RIAA Sues a 12 Year Old

[shadytrees]

I'm very angry.

"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.

"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer that question.

"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.

Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."

Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

[Lost User 8002]

Torres...Brianna...This has got to be a Joke...Fox News...Explains it all...

[jrobbio]

People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.

I'd like to see how they back out of this one then.

*sigh* why don't the RIAA get it, lower the prices of the music because it is a total rip off. Music sales have increased since all this P2P started and it may not be the sole reason for it, but I'm sure it has a large contribution towards it.

Rob

[chrisgeleven]

New news is out, she settled with the RIAA for $2000.

[shadytrees]

Ahhh, who needs justice when you have legal pressure to extort money?

[sharkius]

It's not like we were doing anything illegal

There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go.

Little contradictory.

[formnull]

[url=http://hao2lian.blogspot.com/2003_09_07_hao2lian_archive.html#106315066298505951]I'm very angry[/url

Well, in reality they were suing whoever was responsible for that Kazaa account. It may
have been the child's account, but since she is a minor the responsibility falls onto her mother.

Ok, before I get jumped all over for my following comments, I do think the RIAA is being very draconian about this, that they are just trying to hold onto a crumbling business model that just will not work forever, but the facts remain :

* Artists have chosen to sign with record labels that belong to the RIAA
* We have copyright law in the US that (theoretically) protects the rights of the artists, and the artists chose to transfer some or all of those rights when signing with aforementioned record labels.

Given that, how would you feel if the girl had stolen CDs? I don't mean blank CDs, I mean CDs with recordings. CDs aren't 10-20 dollars each because of the media, they are that much because it contains copywritten material, and that's the price the market is bearing, right?

So, what if she had stolen, over time, hundreds of CDs? Should she be expected to return the CDs and pay a fine? Let's make it more unrealistic, but more fair - let's say she never opened them (because opening and using a CD can physically damage it, and copying music files does not harm the original).

If she returns the CDs in mint condition, and she is still fined, do you think that's fair? Of course she is only 12, so her guardian(s) will bear the actual cost, but I'd imagine they will be rather upset at her.

Now, of course I do have sympathy for the mother, maybe she was duped by Kazaa, thinking that the service fee covered legal use. eMusic, a service I use, actually does this, for example. No DRM, just MP3s. iTunes is another example.

That last point, people thinking Kazaa is legal, is the only thing that makes this somewhat murky in my mind. However, caveat emptor still applies. She obviously did not research this sufficiently before hand, but never having used Kazaa, maybe they just outright lied to her, in which case she can and should sue them.

[sharkius]

edited to save download time

Exactly.

I didn't even know that Kazaa's paid service was availale 3 months ago.

If her mom paid the service fee, I would think that it is the mom that is being sued. Unless they put the kid's name on the contract with Kazaa.

"Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
She must have been one of the more agressive piraters.

[MoNkaholic]

So, what if she had stolen, over time, hundreds of CDs? Should she be expected to return the CDs and pay a fine? Let's make it more unrealistic, but more fair - let's say she never opened them (because opening and using a CD can physically damage it, and copying music files does not harm the original).

For the most part I agree, but I disagree with your analogies. Theft imples depriving the owner of the item in question, which when dealing with duplications is the one thing the perpatrator isn't doing. It's called copyright infringement for a reason.

My problems with the RIAA is how they're going after said <em>criminals</em>, nobody should have the right to obtain your personal information from your ISP without going through the courts... I don't care <em>who</em> you are.

If you want an analogy, how about this... You ever buy a bootleg video or cd off the street? That's the equivalent, so long as she didn't upload any files.

[formnull]

For the most part I agree, but I disagree with your analogies. Theft imples depriving the owner of the item in question, which when dealing with duplications is the one thing the perpatrator isn't doing. It's called copyright infringement for a reason.

Isn't it called "copyright infringement" because the copyright holder is assured by the government that anyone who copies the work without the holder's consent can take action through the courts?

Why does it matter, then, what the medium that is being copied is? They aren't selling CDs in the record store, they are selling recordings.

Buying a recording and giving it free to potentially thousands of people diminishes the value of that recording, or "content" if you will. There's no incentive for anyone to obtain the recording from the copyright holder, it's easier to just not let the copyright holder know.

My problems with the RIAA is how they're going after said <em>criminals</em>, nobody should have the right to obtain your personal information from your ISP without going through the courts... I don't care <em>who</em> you are.

I agree with the sentiment, but I thought they filed subpeonas some time ago, and are now following up? Am I incorrect? I can't find any relavent news articles right now, can you point me towards more info?

If you want an analogy, how about this... You ever buy a bootleg video or cd off the street? That's the equivalent, so long as she didn't upload any files.

Ok, I started the analogies, I know Sorry. I know that they are by nature never 100% accurate, but let's go for it anyway.

Downloading and sharing files with Kazaa could be looked at as the equivalent of buying a bootleg video or CD and reselling it. Obviously the seller of the bootleg video or CD is more responsible, but this is also where the analogy falls apart.

And no, I have never bought a bootleg video or CD off the street. How do I know that it contains the actual content? Again, it's the *content* that is valuable, not the *medium*, aka "media".

Also, I personally feel a responsibility to copyright holders. I make commercial software, where the copyright is held by the companies I work for, and it's in my interest to see that honored. I release software with a copyright held by me under various open source licenses, and I want people to respect my license. I have a vested interest in seeing copyright upheld.

This is not to say that I approve of corporations abusing their power. I think the RIAA is in a monopoly position, but I doubt that this administration will do anything about it. In theory, I don't see anything wrong with prosecuting "file sharers", if they are copying copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright holder.

[MoNkaholic]

I agree with the sentiment, but I thought they filed subpeonas some time ago, and are now following up? Am I incorrect? I can't find any relavent news articles right now, can you point me towards more info?

http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/

Oh, and I sort of meant the analogy as a rhetorical question, but nice to see that you've answered it anyway.

My main point wasn't that copyright infringement is good or anything, just that it's not theft... gets annoying when I keep hearing the two used interchangeably.

[sharkius]

I agree with the sentiment, but I thought they filed subpeonas some time ago, and are now following up? Am I incorrect? I can't find any relavent news articles right now, can you point me towards more info?

The subpoenas go directly to the ISPs. The RIAA gets the information on the violators from the ISPs, then goes to court. So now people are getting all bitchy about invasions of privacy to try and hide their own illegal activities. I like privacy. But using it to cover up your illegal activity is just bull.

[sharkius]

My main point wasn't that copyright infringement is good or anything, just that it's not theft... gets annoying when I keep hearing the two used interchangeably.

It is theft in a sense that the violators are obtaining copyrighted material without paying for it. They arn't physically taking any material, but they are obtaining freely something that they should have paid for.

[MoNkaholic]

They arn't physically taking any material, but they are obtaining freely something that they should have paid for.

That's the whole point, what you just said <em>is not</em> theft. Theft implies depriving the owner of the item.

[GNU/Ben]

Indeed. The RIAA has done a very effective job of convinceing people that copywright infringement is stealing. It is not.

Stealing == me + 1 item, you -1 item
Copywright infringement == me + 1 item, you + 0 items

Pirating anything is not stealing. It never was.