Posted on 09/09/2003 5:26:30 PM PDT by HAL9000
Barely 24 hours after suing alleged file swappers around the United States, the recording industry has settled its first, agreeing to drop its case against a 12-year-old New York girl in exchange for US$2,000.The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed 261 lawsuits Monday against computer users it said were exclusively "egregious" file swappers. One of the targets wound up being Brianna Lahara, who was identified by the New York Post as a 12-year-old honours student who lives in a New York City Housing Authority apartment.
The trade group said Tuesday that it had agreed to settle with the preteen's mother for a sum considerably lower than previous settlement arrangements.
"We understand now that file sharing the music was illegal," Sylvia Torres, Brianna's mother, said in a statement. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."
The quick settlement points both to the public relations dangers of the RIAA's shotgun lawsuit approach and to its simultaneous effectiveness. Other sympathetic defendants are likely to emerge, but the group is setting a fast precedent of pushing people toward settlement.
"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," RIAA chief executive Mitch Bainwol said in a statement. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."
The RIAA had previously settled with four college students sued in April for between US$12,000 and US$17,000. The group said Monday that it had already reached agreements with some of the latest round of defendants to settle for about US$3,000, but that future agreements would likely carry a higher price tag.
Even better: Do all the illegal downloading and sharing you can and send the Democrats' support system to the bottom.
So to you an "objective standard of justice" is imposing a $2,000 fine on a 12 year-old girl living in the projects to send out a message that Madonna will not stand for kids listening to her music without paying for it?
That "objective standard of justice" argument would go down a little easier if they prosecuted EVERYONE who broke the law.
But they will not, so instead they prosecute and accept money from someone who obviously can't afford to pay for a lawyer, and most likely not even for a few CD's.
Tell the RIAA to shove their justice in the same place where Stevie Nicks used to shove her cocaine after the bridge of her nose collapsed from way too many lines.
What's wrong with suing a "customer" who steals from you?
"Oh no Mr. Store Manager, don't have that shoplifter with the 10 canned hams under his jacket arrested! He bought a pack of chewing gum at the register on his way out!"
A boycott would be an ethically viable approach if all you were concerned about was the product they produce, or their business practices in selling that product. But these are the people whose political donations saddled us with the DMCA, the infinite extension of copyright beyond the lifetime of the artist, and screwing children out of their life savings - in other words, they have warped the political system we all have to live under to suit themselves.
I say we take the gloves off. Steal, steal, steal from them, screw them blind, drive them out of business NOW.
And long before that, the hackers will have coded their way around the DRM and will be merrily copying away.
A boycott designed to "drive them out of business" probably would be illegal. But a boycott designed to dismantle the cartel may be legal.
There is a boycottRIAA.com web site.
But I think the draconian penalty attached to this crime is totally unreasonable, and getting the law reformed is more important than a doing a boycott.
And I think the artist whose work is allegedly infringed should be named as a plantiff in any lawsuits. Then we will see headlines like "Madonna Sues 12-Year-Old Girl for $15,000,000"
You can choose to ignore the fact that the RIAA cannot sue a 12 year old any more than 12 year old can open an internet account, but you'll still be wrong.
It's not supposed to be selective, nor is it supposed to be used to "send out a message".
The first message that the RIAA sent out is that they are heartless profiteers.
They've lost much more than $2,000 with me. I'm never purchasing another CD with the RIAA stamp on it.
The colleges have a simple solution. Someone should set up a wireless LAN (student). Charge people $5 to be able to access the LAN (to cover the cost of the HUB). Everyone on the LAN shares their music folders. You could even connect different dorms together. Much easier and faster than P2P. I wish that was available when I went to college. :)
Actually, my taste runs to oldies compilations and the product on CD has never been better. In the old days, a typical greatest hits compilation had 11 songs if you were lucky. Now you often get 20, up to 30 songs, digitally remastered, extensive liner notes (booklet). I do buy a few current items as well. I bought Rod Stewart's current album, has close to an hour of music. Adjusted for inflation, quality,factor in the durability factor and the CD is a better value than the old vinyl LP.
Please do yourself a favor and know what you're talking about before you post.
A CD does not cost $25 and the artist will make a lot more than 10 cents per CD. Ignorance.
And before you ask, yes, I do work in the music business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.