Those jackals at the RIAA continue on their warpath

Pages

From Yahoo/Ap

They sued a child? Can they go any lower than that?

Kick the kid''s dog?

Also, isn''t there some kind of act that protects children''s privacy online?

And quickly settled with her for the paltry sum of $2000.00

And now, I''ve got to add some thoughts.

It''s really too bad that the girl''s family settled. This was a potential disaster for the RIAA''s campaign. C''mon, suing a poor, 12 year old honor student? The only thing missing was her mom trotting her out in a wheelchair or something.

I''m really scared and angry at the seeming power that the RIAA has to supeona and sue the heck out of people.

This also highlights some of the general problems for the average computer user. The articles I''ve read state that they believed that the $30 they paid out for the Kazaa client entitled them to download all of the music they want, and I can totally buy that. There is a real gap between what dorky message board posting geeks such as ourselves and the average person who just wants to grab their mail, surf the web, and be done with the computer for the day understand about computers. I know that ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking it, but this feels like a ""sleazy taking advantage of people''s fear and ignorance of scary computers type of thing"" to me on some level.

I''m starting to think that when some laws make millions of people possibly unwitting criminals, it may be time to review those laws.

Or review the behavior of the millions of people.

Look, the point of the RIAA lawsuits, especially the one against the little girl, is to prove a point and get parents involved in what their children are doing. Because of the lawsuits, most universities are cracking down on file sharing. Parents will see that this family paid two grand because their daughter was stealing music and go look on their kids'' computers.

If no one is immune to potential damages, then it will have a deterring effect. When the news shows two or three more families that have monetary reprecussions from stealing music, you can bet that a goodly number of people will stop doing it. And that is what the RIAA is after.

Why does it always have to be a battle? Why not start a grassroots ""it''s wrong to steal music"" campaign than sick the legions lawyers on a small cross-seciton to make an example out of them? Sure, they''ll scare people out of file trading, but is it fair to those that were made examples? I don''t think so.

Instead, why not try to educate people in a civil and peaceful manner; make the public perception that file trading is ""wrong"" instead of ""file trading will get you sued by a heartless corporate conglomerate with billions of dollars?"" The end result of this whole debacle will be an enormous backlash instead of possible sympathy. So, why did the RIAA choose the route (or should I say war path) they''re currently on? They were advised by lawyers who stand to make a fortune many times over on a legal blitz. Pay advertisers, or pay lawyers? I choose the former.

Sure, they''ll scare people out of file trading, but is it fair to those that were made examples? I don''t think so.

Why is it unfair? Because they got caught? What is unfair about punishing someone that steals?

Instead, why not try to educate people in a civil and peaceful manner

Because that is ineffective.

""file trading will get you sued by a heartless corporate conglomerate with billions of dollars?""

Because that is effective. Hitting people in their wallets is one of the fastest ways to enact behavior modification.

It will be strange to buy a CD at the store for the first time in 3 years....very strange.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Why is it unfair? Because they got caught? What is unfair about punishing someone that steals?

Because maybe they didn''t know they were ""stealing.""

Because that is ineffective.

Says who? You?

Because that is effective. Hitting people in their wallets is one of the fastest ways to enact behavior modification.

And if someone says something rude to me, shooting them in the leg will prevent that from happening again. Does that mean it''s ethical?

""Why does it always have to be a battle? Why not start a grassroots ""it''s wrong to steal music"" campaign than sick the legions lawyers on a small cross-seciton to make an example out of them? Sure, they''ll scare people out of file trading, but is it fair to those that were made examples? I don''t think so. ""

Because grassroots campaigns never win out over self-interest. I''m very confident that almost everybody who shares files recognizes that it''s wrong but justifies it by saying that (1) everybody else is doing it; and (2) the added quantum of ""wrongness"" from their own participation is minimal. And when self-policing fails, you have to crank it up a notch, which in this case is the lawyer stick.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Or review the behavior of the millions of people.

This is a democracy. When more people are filesharing than voted in the last presidential election, maybe we should look at copyright reform before trying to jail 1/3 of America. I''m not saying law enforcement is wrong, it''s just that we''re not talking about kiddy porn here. You can''t directly prove that anyone is getting hurt by this. Filesharing has went down almost 25% since the lawsuits started, and the RIAA member corporation''s profits have dropped more than when filesharing was big. The only time since 1999 they have made a profit was when Napster was big. When they killed it thier profits started falling. This is also not an activity that 0.001% of the population participates in, we''re talking a sizeable chunk of the population.

Look, the point of the RIAA lawsuits, especially the one against the little girl, is to prove a point and get parents involved in what their children are doing. Because of the lawsuits, most universities are cracking down on file sharing. Parents will see that this family paid two grand because their daughter was stealing music and go look on their kids'' computers.

If no one is immune to potential damages, then it will have a deterring effect. When the news shows two or three more families that have monetary reprecussions from stealing music, you can bet that a goodly number of people will stop doing it. And that is what the RIAA is after.

Of course this works. Cutting off shoplifter''s hands will teach them a message too and probably curtail shoplifting. We''re talking about excessive punishment here. The penalties for copyright infringement are worse than that for shoplifting. How much do you want to guess losses from shoplifting compares to losses from piracy? And no, ""our profits are down"" isn''t entirely attributed to piracy, so the entirety of the loss doesn''t count. What''s the difference? Individual stores have to eat the cost of that. When a politically powerful lobbying group''s member corporations have to start eating the cost then it suddenly becomes punishable by lifetime financial servitude. The only reason they settled for $2000 was that they were living in the projects and were poor as dirt, her mother will be paying that off forever.

Because that is effective.

To mangle a quote, remember when we declared ""War on Drugs"" and now you can''t buy drugs? That was great, this ""War on Piracy"" is going to be awesome.

Yeah, what he said. All of it!

Well, technically, they are not stealing anything, they are violating copyrights. I think Pyro summed up alot of the thoughts I am starting to form on this issue.

Another point I''d like to make is that I think people would be willing to pay for their online music if it''s reasonably priced, easy to get, and easy to use. For example, Apple has sold 10 million songs (only to Mac users, in the USA) in 4 months. Imagine a similar business model on Macs, Windows, & Linux desktops worldwide.

I just think that the RIAA could have accomplished alot more by embracing file sharing and forming a business plan around rather than suing the crap out of their customers and trying to stuff this genie back in the bottle.

This is a democracy. When more people are filesharing than voted in the last presidential election, maybe we should look at copyright reform before trying to jail 1/3 of America.

Not to make a straw man, but last time I looked, countries all over the world have done horrific and stupid things because the ''majority'' wanted it. Just because a lot of people do it or support it doesn''t make it legal, moral, or right.

Of course this works. Cutting off shoplifter''s hands will teach them a message too and probably curtail shoplifting

Now that''s a straw man if I''ve ever seen one. Each of the defendants in the RIAA lawsuits were sharing in excess of 1000 songs. That is theft. You are giving away something that doesn''t belong to you and taking money out of the pockets of the people that own it. You can dress it up however you like, but it is still theft. The punishments aren''t excessive. The settlements so far have been for $2K, $16K, and $17K. And they are offering an amnesty option.

"Flux" wrote:

It will be strange to buy a CD at the store for the first time in 3 years....very strange.

And I''ll bet Flux isn''t the only one to say that. But I''ll bet that Flux didn''t stop enjoying new music for the last three years. (Sorry to pick on you Flux) Matter of fact, I''ll bet a thousand bucks that Flux has music files from his favorite bands on his computer that he doesn''t also own the CD for. So, if file sharing wasn''t there, I would imagine that Flux would have probably bought one or two of those CDs. Hmm. Using your 1/3 of the population number, that means that between 100-200 million CDs weren''t purchased. That is $1.2 to $3 billion dollars in lost revenue. Nah...a few billion dollars in lost revenue is no big deal, right? Just because a lot of people do it....

I just think that the RIAA could have accomplished alot more by embracing file sharing and forming a business plan around rather than suing the crap out of their customers and trying to stuff this genie back in the bottle.

They are going to. They have a business plan and will be doing it soon. But first they have to show that the ''free'' music isn''t really free either.

True Johnny. For some damn reason when I ask my friends about buying CDs now they look at me funny. They said they actually bought more once file sharing started and have been doing so since Napster. I am sorry but I have heard this arguement but I don''t buy it (no pun intended). I couldn''t have been the only one downloading, not sharing out, and not walking into a CD store for 3 years?

Howdy JMJ, all;

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Now that''s a straw man if I''ve ever seen one. Each of the defendants in the RIAA lawsuits were sharing in excess of 1000 songs. That is theft. You are giving away something that doesn''t belong to you and taking money out of the pockets of the people that own it. You can dress it up however you like, but it is still theft. The punishments aren''t excessive. The settlements so far have been for $2K, $16K, and $17K. And they are offering an amnesty option.

And I''ll bet Flux isn''t the only one to say that. But I''ll bet that Flux didn''t stop enjoying new music for the last three years. (Sorry to pick on you Flux) Matter of fact, I''ll bet a thousand bucks that Flux has music files from his favorite bands on his computer that he doesn''t also own the CD for. So, if file sharing wasn''t there, I would imagine that Flux would have probably bought one or two of those CDs. Hmm. Using your 1/3 of the population number, that means that between 100-200 million CDs weren''t purchased. That is $1.2 to $3 billion dollars in lost revenue. Nah...a few billion dollars in lost revenue is no big deal, right? Just because a lot of people do it....

Well, I think that this is a straw man, as well. First of all, there is no ""theft"" happening. This is copyright infringement we are talking about. These people are breaking current law, but you''re citing the wrong offense. I also strongly disagree that these penalties are not excessive.

Second, I think it''s a fallacy to equate 1 pirated song to 1 lost album sale. Flux could also just listen to it on the radio, or just go without. He may just have downloaded the file because a passing fancy struck him right there, and would not have acted on it otherwise. He may own a cassette tape, or a vinyl lp containing the song and wanted to listen to it on his computer or mp3 player. (Not picking on you, Flux). I think you get what I''m saying here, that there are plenty of legit ways for Flux''s digital music library to exist.

Furthermore, I see the ""amnesty"" as a joke. A really bad joke, at that. So, you turn in your amnesty form, admitting that you were pirating music, then the RIAA turns it over to some other slighted entity that is not bound by that agreement to sue the crap out of you.

They have a business plan and will be doing it soon. But first they have to show that the ''free'' music isn''t really free either.

Then they should educate people, not destroy them. They should roll out their music service, or whatnot, and point people in that direction rather than Kazaa, etc... If it is a good, reasonable service that people see value in, then people will buy the music. Again, I''ll cite Apple''s iTunes Music Service as an example of this.

I think this is less about showing people the error of their file sharing ways, and more about trying not to become irrelavent. Music distrobution over the internet has the ability to stamp out record labels and the RIAA. Imagine millions of millions of Windows desktops with some software client for artist to customer direct music sales. Bye, bye middle man.

I also submit that we are going to see alot of these cases settled quickly, as none of these people likely have the resources to engage in a prolonged court battle with the RIAA, and the RIAA does not want faces and people attached to these news stories. They will have a much easier time waging a PR campaign against the ""most prolific ev1l music p1rates evar!!1!1!!"", rather than against a 12 year old poor honor student, a 71 year old Texas grandpa, or a Harvard professor.

I also absolutely refuse to believe that these people were among the worst offenders. It would be easier for me to believe they were just chosen at random.

As for me, I don''t much care for this newfangled music. I''ll be listening to my old CD''s, or getting music from iTunes MS, or eMusic. I won''t be buying any CD''s from RIAA artists.

But, I digress... Have a great day!

Look, the point of the RIAA lawsuits, especially the one against the little girl, is to prove a point and get parents involved in what their children are doing.

Really? The RIAA has never said that. They have always said the point of the lawsuits were to get people to stop illegally downloading music and up their CD sales. This is the first I''m hearing of the parent angle. I can almost guarantee when they sued the kid they had no idea she was 12 years old.

And whoever said a ""paltry $2,000"", I hope you where joking? It may be a small sum compared to the billions they are trying to go after people for (give me a break), but two grand is a lot of money, especially when you''re so not well off you already live in a housing project.

"LeapingGnome" wrote:

And whoever said a ""paltry $2,000"", I hope you where joking? It may be a small sum compared to the billions they are trying to go after people for (give me a break), but two grand is a lot of money, especially when you''re so not well off you already live in a housing project.

''Twas I that categorized the $2000 as ""paltry"", and yes, it was sarcastic. I think if you read my follow-ups, you''ll see what side I''m starting to slide off of the fence to.

I think the RIAA lawyers probably had to restrain themselves from pushing the girl down in a mud puddle and kicking sand in her face.

Well, I think that this is a straw man, as well. First of all, there is no ""theft"" happening. This is copyright infringement we are talking about.

Behavior that results in monetary loss is theft. Like I said, dress it up as you will, it is still theft.

Second, I think it''s a fallacy to equate 1 pirated song to 1 lost album sale.

My revenue estimate isn''t based on that premise either. I based it on the average music downloader not buying 1-2 CDs a year that they would have bought if stealing hadn''t been an option. I don''t assume that the 12 year old with 1500 songs would have bought 150 CDs in the last three years (assuming 10 songs per CD). Nope, that''s $1.2 to $3 billion in lost revenue by a VERY conservative estimate. The RIAA number is probably much higher.

If it is a good, reasonable service that people see value in, then people will buy the music.

Not for the majority of people, when free is an option that holds no consequences. There will always be people that pay for ''donation-ware'' also. But they are not the majority. How many people paid for the Netscape browser? They wanted you to pay for it, but they gave it away for free as well. Which option did most people do, even when nicely asked by Netscape? Oh yeah...they took the free version. Why would you make the assumption that music for fee would be more popular than music for free?

Music distrobution over the internet has the ability to stamp out record labels and the RIAA.

Not really. There will always be a place for labels, if only for weeding out the 99% of crap bands that I don''t care about hearing. And radio stations will feel the same way, which is one of the prime drivers of a band''s success.

Really? The RIAA has never said that. They have always said the point of the lawsuits were to get people to stop illegally downloading music and up their CD sales. This is the first I''m hearing of the parent angle.

And, as in most things, I''m sure that the RIAA (or any other business) shares all of their plans and thoughts with the general public.

I feel special being mentioned so many times in a thread....thanks guys *tear*

Thanks for the response. This is an interesting subject;

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Behavior that results in monetary loss is theft. Like I said, dress it up as you will, it is still theft.

And, with all due respect, you are still wrong. These people are not being charged with theft. In fact, they are not being charged with anything. There is no proved monetary loss yet. It''s not dressing it up. If this were theft, these people would be arrested by the appropriate law enforcement agency. They are being sued by a private entity in a civil proceeding, I believe.

My revenue estimate isn''t based on that premise either. I based it on the average music downloader not buying 1-2 CDs a year that they would have bought if stealing hadn''t been an option. I don''t assume that the 12 year old with 1500 songs would have bought 150 CDs in the last three years (assuming 10 songs per CD). Nope, that''s $1.2 to $3 billion in lost revenue by a VERY conservative estimate. The RIAA number is probably much higher.

But, your revenue esitmate, and any revenue estimate that we want to throw out there, is just that. An estimate. We can theorize about what CD''s would not be bought, but that estimate is a house of cards that can be brought down with the argument that file sharers would just not buy the CD then. This brings, for the sake of argument, my lost revenue estimate to $0, and it''s based on the same sort of data.

How do we also explain CD sales increasing during Napster''s heyday? Couldn''t we also blame the decline in CD sales on a down economy, or on a music industry that just seems stagnate? There are just too many things in the pot here for me to point to file sharing and blame it for the RIAA''s ills.

Not for the majority of people, when free is an option that holds no consequences. There will always be people that pay for ''donation-ware'' also. But they are not the majority. How many people paid for the Netscape browser? They wanted you to pay for it, but they gave it away for free as well. Which option did most people do, even when nicely asked by Netscape? Oh yeah...they took the free version. Why would you make the assumption that music for fee would be more popular than music for free?

We are seeing consequences here, though, as these suits bear out. Given the choice of the chance of being sued for up to $150,000 per song, or buying your track for $.99, I think a lot of people would choose the later. I think citing the Netscape browser is a poor example. If getting the free version of Netscape was illegal and bore the chance of some sort of lawsuit being brought against the user, then you''d probably have seen alot more people buying the browser. But, as it was, Netscape chose to allow users to get it for free legally.

I make the assumption that people would rather buy their music than pirate it based on my personal opinions alone. For reasons explained above, as well as thinking that people are ok with paying for something when they think it is reasonable and that they are getting a value, but are not so ok with it when they think they are being ripped off.

I don''t think that we really know the answer to the question as to if music for fee would be more popular than music for free as there has not really been a viable, legal music service until recently, and it''s only been available to a small percentage of computer users. I''d like to see the real option out there, though.

There will always be a place for labels, if only for weeding out the 99% of crap bands that I don''t care about hearing. And radio stations will feel the same way, which is one of the prime drivers of a band''s success.

Well, I think this is one place that the internet could step in and change things. Let the market, the consumers, weed out the crap. If you don''t like the music, you don''t buy it.

Edit: Yup, we luv ya, Flux, you rascally pirate, you. Yarrrr!

If the RIAA were trying to get parents involved with their kids, they wouldn''t hide it in a corporate memo, JMJ. That''s the best possible face for what they''re doing, and instead they represent themselves by saying that they''re losing money? Yeah, that''s likely.

Pyro hit this issue right on the head up above. Yes, it is wrong to steal, but the RIAAs actions are horribly misguided.

This is not donation ware, this is a matter of breaking the law. Software that is donation ware exists such that there are 2 legal ways of obtaining that software right then and there. Music, as the industry works, provides one legal way to get music that involves hugely inflated prices, underpaid artists, and a high purchase granularity that some consumers are clearly frustrated with (when I hear an old song in a commercial, I don''t want to buy an entire album -- I just want that one song!).

The donation-ware analogy is simply not correct. Apple provided a legal alternative to illegal p2p programs and made a cubic butt-load of money. The RIAA, rather than provide an alternative, rather than run a series of commercials featuring a group of angsty teens saying vaguely threatening things about those who pirate music (I''m referring to the tobacco-related commercials we have these days), go right ahead and sue their customers for vast amounts of money. I say vast, and I stand by that. Yes, your estimate of 1-2 albums a year is conservative, so let''s reformulate it in a manner that, I think, more closely resembles the situation of the average consumer being targetted by the RIAA.

Typical consumer, Joe, buys 5-10 albums a year. Napster is released, and Joe now gets all his music from Napster. He downloads the music he would have bought, and about 500 other songs just because there''s no cost to him. The RIAA lost the revenue from those 5-10 albums, they did not lose the revenue those 500 other songs would have generated (which would be substantial because it would probably require Joe buy 500 CDs to get those songs he liked).

If it was a matter of lost revenue, the RIAA could sue somebody for 5-10 CDs a year...maybe. Certainly not $17,000. Was Joe distributing music too? Probably, but if the world were fair, and I know it''s not, each person would pay their couple hundred dollars to the RIAA (not that this makes sense, as the artists are still losing out), and the debt of the public to the organization would be settled. But making certain individuals pay for hundreds of others is what strikes many, myself included, as unfair.

The plain fact of the matter is that the RIAA''s actions are inappropriate, and any monetary repurcussions they face due to public resentment should be celebrated.

Personally, I bought more CDs when I was using p2p programs. I found them to be fantastic shopping aids, as they allowed me to confirm that I liked a band rather than holding my wallet in indecision. Further, the ability to buy a single song turns backlogs into goldmines. I think the cases of songs used in TV shows or commercials are ripe to be exploited by a music vendor.

The RIAA missed the boat on this one and are now kicking themselves while they''re down, that''s all there is to it.

Me pirate? Nah, I never said I downloaded any music. I was speaking hypothetically. I have basically listened to the radio for 3 years.

Flux: Please realize that I was not implying that you are a scurvy pirate. Just poking fun at you.

The subject of monetary loss has had my mind racing in a geeky sort of way.

What if, for example, I loan a new CD to my friend who had intended to buy it. He grows tired of it, and declines to buy it. My actions have resulted in monetary loss & lost revenue for that record label. Am I now to be sued for that?

What if someone hooked up to a Starbucks wireless access point pirates some music? Do we hold Starbucks responsable as we do the 71 year old grandpa in TX who says his grandkids were doing the pirating, not him?

I have a stong desire & intent to buy the latest Britney Spears album, but hear her new song on the radio and hate it. As a result, I don''t buy the album. The radio station''s actions have, in theory, resulted in monetary loss for the record label, etc, etc.

How far & broad do we want to take this, especially without due process?

But....but..... I eat lots of fruit....I don''t have scurvy

How far & broad do we want to take this, especially without due process?

But there is due process. These people are being sued. That means that a jury decides whether they pay a dime, not the RIAA.

And I''m sorry, but there is a difference between you loaning a CD to a friend, or even making a copy for someone you know, versus making that song publicly available to millions of people without permission. You don''t have to create an imaginary slippery slope to see that this behavior need to be stopped.

If this was any other content, no one here would be debating this. If I bought a book, scanned and OCR''ed it, and posted it on a very public web site, the author and publisher would be screaming at the top of their lungs to have me shut down, and I would potentially go to jail. But the RIAA is ""evil"", so they get vilified for protecting their product.

By the way, for those of you who think the RIAA deserves what they get because of the way they treat artists, there are lots of artists who hate file sharing, because it means that most of their audience only gets to hear the singles made popular by the radio - they want you to listen to the rest of their work on the album.

then the RIAA turns it over to some other slighted entity that is not bound by that agreement to sue the crap out of you.

How would they do that, exactly? If the RIAA is suing you because you violated the copyright of one of their members, who would be left with a suit against you?

Because maybe they didn''t know they were ""stealing.""

Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
If people want to make a statement about the prices of music, that''s fine. Don''t buy CDs. That does not give you the right to pirate them instead.

"Gunmetal" wrote:
Because maybe they didn''t know they were ""stealing.""

Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.

Who says it''s the law? There has been no precedent set yet, because so far everybody who has been sued by the RIAA doesn''t have the financial means to stand up to their bullying. If the ""law"" is determined by who has more money and lawyers, well then maybe they were breaking the law.

"ralcydan" wrote:

But there is due process. These people are being sued. That means that a jury decides whether they pay a dime, not the RIAA.

I think it could be argued that there is only the appearance of due process in these cases, if any at all. Firstly, you have lawsuit targets who do not have the means, fortitude, or understanding of what is going on for a protracted legal battle against an entity like the RIAA.

Secondly, as evidenced in the Verizon suit, by employing the DMCA, the RIAA need only submit a one page form to a court, that need not even be reviewed by a judge, and be granted a supeona demanding the identity of anyone, anywhere, enforcable anywhere. A lawsuit does not have to be filed for them to do this, the person whose identity they are seeking does not have to be notified, much less told why their identity is being supeonaed. There are no provisions or guaranatees that this supeonaed person''s identity is protected in any way. They have no chance to respond. That does not sound much like due process to me.

Add to that the proposal of adding a surcharge to blank CD media to offset the estimated costs of music piracy to the music industry, like is currently going on in Canada. Then, everyone purchasing a blank CD is, by default, presumed an offender and forced to pay up.

And I''m sorry, but there is a difference between you loaning a CD to a friend, or even making a copy for someone you know, versus making that song publicly available to millions of people without permission. You don''t have to create an imaginary slippery slope to see that this behavior need to be stopped.

Then what is that difference when we are talking about hypothetical lost revenues? Both actions, no matter what their scale, can be argued to have cost a record label some hypothetical revenue. My ""imaginary slippery slope"" is no more imaginary than these lost revenues, and I think examples such as these deserve serious addressing, not dismissal.

If this was any other content, no one here would be debating this. If I bought a book, scanned and OCR''ed it, and posted it on a very public web site, the author and publisher would be screaming at the top of their lungs to have me shut down, and I would potentially go to jail. But the RIAA is ""evil"", so they get vilified for protecting their product.

By the way, for those of you who think the RIAA deserves what they get because of the way they treat artists, there are lots of artists who hate file sharing, because it means that most of their audience only gets to hear the singles made popular by the radio - they want you to listen to the rest of their work on the album.

Some of us are not debating that music piracy is wrong and against the law, or raising questions because ""the RIAA is evil"". The debate for me hinges around privacy, unjust laws, and corporations having too much say in crafting said laws. Personally, I think the RIAA is wielding too much power in these suits for reasons I spelled out above, and asking for ridiculous penalties.

I''m all for legal means of getting music online. Over and over again, I''ve cited Apple''s music service as a good example. You can give your customers access to the music they want at a price that they presumably deem fair, and you can get your revenue too.

Pages