity wasn't there. Legislating to create value where there is otherwise none is an abuse of law and government, plain and simple. This is obviously not "theft".
Once you make something public, you lose control over it. Copyright used to balance the public's interests with yours by giving you limited protection. As usual it seems people have extrapolated this to mean that it's a "right", that they're "entitled to", that duplicating "intellectual property" is theft, and basically missing that loss of control of published works is a fact of life.
Current law extends some copyrights to the author's lifetime plus ninety years. Current law protects "work for hire" more than work you do for yourself. Current law doesn't limit copyright protection once the work is no longer owned by its creator. It is not balanced and blatantly designed to turn information into a commodity.
This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything to do with Disney keeping their mouse. Just face that in the world of modern publishing, the original terms of copyright might actually be too long. If you can't make your money off of your work in five to ten years, I don't find anything that compels me to keep it out of the public domain. I think that this has benefits beyond compilations of Back Street Boys songs and old women trading cookbooks. How different would your world be if Microsoft Windows 95 had just gone into the public domain in 2005 (not necessarily the source, just the binary even)? We're increasingly giving people (and unfortunately corporations) more control over one another when we should be doing the opposite.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which would be fine, if you'd actually be willing to back up your "principles" with some actual sacrifice. Otherwise, you're just an overpriveliged whiner who's trying to rationalize grabbing something valuable without paying.
If you want to fight it, fight it, but I'd put fair money down that your exasperated tone is more a product of consistently defending and rationalizing your illegal downloading (be it theft, theft of services, infringement, whatever) than the weariness that comes from championing your cause legitimately.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it, copyright holders are deprived of that income.
Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would neve
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had.
2. No matter if he would pay or not, the correct term is still "copyright infringement". The word "theft" covers *removing* something from a person, and to remove something, he had to have it in the first place.
3. Disagreeing with using the word "theft" is not the same as agreeing with illegal copying. Personally I would be happy if illegal copying didn't exist at all, but that doesn't mean that I want the RIAA and their fans (that includes you, apparently) to pollute the language by using the wrong words to deliberately confuse the case. In the normal usage of words, it is not theft, it's copying. In the legal sense, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. It's only theft in your fantasy, and the fantasy of the RIAA.
4. Two people disagreeing is not called a hypocrisy. Slashdot is not a person, it's a message board with lots of different people who have different oppinions, and who post on different topics. The GPL fans who don't care about the RIAA-topics have one oppinion, and the Kazaa-fans who don't care about the GPL-topics have a different oppinion.
5. In conclusion, how about learning the language before you post? Let me just list the words you have confused in your post:
Income vs Potential income.
Theft vs Copyright infringement.
Hypocrisis vs Different oppinions.
Please learn the differences. Then you'd be able to sound like an intelligent person and not just an RIAA marketing guy.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
This claim does not hold.
Firstly, It has yet to be shown that RandomDownloaderX would have paid for it, rather than just never hearing it at all. RIAA propaganda, nothing more.
Secondly, unless the money or something tangible was IN their possession already, it is not theft (see below). They are not providing "services." By their own propaganda, they are selling "licenses to listen to music." Doing something without a license may be illegal, but is not theft.
Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.
"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for. It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft." "Income" is only such AFTER it is in the hands of the one earning it. Until that point, GP is right, it is "*potential* income," so unless the downloaders are reaching into the RIAA's pockets and pulling out wads of cash, they aren't committing "theft" there either.
"Intellectual property" is a confusing term (Score:5, Informative)
Intellectual Propert - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.
You just lumped copyrights, patents, trademarks (which you call "appellations of origins"), and trade secrets (which you call "business methods, and industrial processes") into one category. Those rights are more different than alike, and for this reason, many critics discourage use of the umbrella term "intellectual property" to conflate them [gnu.org].
Intellectual property is a term used by a great many people to cover well, all of intellectual property.
The term "intellectual property" is not used in the United States Code, and for a good reason: the different exclusive rights that make it up have different purposes and raise entirely different sets of public policy issues.
Let's look at the ways to possible hear content:
...
1. CD's and cassettes (if they still exist) that you purchase at the store.
2. Legally Downloaded music from a store like iTunes.
3. Television and Radio with the host of radio stations and the few television radio stations.
4. Illegally downloaded music.
it items 1-3 money gets back to the RIAA, in element 4 it does not. This means that the RIAA is being deprived of income.
You forgot live shows. Do you claim that live shows should be just as unlawful as element 4 because like element 4, they don't result in a lot of revenue going back to the label?
Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks.
No, they are hurting the ratings for Music_Radio_And_Music_TV_In_General. Those services that are full of illicit file-sharing have their own ratings.
So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property that IP has.
But they are against you when it comes to the conflation of different legal traditions into "intellectual property". For instance, the court in Sega v. Accolade ruled that you can't use copyrights or trademarks to simulate a patent, and this was upheld post-DMCA in Lexmark v. Static Control.
sharing music in the P2P manner is ILLEGAL.
Is it still prohibited even if such noncommercial sharing has been authorized by the author using a license such as CC by-nd-nc? Or do you claim that independent authors of musical works do not have the authority to grant such a license because they can't prove that their work is original [slashdot.org]?
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
*Potential* income, and I would potentially own a Ferrari, if it wasn't for these meddling kids.
"2)Income is a thing...A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property".
When your copyright expires has the public domain stolen your intellectual property?
"Intellectual property" the phrase is just a soundbite designed to confuse the legal constructs of patent, copyright and trademark with that of possession.
"Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright."
This infringment is by a legal minor, a legal minor is a legal minor because children are not considered capable of making clear rational decisions. GPL violations are not done by legal minors because legal minors can't enter into the GPL contract. Even if it was the same person, the situations are clearly not the same.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Theft [wikipedia.org] or stealing are the words used to describe the common law property tort [wikipedia.org] of conversion [wikipedia.org], which involves infringing a person's right to a chattel [wikipedia.org] (that is, personal property). The crime of theft involves unauthorised use and the intent to deprive.
In copyright infringement [wikipedia.org] the copyright holder cannot be deprived. His positions before and after the instant of the infringing action are identical, as no damage (that is, real loss) has been suffered. In Dowling v United States [wikipedia.org] the US Supreme Court found that "the rights of a copyright holder are 'different' from the rights of owners of other kinds of property". In other words, copyright infringement is not theft. This is one of the reasons that the phrase "intellectual property" is a misnomer.
Direct copyright infringement on the other hand is a strict liability tort. Liabilities that arise are the responsibility of the person who performed the act, irrespective of where the fault (culpability) lies. Strict liability does not necessarily make an action a crime.
So simply having an unlicensed copy of a work is sufficient to demonstrate the tort of strict liability, but possession of stolen property is insufficient to demonstrate theft.
The problem is determining what the liability is. In some countries the liability for copyright is determined by statute, and this is part of the problem behind the RIAA's actions.
First, there is a huge distinction between income and potential income. If person X copies a song, this is not evidence that person X would have bought the song in the absence of the option to copy it. Even if we assumed that it was, the actual damage to the copyright holder is limited to the net profit that would have been made off the purchase of one license (not the retail value of an album, as the RIAA would have you believe). Furthermore, noone other than the copyright holder has a claim -- retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and publishers may not have benefitted from an album sale because of the infringement, but they are not entitled to a strict liability tort.
US law provides for statutory damages of "at least $750" per work. Compare that to the estimated $1 net profit the copyright holder will make per copy sold. It pays the RIAA enormously to claim the infringement of (say) 829 works with associated damages of either $30,000 or $150,000 (depending on how they make the claim) ... compared to the $829 their members would make from legitimate sales of the same works.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Informative)
This still doesn't cover copyright infringement.
Theft of services means you agreed to have someone perform a service for you, like a doctor's examination, and that person expended their time and labor fulfilling that agreement. When you skip out on paying them, that is theft of service.
In the case of theft of service, the doctor has expended time and physical labor performing the service specifically for you, and there is external, independent evidence that that's the case. You have interacted with the person performing the service.
In the case of copyright infringement, there isn't necessarily any interaction with the copyright owner. The copyright owner has no way of even knowing about the infringement without snooping into your private life to uncover it.
Here's yet another way to look at it: service is a limited, finite resource. The doctor has limited time. The theatre you sneak into has limited seats. Like physical property, theft of service is taking away something the provider had (time, physical space to rent, etc.) and no longer has as a result of the theft. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, involves an infinite, unlimited resource. In and of itself, the act of making a copy has absolutely no effect on the copyright owner and deprives the copyright owner of nothing that the owner had before the infringement took place.
So, theft is truely the wrong word for this act and very misleading. That isn't to say that, because of its constant use in the wrong sense, it will not come to acquire that meaning (since language ultimately depends on common usage), but currently it is a biased and purposely misleading word when used to describe copyright infringement.
All of the above, by the way, has nothing to do with the ethics or legality of copyright infringement. That is an entirely different issue. But it is important to distinguish it from theft before such discussions even begin, if those discussions are going to be rational.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a law student, and let me tell you, we're not taught to lie. And in the end, its the RIAA management that drives this first, then the lawyers involved. The bottom line is there'd be no litigation if RIAA management didn't want it. Besides, the lawyers here are working for the RIAA to stop people from downloading music they didn't pay for. The RIAA may be all that is soulless and wrong in how it operates, but you can't sit here and tell me that their desire to have people pay for their music is wrong. Suing a kid might be wrong, but the parent should've taken responsibility long ago.
Would I personally choose to plead this case? Absolutely not, I don't think its right to sue a family into oblivion for this. That would be economic waste, in my opinion. So while I disagree with their method of action, I don't disagree with them trying to prevent filesharing of their copyrighted works. If I were the RIAA's counsel, my advice to them would be not to sue, but to get with the times and update their business model. It's quite outdated, and that's what's driving this.
Lawyers and fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. But you *do* work in a field where it is very beneficial to use loaded rhetoric. This is not your fault -- as long as juries are going to respond to emotional arguments instead of being coolly factual, if you don't do it, the other side is going to do so, and there's no mechanism in the legal system to dissuade lawyers from using loaded rhetoric.
The real complaint (why people tend to transfer a lot of their anger onto lawyers) is that it's fucking hard to build a perfect system for resolving issues between people. Pull juries out of a system, and you establish a class of judges as incredibly powerful. So, given that, it's really hard to take Joe Average and make him intelligent, analytical, and thoughtful to the point where a guy whose professional is to convince Joe Average of one side of a case can't make his point. Now, what's the guy on the *other* side of the case going to do? Be purely factual and keep losing cases? No -- that's an unstable system. He's going to use rhetoric too.
The masses see that something isn't perfect and choose to focus on lawyers, because they're the most visible target. Hence, "Lawyers are Evil". It becomes a common mantra after a while.
If I had to make one suggestion that would improve the quality of our legal system immensely, it would be to change two things (both of which lawyers would oppose, so not likely to happen):
*) Plaintiff never gets punitive damages above a certain (small) amount. Any punitive wins in this class get used by a state-run organization to help avoid future problems of this sort. This eliminates the massive, multi-million dollar "lottery" wins for plaintiffs and lawyers that make abuse of the legal system so profitable.
*) Indirect and direct profits to lawyers in class action suits get capped. Yes, in very extreme cases, this *could* limit the likelihood of some independent law firms going out against some big corporate-backed lawyers with tons of funding, but, for instance, the Big Tobacco lawsuit was absurd. Class actions should not be a lottery system for lawyers.
I'm not against lawyers making a good living -- they work in a highly specialized field and have to be knowledgeable and skilled. They're important to the functioning of society. What I *don't* like is that a select few make phenomenal amounts of money through abusing the legal system. Putting social pressure on lawyers to not do this is useless, because it doesn't matter what the masses of lawyers do; only what the few that cause problems do.
Re:Lawyers and fault (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that it was phenomenally profitable for the lawyers involved (I've seen numbers quoted for up to a sixth of the payout going to lawyers involved, which is insane) *is* a problem. It encourages lawyers to take on class action and other suits for *anything*, which results in companies doing utterly stupid things "to avoid liability". I'm not talking about common sense things like "don't sell addictive, cancer-causing things to people", but things like "No, I can't have an employee drive you to the airport because of *liability*."
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
So in effect I have deprived artists and studios of potential income too.
As does every reviewer who dissuades a potential purchaser.
If we are saying it is perfectly acceptable to sue anyone who takes potential income from you then society would be in a lot of trouble. The lottery would have to go, as would interviewing for jobs....
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Until then, I'd really suggest you not make blanket statements for which you are not logically equipped to back up.
Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it
Used music purchases are often against the "wishes" of the copyright holder, do not benefit the copyright holder, and deprive the copyright holder 'income'. Copyright law wasn't about protecting holder's incomes, in fact it was really the opposite. Copyright law was designed to force things into the public domain, as the common law at the time allowed for the argument of perpetual copyright. It isn't until recently that there is all this crying over derivative works, insanely long copyright terms and instant copyright of everything without application and without application for extensions. These benefit the corporations, the holders, and do not benefit the people or public in any way. It undermines the public domain and reduces creative possibilities.
Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.
Actually it is a valid argument. If those in favor of stringent copyright laws want to argue in favor of "lost sales" without providing any proof to the matter other than made up numbers, then yes, the otherside can say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
I'm not against copyright and I do believe that creators deserve protection. But there needs to modifications to take into account current technology, and the lifetime of a copyright needs to be severly reduced to encourage innovation and allow the public domain, and thus the public, to flourish. And, contrary to what people want you to believe, the point of the following line is to LIMIT the term of IP protection: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Informative)
No no no. Real piracy involves ships and assorted pirate accessories (for the modern-day pirate, that means small arms, for the more historically-inclined pirate, muskets, swords, cannons, eyepatches and parrots). And usually plenty of violence, keel-hauling and making people walk the plank.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
>> Whenever it deals with something under the GPL being infringed.
No, violation of the GPL is not theft - it is violation of a gentleperson's agreement to give back what you take. Mainly, it is commercial and closed-source exploitation of ideas that belong to everyone that has given to the project in question. So people get angry because their work is being used counter to an agreement while simultaneously being denied access to closed source information based on their collective work. That's exactly why Stallman wanted the GPL in the first place. You have to play nice.
Bringing up the GPL specifically raises the issues of commercial versus non-commercial exploitation of ideas, and I think it's useful to think about those things.
When congress created copyrights in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, they did so with the following limitations: "the Congress shall have power . .
Okay, so let's get this nice and tidy.
1. The idea of copyrights doesn't exist by itself, separate from the legal entity that creates it - in our case copyrights are very closely linked to certain ideas in the U.S. Constitution, ideas like the "public domain" and the promotion of science and the useful arts.
2. Copyrights were originally intended to secure monopolistic commercial rights to a given work for 14 years, at which time it could be renewed (presumably if the copyright was understood to still be commercially useful) for another 14 years.
3. When a copyright lapsed, the work in question entered the public domain so that the ideas that had proven useful could stimulate creativity and advancements in science and the "useful arts."
We are living in a world where this careful balancing act of competing ideas and needs as originally intended has utterly collapsed in favor of meeting the needs of the deathless and psychopathic "persons" we call corporations, which now have most of the rights of individuals and some we never dreamed of attaining (like the possibility of virtual immortality as enjoyed by the likes of Lloyd's). It makes sense to a deathless entity like a corporation to want copyrights to be extended nearly forever if it can get those kinds of rights legislated on its behalf - and it turns out that it can. U.S. Congress works for the lootocracy that gets it reelected and not for you and not for the public domain.
But what about the public domain? The sad fact is...
WHEN YOU GRANT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
YOU TAKE FROM THE COMMONS.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163846&cid =13682728 [slashdot.org]
So there are real victims here. We are ALL OF US the victims of corporate control when overweening corporate desires become untenable. When the corporation overreaches with copyrights, it denigrates the well-intentioned purpose behind copyrights and foments disrespect for the law.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE DOWNLOADING - THEY DON'T RESPECT THE LAWS CONCERNING COPYRIGHTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED RIGHT NO
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's still not theft.
And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income.
I'm doing the same thing by not buying their pap. Contrary to coprorate belief, that's NOT EVEN ILLEGAL.
Lets get this straight..... (Score:5, Insightful)
theft...criminal
copyright infringement...civil
So:
Murder = criminal and jail time
Theft = criminal and jail time
Running a protection racket = criminal and jail time
Copyright infringement = civil no jail time
You can not talk about copyright infringement as "theft" because it is not a criminal offense.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and th
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that, they do not make it freely available. Lets see, how did that Britney Spears album got to Piratebay?, well, somebody surely bought it, so, he entered into a contract with the copyright holders where they allowed him to use the INTELECTUAL PROPERTY (not the "hardware" or plastic) for his own personal use.
Thus, he VIOLATED the contract (infringing the copyright) by uploading and seeding the torrents.
Now, for everyone that downloaded the music, I believe, they were doing anything wrong, BUT if they are uploading at the same time [as in all current p2p sharing protocols] then they are again distributing the Intellectual property.
You should read the small letters on the CD booklet that you bought (if you buy any), they say something like "it is prohibited the partial or total distribution by any means or channels blah blah".
Now, of course according to US laws, it does not matters if the people that downloaded the intelectual property didn't "entered into a contract", they still CAN NOT distribute the Intelectual property, which right to copy [hence it is called copyright] is property of the creator (or the music house).
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Supreme Court disagrees (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. "Theft of services" is an actual defined crime. "Criminal infringement of copyright" is not theft - see how the word "theft" doesn't appear anywhere in that phrase?
The Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement is not theft in a 1985 case, Dowling v. United States [wikipedia.org]
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is where this argument always fails for a variety of reasons. Income is only deprived if the person receiving the "free" copy would have paid for it in the first place had they not been able to get the free copy. I would love to see someone argue that a 14 year old kid with $10,000 "worth" of songs would have paid $10,000 for them had they not been able to download.
Also, depriving potential income is not theft. People are deprived of potential income all the time, from the city doing roadwork in front of a store, to boycotts, to simply a new competitor moving in. Deprivation of potential income is not a valid argument because it relies on an invalid assumption of what people would have intended under different circumstances. It's the deprivation of the property from which the income is derived that matters, and that's the difference between theft and copyright infringement. The former deprives the owner of the use of the property. The latter just means you violated their right to decide how something is copied.
One other point. There is no inherent right to earn income from a creative work, and that is not the intention of copyright law. For example, this post I am writing is actually a creative work, and usually something like this is automatically copyrighted under the law. Should you guys pay me? The intent of copyright law is to encourage content creators to share their works publically. The "limited time" (which it isn't really anymore) protection is merely the incentive for sharing the work. It's not a bad concept for promoting cultural development, but has become too distorted and abused to be a useful anymore.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Informative)
$5 a month. You get to try out as much music as you like, legally. Isn't that a price worth paying?
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people (I am not going to argue if it is the majority or not) who download stuff illegally, also buy music, and will even buy the exact music they downloaded. The consequence is that arguing that illegal downloads (see, I do call them illegal) always result in loss of income for record companies is wrong, and there are in fact signs that the opposite is true.
Stop confusing the issue by just dragging in new a
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, clear.
What I'm arguing is that the value for people who download comes in the fact that it costs them nothing to do so. The moment that it costs them something, it's no longer "worth the money".
For me the value is in being able to judge if you want to spend money on something. Try before you buy etc. That indeed means that the try should not cost. If it does, then you get to another model,
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
A pretty plastic disc, and the limited right to enjoy the music contained on it subject to a hefty list of conditions, restrictions, and the random whim of the content owner.
Or, to put it another way, they get to have their cake AND anally rape you.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.
You want to wake up, son. These coke sniffing, hooker humping, lawyer loving, backhander taking, oozing cankers on the arse of humanity are threatening to take away a woman's child because she downloaded some MP3s. I don't know what you would call a strong justification. Maybe they should ritually defile her while chanting verses of the copyright law?
If these wee shites want to play hardball, I suggest that we return the favour. Hire a private detective or five to take pictures of them on their weekends. Track down the mistresses, the drug connections, the dirty laundry. Filter through their trash. Compile a tasty dossier on each and every one of them, and the record company execs, too. It can't be that hard. And then, well, downloaded music will be the very least of their worries.
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not motivated by ethics. I'm motivated by annoyance at the recording industry. I like depriving them of profit by downloading files for my use and that of my friends.
The decision to "reject and not consume" is the choice of a digital media freedom fighter. Moral and worthless to the bigger fight. I prefer the actions of a digital media terrorist. Sending USB hard drives and DVD-Rs packed wi
Re:This sort of thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Next on the list (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next on the list (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyer : Did you download songs from the internet?
Goldfish : I don't remember
Lawyer : Did you discuss downloading songs with the defendant?
Goldfish : I have no recollection of that.
Lawyer : Did you install the Kazaa "filesharing" software
Goldfish : I don't remember.
Lawyer : Do you authorise illegal shipments of arms to Iran, in exchange for money to covertly fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua?
Goldfish : Jesus, even I know that that was Ronald Reagan.
Wont... (Score:5, Funny)
...somebody think of the children!
Re:Wont... (Score:3, Funny)
And this surprising how? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And this surprising how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And this surprising how? (Score:5, Interesting)
The full story [ananova.com].
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contradiction? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Contradiction? (Score:5, Informative)
Conveniently aged (Score:3, Interesting)
Theres not been many younger kids sued, and we don't hear about the older ones because they are responsable for themselves.
I haven't actually heard about a real suit yet where they were truly wrong about the downloading habits.
The suits themselves are wrong, but their targetting seems spot on.
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Let them (Score:4, Insightful)
Silly World (Score:4, Funny)
Slitting their own throats (Score:3, Interesting)
The outrage of them suing unwed mothers without computers (not to mention the deceased) is a mouse fart compared to whats going to happen when they start suing children.
Re:Slitting their own throats (Score:3, Insightful)
The masses WILL roll over on this one--it's what they do best! The only way that the average joe will actually get upset about this is if the mass media tells them to. Collectively, people are sheep and will do whatever their perceived authorities tell them. Worse, once they've gotten used to a bad idea, they'll accept the next evolution of it with a minor whimper. (and the next, and the next...)
If the RIAA's behaviour hasn't led to rioting in the streets yet, this won't m
Re:Slitting their own throats (Score:4, Insightful)
Family torn apart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?
Re:Family torn apart? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they'll do much, much worse things than send zombie warriors.
They send lawyers.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, an unborn is sued for cognisance as his mother listened to an illegaly downloaded song.
In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
Harvest Her Organs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Harvest Her Organs (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the headlines right now... (Score:3, Funny)
Or, as they said in the movie [imdb.com]... I love the smell of napalm early in the morning.
Nice work RIAA. With lawyers like these, who needs enemies? Or p.r. people, for that matter?
(Yes, this is funny. Laugh).
Re:I can see the headlines right now... (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the media goes, it's only "won't someone think of the children!" when the kids are at risk of being affected by outside forces. If it is the kids themselves offending, it's "try 'em as adults, and throw away the key."
Mcdonalds (Score:5, Informative)
Well done to the RIAA , they have just managed to out do McDonald's PR disaster .
I really did not think they would be that stupid , Even if they win their reputation will be completely destroyed
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, it's a troll, big whoop, wanna fight about it?
In other news... Part 2 (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA files suit against God for "willful neglect" in creating man. The suit goes on to describe a number of ways that man is flawed including but not limited to:
Wait...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Guardian Ad Litem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Guardian Ad Litem (Score:3, Informative)
Even if the parent did not urge the child to take the blame, there is still enough incentive for the parent to do so that the court should appoint a GAL to represent the child's best interest in the case.
The good thing about that is that GALs (in most systems) are lawyers, so it's a little bit lik
Good thing I don't live in the States... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good thing I don't live in the States... (Score:5, Funny)
If I couldn't DL music from usenet... (Score:4, Funny)
Is it me, or is the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now.
"Go to bed right now, or the RIAA is going to get you!" *child screams and runs to bed*
Stop giving them money (Score:5, Informative)
Use RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] to find out if an album is published by an RIAA label. If that's the case, and you want it anyway, don't buy it new, but used (for instance at ebay, amazon marketplace or even a used records store).
Support independant labels and artists by buying their stuff!
If you'd still like to support a band that's signed with an RIAA label, go see them live (and maybe buy a t-shirt there).
Re:Stop giving them money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stop giving them money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop giving them money (Score:5, Interesting)
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Mahatma Ghandi
At the very least, your money isn't used to pay a lawyer to sue a child.
When does it end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I haven't done much, but I have refused to purchase / download any RIAA backed music for the last 4 years. It's not much, but I do know that my money isn't funding this piece of shit organization. They're ruthless in getting their money and whether you are downloading or purchasing, you are supporting them. How? You are spreading their work.
The worst part is that no judge has stopped them. What ever happened to the 'for the people' part of this country? The RIAA is for the people? What people? The ones getting sued for thousands when they don't have it or the ones getting the thousands to purchase fuel for their private jet?
I think people need to realize that the RI fucking AA is nothing without us. If we all stop buying their music they will fade away. In order for them to live, we have to continue to feed them. By downloading or purchasing music we are doing just that; feeding the beast. Let it starve and they'll be forced to figure out some other way to distribute their songs or quit while they're ahead.
Of course, this will all fall on deaf ears because as soon as the next article comes out we have to debate that. But hey, at least I tried something right?
RIAA Sues a Guilty Person (Score:3, Insightful)
You can argue about the merits of copyright, the merits of lawsuits against minors, the responsibilities of a parent to educate their child about obeying the law, but it sounds like the girl's done exactly what she's been accused of, and her mother is trying to get her off the hook. Fair enough. But next time we see someone rip off a GPL product and claim it as their own, no source available, I expect to see "FSF Sues Man Trying to Feed Family" or something equally 'balanced'...
Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sues a Guilty Person" has a more... (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the title of this
As for ripping off a man trying to "feed his family" by ripping off a GPL product...well, the same copyright rules apply and if RIAA can sue a child then the FSF is well within their right to sue a man with a starving family. However I don't believe the FSF has ever done that nor ever will do something of that nature. If some enterprising 14-year-old started making money of software derived from a GPL project the FSF's first concern wouldn't be to "make an example" of a child by extorting his money--it would be to make sure he divulges the source code to the derivative project. I would support such action.
Really, your argument makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't seem insightful at all. The article isn't titled "RIAA sues innocent little girl" or "RIAA threatens teenager". The simple facts make it hard to title the article otherwise. That is the point of the article--western society is generally reasonable and gives first time offenders under 18 a bit of a break. Children are not sentenced with the same terms as an adult unless the circumstances are severe. RIAA, however, has decided to wield its legal resources as a blunt instrument without regard to reason or even accuracy in some cases. What is the point of suing a teenage girl over copyright violations when she probably didn't even know what copyright was? Hell, most
Valuable lesson (Score:4, Funny)
well at least they can't sue me... (Score:5, Funny)
The Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone gets sued by the RIAA it's not because the RIAA wants to sue them, it's because the artist they represent wants them to. Because Britney Spears, Metallica, or whoever else has, in essence, asked them to do it. Maybe the artists don't directly demand it in most cases, but they did indirectly demand it at the point they signed with a record company which was a member of the RIAA.
Money speaks louder than words. No matter how many people say they don't like the RIAA, there are still billions of dollars being given to the artists which essentially confirms the artists belief that they joined the right label. That in turn confirms the label's belief that joining the RIAA was the right decision. Everyone out there who is buying music from RIAA members is telling the RIAA that they're doing a great job. The RIAA has been around for over 50 years, and the public has happily given them money hand-over-fist. It's only now that people got a taste of convenient, on-demand, free music that people have a problem with them. 20 years ago, no one was crying foul. Everyone knew that bootleg tapes were illegal, and most people copied tapes for their friends, but if you got into the business of moving massive numbers of bootleg tapes, no one was going to blink twice when you got pinched. But now that people are using the same concept in digital space, it has somehow become the moral highground.
People can quibble all they want about the exact definition of theft. The simple fact is, we all know that when we download an mp3, it's theft. We just cross our fingers and hope that the RIAA is looking at someone else when we do it.
If you were a programmer, and you spent $25,000 of your own money and 6 months to develop an application, you try to sell it and you hear "Great program, I already have that." from 100,000 people, but you've only sold two copies at $20 each, are you going to think "At least they didn't steal it from me"? Of course not, because they DID steal it from you. 100,000 people have the fruits of your labor, and you've got $40 to show for it.
I know it doesn't seem like the same issue when you can tell yourself that the person you took the music from already has plenty of money, because we all know stealing is alright so long as your victim has more than you. Or you can tell yourself you weren't going to buy it anyway. Whatever you need to sleep.
Re:The Enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Lies.
I am one of the most anti-RIAA people you could find, I despise the whole concept of their business model, suing people for downloading music - especially children - for thousands of dollars, literally thousands of times the amount the person would have paid for the content had they bought it, while at the same time overpricing physical content (CDs, etc) and trying to force digital outlets (iTunes, for example) to do the same. Not to mention their attempts to 'sanitize' American radio (boy am I glad I dont live over there) so you can always find 500 different stations playing the same 10 pop tracks in rotation. That is why I hate the RIAA; they are destroying creativity and showing a complete lack of morals or decency. I understand their members have a responsibility to maximise profit for the shareholders, but if they win this case, how much are they going to get? a few thousand? What's that compared to the PR damage caused by suing a 14-year-old girl? If I was a shareholder in an RIAA member company I'd be screaming at them right now to stop making themselves out to be the Devil and go back to suing people who are at an age to know exactly what they're doing (yeah yeah, at 14 some kids do, some kids don't - but at 14 you *should* give them the benefit of the doubt, not sue them for thousands).
I don't hate the RIAA because they make it 'inconvenient to steal music', simply because I have no interest in 'stealing' (I dont care about the supposed definitions, semantics is an argument you can take up with some other poor Slashdotter) any of their music - it's crap, pure and simple, commercial crap. I'm a fan of European EBM, not a particularly profitable genre, especially not for American labels, and so even if I did download the content (I don't, I buy - the artists are generally part-time and need the support, and I feel good giving it if they deserve it) I could do so without RIAA interference - I don't think I've bought an RIAA-member-label CD in the past five years, let alone downloaded any of it.
If you like dark, gothic electronica or metal, try out European EBM - it's electronic stuff, but it's mostly RIAA-free, sounds good and is made by artists not looking for the current breakup-rock dollar, so, you know, you can tell one band from another
The RIAA members piss me off for a number of reasons,
- Their content is repetitive crud.
- They seem bent on spreading that content to drown out everything else in earshot.
- They overprice their content and try to force distributors to raise prices to increase their cut like record profits aren't good enough for them.
- They sue small children for thousands of dollars for stealing a few songs.
*Not* because they 'make it inconvenient to steal.
I have a new suing model for the RIAA, I wonder what they'd think;
I agree that people should be fined a few hundred dollars or 3 or 4 times the retail cost of what they downloaded, whichever is (get this) higher, but no more. This would hit the serious pirates (sharing thousands of songs/albums) hard and give the minor downloaders a smack on the wrist that, if they kept doing it week after week, would lead to serious expense and make it a lot cheaper for them to just buy the content.
Would they accept that? No, it's far too sensible
Re:The Enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with the RIAA members - how about giving away the songs (it's really just an ads for the artist - that's why the record companies are willing to pay radio stations to have their crap played) and then make you money on the concerts and t-shirts?
Trying to stop people from copying something digital is a battle you'll never win....
Re:The Enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Yes the RIAA is a trade organization, but for the most part they represent the music studios, not the artists. See, the studios got an exception put into Copyright law which says that musical works performed by an artist belong to them, not the artist. Normally copyright is assigned to the creator/author/artist, unless it's a work for hire - I commission you (pay you) to create a piece of text, software, music, and it belongs to me even though you created it. Except the music studios didn't want to pay the artists so they bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobbied some Congressmen for a change in copyright law which says that audio recordings are a work for hire even if you don't pay the artist. That way they get the copyright, the artist gets "paid" a percentage of the album sales, and the costs of producing the album get taken out of the artist's cut. In other words, the artist pays for making his own album, but the studio gets the copyright.
So yes the RIAA is composed of members, but the members aren't the ones creating the music. They're simply the ones distributing music, and they're scared out of their wits because the Internet drops the cost of distributing music so close to zero that they children they're suing can do it.
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA wants to sue teenage girl and her Mother.
Mother says you can't sue me, I had nothing to do with it.
RIAA can't sue teenage girl, too young.
RIAA asks court to appoint a fake mother (Guardian) that they can sue?
Obligatory Pink Floyd reference (Score:3, Funny)
All in all it's just another suit on the wall
All in all you're just another suit on the wall
Can I get sued now, for infinging on some songtext copyright?
The Obvious Defense (Score:5, Funny)
[sounds of rap, house, whatever it is that "kids listen to these days"]
D: Are these the sound recordings you are accusing my client of having illegally downloaded?
P: Yes, so stipulated.
D: Your honor, we agree these sound recordings were downloaded, however, no copyright can be held because that's not music and as the court knows, noise cannot be copywritten.
J: So noted. Case dismissed, with prejudice. Get that crap out of my courtroom.
Mass Spoofing (think fake japenese airfields WW2) (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe someone can tell me better, but in my limited knowledge dont they just check filenames and number of offending files? I would think this sets up a huge opportunity for a person to set-up this trade group.
First off I checked http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=search&stat
None of the filenames are trademarked so no one needs worry about being sued for trademark infringement.
The Idea:
Ever gone duck hunting, or seen cartoons with it? One of the common ideas is to lure the ducks in by making them think things are as they appear. Perhaps with fake ducks.
Well I'm suggesting making fake ducks. Seeding a college network, or company network with spoof files. Now correct me if I'm wrong but my limited understanding of these share search engines they (RIAA) use is they look for filenames and filesize. Once they determain there are enough infinging (or so called) files they then notify a pencil pusher who starts the legal suing process.
No real investigation, as has been proved by some of the people that they have sued. (Not cost effective to them)
I'm sure that with all the coders and other people out there somthing like this could be done easily. Make a text document with the filename.mp3 of a new release and tracked theft title. Fill it with a message that states "If you checked this file you would see that it isnt real. Sue me, and expect a countersuit to cover harrassment, and my legal fees" Fill the rest with enough random hash to make up the appropriate filesize.
The first couple of times they start suing people with files like these, they are not only going to get laughed out of court. They may end up being forced by a judge to start utilizing proper evidenciary proceedings. That will just start to kill their search & sue efforts.
My idea, my two bits. Tell me what you think.
Re:Mass Spoofing (think fake japenese airfields WW (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah, that's just no good... Here's a better idea.
A friend or family member of a independant musician illegally shares the copyrighted music, misleadingly named to look like a much more popular RIAA artist.
The RIAA eventually downloads these songs and files a lawsuit. The person who shared them gets out of the lawsuit because it's not material RIAA owns the copyright on. Then, the independant musician who actually owns the copyright can use the RIAA trial as incontrovertible proof that agents of the RIAA illegally downloaded his music, and sue them for truck-loads of cash...
To clarify an issue or two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, there seems to be a lot of confusion about how copyright infringement hurts authors and creators. It does hurt them, but not in the way that most people have posted here, and not in the way that the RIAA is contending. Here's how it works:
I'm an author (this is true). Now, let's say that Tor Books buys the manuscript that I've had on one of the editor's desks. At this point in time, I sign a contract with them. The contract states that Tor has exclusive rights to publish the book for a certain period of time, at which point the publication rights revert back to me. In return, Tor will give me an advance on royalties, and a royalty for each copy they sell.
So, the book goes into print. Now, let's say that somebody with far too much time on their hands and a piratical disposition scans the entire novel into their computer and uploads it onto their site for people to download. And let's say that 1,000 people download it (it's a nice round number). Well, those people may or may not have bought the book on their own if it wasn't available for download - they may or may not buy the book because of the download. But, the fact remains that there are now 1,000 unsanctioned copies floating around. Odds are that the lion's share of the people who downloaded won't actually buy the thing (hell, they might not even finish reading it). But, those 1,000 copies (and we're only talking about the electronic copies here), had they been distributed through legimate channels, would have generated royalties for the author, making it easier for me to buy food and keep a roof over my head, and making it easier for me to write my next book.
The size of the damage is very difficult to estimate, simply because no money is actually changing hands. Yes, people who would have bought the book won't now that they have a free copy. But, other people who might not have bought the book otherwise might just use the download as a sample, and decide that they really want the book on their shelf. Well, some damage is probably done - but it's also probably fairly minimal. Until somebody actually does some solid academic research into the numbers, nobody will be able to tell. And, to make matters even more cloudy, not that many people actually have the technological know-how to download the thing anyway - the majority of readers will just go to the bookstore. That's a similar situation to what the RIAA is looking at.
Now, let's change the scenario a bit. The book comes out, and somebody with a piratical disposition scans the book into his computer, and then posts it on the Internet. But, this time, he charges $3.00 per download. And let's say that there are 1,000 copies downloaded. So now you've got money changing hands, just like a book sale. And, not only is the publisher that I actually gave the rights to print the book being cut out of the deal (and basically being competed against using its own product), no royalties are coming my way for any of these books that are sold. THAT is where the serious damage is done, and from the news I've read, it's done by criminal organizations and groups in third world countries.
Now, who is actually the pirate here? Well, it's not the people who downloaded, truth be told, even if they paid for it. It's unfortunate that they aren't downloading/buying a legitimate copy, but that also raises the question of how they can tell if a copy is legitimate or not. Let's face it - most people don't have that great an understanding of the Berne Convention, and if a copyright notice appears somewhere, they might assume that it is legitimate, even if there are signs it
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, poor things. How do they sleep at night?
Oh yeah, I forgot.
On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.
Re:Uhh... who should they target? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uhh... who should they target? (Score:5, Interesting)
I got a smack in the head from the clerk and was told not to come back. I can't imagine how my parents would have managed to pay for a lawsuit.
Re:I like the idea of breaking up families. (Score:5, Informative)
No one is taking this girl from her mother.