RIAA sues 12 yr. old honors student. Good work
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
It's being carried by a few sources, but this was linked from /.
Excerpt:
So now they're going after a 12 year old girl. How stupid can they get? Do they really think this is going to solve their problem?
What do you all think would work as a legit business model, and anyone think the RIAA's methods are helping the situation?
It's being carried by a few sources, but this was linked from /.
Excerpt:
Quote:
NEW YORK ? The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers ? including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"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."
NEW YORK ? The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers ? including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"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."
So now they're going after a 12 year old girl. How stupid can they get? Do they really think this is going to solve their problem?
What do you all think would work as a legit business model, and anyone think the RIAA's methods are helping the situation?
Comments
"We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."
Yet they feel they have enough information to warrant a law suit for each of them.
Fuking Morons.
Originally posted by Scott
Her age shouldn't make a difference though.
but if she was too young to know she was doing something wrong, I think it should.
my 12 year old brother is barely aware that downloading copyrighted music is illegal, like, I've told him, but he doesn't seem to "get it"
Originally posted by Scott
Her age shouldn't make a difference though.
especially if you don't care about your public image.
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
but if she was too young to know she was doing something wrong, I think it should.
my 12 year old brother is barely aware that downloading copyrighted music is illegal, like, I've told him, but he doesn't seem to "get it"
.. then uninstall the software he uses to download the music, block the ports the software uses, etc.
It's not that difficult.
As much as I raise my eyebrows at some of the RIAA's tactics, there seems to be some fundamental disconnect between peoples perception of physical theft and digital theft. It's all theft, and if the RIAA wants to start suing people who participate in that, then fair enough. It doesn't matter if you're 12 or 62.
What struck me as odd about this article is the inclusion of the fact that this girl and her family live in a Housing Authority apartment. Who gives a ***k. Am I supposed to feel empathy for her because of the implication that her family is poor? Am I now supposed to think that maybe it's not so bad that she was downloading because she can't afford to buy music? Bah.
Oh, yes, I'm occasionally a thief. At least I can admit it.
The same thing should happen here. If the RIAA wants to look LESS like an evil empire that everyone hates and MORE like a legitimate voice for an industry involved in a lot of controversy, they should dismiss cases like this. Besides, she's too young to be prosecuted normally. Her family should feel lucky that out of all people, they didn't pick her mother, because then the kids would be really, REALLY screwed. Way to ruin people's lives, RIAA. **** you, RIAA.
Oh man, this just burns me up... I can't even stop my post here! Before I was of the opinion that downloading music is generally wrong but as long as you don't get a whole bunch you're fine. If you download an entire CD, therefore removing any desire you have to buy that CD, it's morally wrong. If you download one song and decide you like the band so you go out and buy their CD, it's fine. I have done that a few times, most recently with The White Stripes. Downloaded Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground, loved it, bought the CD.
Well, back to my point... downloading music is generally wrong but if the RIAA is going to be such jerks about it, I want them to suffer and die! They deserve all the lost sales due to music sharing, every last one, and they deserve all the negative publicity they'll get from this story because it will make the problem that much worse for them. I don't mean the music artists any harm, and I think they should be justly compensated for work they do, but maybe some of them would be better off jumping ship.
If it really is against the law, they should try to prosecute these people and see what happens in the courts. My guess is that convictions will stand. If the person is a minor, or can effectively argue that they didn't know they were sharing, then so be it, they might get off.
But I'd rather them do this than go with absurd DRM that hurts users who don't steal music. It's illegal to rob banks, and they have laws against it and prosecute those who do it. But it wouldn't be right for them to affix GPS devices to everyone and track them just in case they do rob a bank.
I also think this will be more effective than DRM. I know people who have said they aren't sharing music anymore because of this, whereas DRM can be and is broken in most cases.
And it's good too for Apple that they're doing this right when Apple is pushing legal downloading.
Originally posted by audiopollution
.. then uninstall the software he uses to download the music, block the ports the software uses, etc.
It's not that difficult.
As much as I raise my eyebrows at some of the RIAA's tactics, there seems to be some fundamental disconnect between peoples perception of physical theft and digital theft. It's all theft, and if the RIAA wants to start suing people who participate in that, then fair enough. It doesn't matter if you're 12 or 62.
What struck me as odd about this article is the inclusion of the fact that this girl and her family live in a Housing Authority apartment. Who gives a ***k. Am I supposed to feel empathy for her because of the implication that her family is poor? Am I now supposed to think that maybe it's not so bad that she was downloading because she can't afford to buy music? Bah.
Oh, yes, I'm occasionally a thief. At least I can admit it.
I don't let him download music anymore anyway.
But one thing that struck me as odd about your post was the last bit
"at least I can admit it"
Who gives a ***k. Am I supposed to feel empathy for you because of the implication that you are a lesser thief?
Am I now supposed to think that maybe it's not so bad that you occasionally are downloading because you admit it Bah.
Originally posted by BRussell
If it really is against the law....
I still question that. Personally I've only ever downloaded songs I own, or songs not available for purchase. I don't think there's any way to know if a downloader is breaking the law or not unless you're at the computer with them.
however, if you DON'T go after her, you're setting lines that you said you wouldn't do when you started this whole "a thief is a thief" generalization to begin with.
way to go, guys.
Originally posted by bunge
I still question that. Personally I've only ever downloaded songs I own, or songs not available for purchase.
Exactly! I too have downloaded songs I can't buy and have no problem forking over the money if I could.
I don't think there's any way to know if a downloader is breaking the law or not unless you're at the computer with them.
The catch here (what the RIAA doesn't emphasize) is the users are not being sued for downloading files, but rather allowing files to be uploaded. Yes, you could download legal copies of songs you own, but you are not allowed to give them to others. You could download 'till the cows come home without sharing a single song and you won't be sued.
8)
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
I don't let him download music anymore anyway.
But one thing that struck me as odd about your post was the last bit
"at least I can admit it"
Who gives a ***k. Am I supposed to feel empathy for you because of the implication that you are a lesser thief?
Am I now supposed to think that maybe it's not so bad that you occasionally are downloading because you admit it Bah.
No, I'm not a lesser thief. I'm an equal thief. In fact I'm as much a thief as your young criminal brother.
All I'm saying is that the RIAA are well within their bounds to start suing people.
If they want to come after me, they will. If they want to nab your brother, they will. They're certainly allowed to file suit against a 12 year old girl.
Perhaps you have some brilliant plan that will allow unmitigated filesharing and the music business to coexist. If so, please let us know. Until then, the RIAA will serve to protect its members while the rest of us will participate in some skullduggery.
(All of us except your brother, of course.)
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
My mom has used LimeWire to download songs in the past but 95% of the time it's been to obtain songs that she already owns on vinyl records and she doesn't want to have to pay again just to listen to the songs on her computer or stereo system.
RIAA considers that illegal. In thier view you can't even copy one of your own CDs to tape to listen to in your car.
Yes, they're legally allowed to do this. But my point isn't that the RIAA is acting illegally, it's that they're acting really f*cking stupid.
Originally posted by Scott
RIAA considers that illegal. In thier view you can't even copy one of your own CDs to tape to listen to in your car.
Oh wow. Can't copy CDs to tape? Can't download music you already paid for? I didn't think it was possible, but I hate the RIAA even more than I did two minutes ago now!
By the way, what about the 80s and 90s, when casette tapes were cheap, widespread, and easy to record and copy? Was it considered illegal to make "mix" tapes from tapes you already own? I don't know anyone who didn't make those.
And finally, what is the RIAA, its own government? They seem to have their own secret police/Gestapo that regularly conducts raids on big-time music sharers, their own congress that determines what THEY think is illegal (not what they think is legal because they don't actually consider any activity legal), etc. I guess they just have LOTS of purchased congressmen?
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
And finally, what is the RIAA, its own government? They seem to have their own secret police/Gestapo that regularly conducts raids on big-time music sharers, their own congress that determines what THEY think is illegal (not what they think is legal because they don't actually consider any activity legal), etc. I guess they just have LOTS of purchased congressmen?
Just like Disney.
It's time we turn back the clock and have copyright laws the way we used to - not these ridiculously extended time periods.
And by the way, it's not stealing, it's "infringing".
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay, I'll admit the RIAA is within their legal bounds to sue a 12 year old girl for the music she uploaded. What are they going to do, take her allowance? Take the tiny amount of money her single mother has left and leave the kids on the street? Throw her in prison?
Yes, they're legally allowed to do this. But my point isn't that the RIAA is acting illegally, it's that they're acting really f*cking stupid.
The RIAA has to be seen as willing to pursue any person who is sharing music. They won't be willing to decide, ahead of time, who to sue based on age/race/income/height/etc as this will hurt them in subsequent cases.
The public relations nightmare they're about to fly into is going to be huge.
Should be fun to watch.