Recording Industry takes action against 12 year old girl, forces settlement

Fuck you, RIAA. I will never buy a CD again. Ever.

Jesus, it’s just two grand. They let her off easy. Maybe it’ll teach her not to steal.

And it’s best to start with the 12 year old girls so no one else will fuck with 'em.


Just two grand. Man Miller I really do wish I was a rich as you were.

That said, you know… people are taking something that should be paid for. That’s theft as far as I’m aware. She’s being fined for what she stole. It’s the nature of the beast, you can’t really expect me to believe that there are people who don’t know KaZaA and programs of their ilk are illegal.

It’s not stealing. I don’t give a fuck what the industry says. The fact they’ve actually got so much of the public brainwashed to think that it’s stealing is fucking scary. The kid should have told them to fuck off and let them sue her. They would have looked like the greedy assholes they really are.

Sqube, as far as “you can’t really expect me to believe that there are people who don’t know KaZaA and programs of their ilk are illegal”:

"they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services. "

I can believe that. You pay a fee for something, you logically assume you’re allowed to use it. After all, there ARE legal programs with which you pay a fee and get to download things.

Diogenes… can you show me where taking something that doesn’t belong to you isn’t stealing? I mean, seriously, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but come now. Let’s think this through.

You could also check the definition of theft if you were so inclined.

racinchikki that’s a good point. I didn’t think about that and (obviously) hadn’t read the article yet.

Sqube: Check out any Slashdot story on the RIAA. You’ll see billions of arguments on why copyright violations aren’t stealing. :slight_smile:

Hmmm… should I feel bad for the industry known to engage in illegal price fixing and gouging (found guilty in court, a criminal act), who routinely fucks over recording artists with predatory contracts and bank breaking fees, who steadfastly resist changing their business model in the face of new technology beneficial to the consumers in order to maintain their stranglehold on the industry as middle men or the 12 year old girl who downloaded some music and broke a few copywrite laws (not a criminal offence).

I note they’ve recently lowered CD prices in desperation (a whole 2 dollars… only a 1000 percent profit margin now poor babies). I’m all for good business but these chuckleheads have written the book on anticompetitive and ruthlessly STUPID business practices. I hope a slew of savy entrepreneurs clean their clock.

I will continue to chuckle as their sales plummet.

Downloading music doesn’t take anything from anybody. It’s no different than recording a CD onto a casette tape. I don’t care what the law says. The law is bought and paid for. You can’t convince me that file sharing is stealing.

Personally, I’d love to be able to convince myself that filesharing (which I have participated in) was not theft; however, such a belief does not seem to mesh with my strong feelings about other forms of copyright infringement, especially in the field of photography. Basically, because I am willing to listen to pirated music tracks but refuse to run photocopies of copyrighted photographs for other people at work, I guess I’m a hypocrite. The only horse I have in this race is that I could, conceivably, get sued by the RIAA (and if I were to be, I’d be screwed, as I live paycheck to paycheck and couldn’t possibly afford to attend court OR settle with them). I wish they’d lay off just to save my own skin.

They can’t possibly sue all of the 60 million people who share files, so basically they are working on a “Lottery of Fear” theory to discourage the practice.

The RIAA would have a hell of a time trying to handle 1,600 or so jury trials if they weren’t so successfull into scaring people into settlements.

I won’t have much time to participate in the argument since I’m leaving for the weekend tomorrow, but there is a distinction to be made here. The RIAA is not currently suing people who download music off of the internet, but those who make copyrighted music available to others. It’s not the downloaders, it’s the uploaders. So, in a sense it’s the same as street selling bootleg DVD’s.

Diogenes, file sharing may or may not be “theft,” depending on how you want to use the word. It may or may not be ethical, depending on your view of things. It is most certainly copyright infringement, as understood by the law.

Personally, I wouldn’t argue with someone who wanted to call it “theft.” I also do not believe it to be unethical, given the particular circumstances (this isn’t GD, so I don’t feel compelled to elaborate).

I guess my point is just that whether or not we call file sharing “stealing” isn’t important. What matters is the ethical considerations that apply to the particular case, not the classification that you choose to give it.

Though I agree with you in general, I will say that I don’t think this holds water:

Only in theory. In practice, downloading music takes from musicians and recording companies a percentage of the profit they should reasonably expect to be theirs for the work they have done (and to which they are legally entitled). This robs them of something tangible (money, specifically). Unless you believe that copyrights in general are invalid, this has to be troublesome.

You know what? To HELL with the RIAA. It’s MY CD, it’s MY computer, and if I bloody well want to share it, it’s MY fucking business. It’s a sick time in history when commerce controls culture. Rap, for instance, may have once been the voice of the Black American urban struggle, now though, it’s a highly marketed precision dollar funnel for a handful of really rich, really white, really evil people. If 50 Cent only sold a thousand albums, no one would give a shit WHO downloaded his mediocre meanderings.

It’s the gamble you take as an artist. I’ve been writing poetry and short stories for years, some published, some not, but it’s the chance you take that someone who didn’t buy the piece, is going to see, enjoy and possibly even plagarize the piece. If they do, then they do, it’s the chance you take.

Just because I may copyright one of my photos, does not mean someone won’t find it somewhere, and set it as ther desktop wallpaper.

And this ‘amnesty’ program? What absolute BULLSHIT this is. go ahead morons, stick your hand up, admit to your “theft” and we’ll let you pass, but we’ll be sure and tell our cohorts down the road that you’re one of THEM, and maybe the RIAA won’t sue you, but the dirty little secret, is that ASCAP and BMI will, as they made no agreements with you.

I’m glad as hell that they’re spending even MORE of our money (that’s right, remember, this money they’re spending is money WE have given them) on the 261 trials across the country, their collective legal fees should round out to about $65,000 an hour. Good. Spend away assholes, and when you’re even MORE in the hole and the same 60 million people keep doing as their constitution allows, it’ll be my turn to laugh manically and turn my vengance upon the helpless (not really, but it sounded kinda cool). Seriously though, who do they think they’re shitting with this lawsuit? Doesn’t anyone remember pay-ola? This industry is not to be trusted.

Hell, all 60 million swappers ought to get together, and go class action on the RIAA for calling them ‘thieves’ and their conduct ‘stealing’ in the press, BEFORE a decision is handed down by a court as to whether it is or is not stealing. This sounds like a classic character defamation to me.

Once again. Fuck the RIAA in their twisted, theiving, corrupt asses.

From the article:
“apologizing and admitting that her daughter’s actions violated U.S. copyright laws”

Just some points:

  • It is not a theft to download. It is not a crime at all.
  • To distribute copyrighted works is a crime against the copyright laws.
  • These lawyers are not representing all the recording companies, therefore
    => if You admit that You ‘have violated the laws knowing to have done so’ and then make up with these firms, represented by these lawyers, You can be dragged to court by any of the other companies that are not represented by these guys. Naturally only if You have distributed their stuff also.

Naturally I am not saying that everything is true that I write, because I am not a §-crooking law-bender, by profession, but this is the info I got.


VarlosZ: It’s been repeatedly demonstrated (every time this topic comes up) that file sharing doesn’t deprive the RIAA or artists of revenue. People don’t download music instead of buying CDs, they download music instead of not listening to music. If you look at the figures, when filesharing declined in response to these lawsuits, CD sales didn’t increase. In fact, they declined a proportional amount.

In short: CDs are a substitute good for file sharing downloads, but not vice versa.

I can’t see downloding something from the net as stealing. Maybe putting it on the net to be downoaded is stealing in some way.

Wasn’t there a story about how downloading of music wasn’t hurting, and was maybe helping, sales?
Or did I just dream it?

They do both, I can tell you from extensive personal experience. It may well be that file sharing, on the whole, benefits CD sales (as people are able to sample more music that they might want to buy), but it is undeniable that there are many, many instances in which a person downloads and burns an album that he or she would have purchased if necessary. I’ve done it on a number of occasions (just as I’ve bought CDs because I sampled the music for free and liked it).

When I was in the dorms at college (land of poor students and fast internet connections) a couple of years ago, a majority of the residents (or very close to it) simply didn’t buy any music, because they had no need to (surely you won’t tell me that most college students wouldn’t buy music even if there were no file sharing).

1. . . . but CD sales are affected by much more than just the rate of file sharing. It’s effectively impossible to determine in what way file sharing affects CD sales, let alone to what degree.

2. That said, I think it’s entirely possible that file sharing boosts CD sales. However, I’m more interested the right and wrong of an individual’s file-sharing than society’s. Specifically, shouldn’t it give someone pause to download copyrighted material that he knows he would buy at face value if it weren’t available for free?