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.
Talk about a blatant rationalization (not to mention a non sequitur).
So, because these labels contribute to Democrats (and Republicans, but nevermind that) it's OK to infringe their copyrights. Oh, OK. Whatever.
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. The U.S. Constitution recognizes intellectual property rights and so does the federal law (USC 17 chapter 1).
I'm sorry but your idealistic opinion does not supercede those.
Then you're breaking the law. Even moreso than P@P file-sharers, in fact, since you are actually making a profit on the physical product created and distributed by the record company, rather than an abstract form of the data within the product.
You're not alone, of course: there are thousands of used CD stores in the US, and every one of them is reselling a copyrighted product without the express consent of the copyright owner. Yet the RIAA isn't filing mass lawsuits against the owners of your local Second Spin.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think the RIAA was suing schoolkids and grandparents because it's easier than making a valid case, both legally and in the court of public opinion, subject to counterpoints and scrutiny. Much easier to scare a kid's mother into paying $2000 than going to court against a legitimate business and proving that the CD would have brought them $2000 had it not been resold.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
By corrupting our government they have no right to make a profit again. By messing with our government they have effectively become no better than the chicoms who supported Clinton. I am about as concerned with their future as I am the chicoms'.
So then people like you are the reason why people like me, and every other American who writes code in any way for anyone in America may soon have to take our marching orders from the federal government? Confused? Look up your industry cartel's biggest bribe legislation of late: the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. It was only defeated in committee for a little while. Hollings never abandoned it.
I pray that for the future of America, the music industry if it doesn't change gets tossed on the economic dustheap of history as soon as possible. Our economy and legal system doesn't need and probably can't take anymore of these bribe-laws.
RIAA is essentially a trust, the same as the steel trust or the biscuit trust etc. that existed and were broken up at the turn of the century. They control (through their member parties) the vast majority of music released to the public (at least that above the level of garage bands) and have engaged in price-fixing and collusion to keep the price of music artificially high, while forcing artists to submit their work at artificially low prices. We still do have anti-trust laws in this country, and I'm surprised that some enterprising young district attorney hasn't filed criminal charges.
Consider the case of another trust: DeBeer's (the diamond trust). They control the vast majority of new diamonds on the market, and they deliberately conspire to keep the price of diamonds artificially high. The diamond trust is well aware that what they're doing is illegal in the US, so much so that DeBeer's corporate executives are forbidden to as much as change planes in the US, lest they get served with a summons. All their US advertising is farmed out to advertising companies here and handled remotely.
Actually I am playing around with that.
I'll scan it into the internet, and because I can, you lose.
Too late, I've already got parts of it written and once I check them for grammer they'll be going into my blog.
No one will buy your stupid book because I'll give it to them for free.
So the content is bad because it's free? I guess everything at the gutenburg project must suck too then.
Besides, you're just a greedy author and deserve to get screwed, right?
Wah bloody wah. The only ones that deserve to get screwed are the uppity ones who fancy IP to equal to property rights.
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.