RIAA settles with 12-year old girl [$2,000 payment to music cartel]

ZDNet ^ | September 9, 2003 | John Borland

[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.

[Bush2000]

I'm a little confused. How can you change your computer's IP address and still have your cable modem work?

You use an anonymous proxy.

[BlazingArizona]

You're kidding, right? Apple will give it right back to the Democratic Party. It's stuffed with libs.

For the sake of argument, assume that Apple were to donate its entire profit to the DNC. The fact that the artist ghets a lot more than under the Hollywood formula will in the long run cause more artists to sell through Apple and bypass Hollywood. Propblem solved.

[supercat]

One more restriction: (5) in the event that the recording artists plays any sequence of notes not present in the original piece [most typically as a consequence of changing instrumentation], any copyright for that sequence of notes belongs either to nobody or to the original composer, not the recording artist. Basically, the idea here is that the recording artist is supposed to simply be recording the composer's work, and not juxtoposing it with his own original creative work. For the artist to claim copyright on any embelishments or other figures would be to state that his own work was juxtaposed with that of the original compser, which would be forbidden.

BTW, note that there have been a few pieces which have become more well known in a major cover version than in the original. Any performance royalties for such pieces go to the original composer--not the band which made it popular--even if other people covering the song do it more in the style of the latter band.

[Bush2000]

Er, no. Even Clinton would be hard-pressed to modify the meaning of ordinary words to the point that a prohibition on open discussion of security holes serves to "advance the progress of science and the useful arts".

That's a mischaracterization. It does not prohibit discussion of hacking. But actually creating code that could be used to circumvent anti-piracy/security is where people run afoul of the Act.

[Bush2000]

For the sake of argument, assume that Apple were to donate its entire profit to the DNC. The fact that the artist ghets a lot more than under the Hollywood formula will in the long run cause more artists to sell through Apple and bypass Hollywood. Propblem solved.

That's a distinction without a difference. Either way, the money ends up in the DNC's coffers.

[tdadams]

And with that, I'd direct you back to what I said in #243. That's not really the issue being discussed here at all. You're deflecting the real issue.

[honeygrl]

The trailor park comment was a fact? Do you live next door?

[FLAMING DEATH]

Well, I understood that. The main point was, the definition of "public exhibition" is vague at best. I know you can play copyrighted material without fear of harrassment if you pay the fee. My point was, there are several situations in which we may find ourselves that could constitute a public exhibition, some even without our knowledge. Not all "public venues" will have ticket prices or seats available, and the intent of the person playing the music may not be to consciously create a public performance of the music.

[oceanview]

maybe. but if you get a few key companies behind it: MSFT, Intel and AMD, all of the media companies. and then if you have the government and the courts penalizing everyone who tries to "break the mold", they have us.

look at HDTV. Its going nowhere without full blown digital copy protection being used universally on the TVs, cable boxes, various devices, DVRs, etc.

[oceanview]

I wonder who runs those "anonymous" proxies? I wouldn't be surprised to see the RIAA setting up a few.

[Bush2000]

The trailor park comment was a fact? Do you live next door?

Georgia is one big trailer park, honey...

[Bush2000]

I wonder who runs those "anonymous" proxies? I wouldn't be surprised to see the RIAA setting up a few.

Anybody with sufficient bandwidth can run one. You could, in fact.

[Jacky Wilson]

Last time I checked, the responsibility for the law in the U.S. goes is a full circle. The general population (as jurors) have the ability to refuse to enforce prosecutions they deem to be unreasonable in addition to tracking those who voted for the DMCA to target them for removal.

[CodeMonkey]

Sooooo that's why copyrights are in our Constitution, because they are "uppity"?

The men who wrote the Constitution did not believe that if a power was enumerated in the Constitution that it could be exercised by the US Government. They did not want 50 copyright systems in the US. It was only when the states pointed to the opposite interpretation of the US Constitution that we got a Bill of Rights.

[CodeMonkey]

But they do it, anyway -- because, without the rule of law, we're nothing but a nation of rogues and thieves.

Only some conservatives hold that view. Most have the basic intellect required to recognize that the law is often not correct and/or ethical. Blind adherence to the rule of law is for slavish and collectivist peoples who are too mentally lazy to think critically.

[CodeMonkey]

Hint: The Constitution says "limited term" (non-specific) for a reason. It gave discretion to Congress for determining the length of the time period. Not you. Or anybody else.

The term shall last x years where x is equal to the time in milliseconds expected for the heat death of the universe minus the current time in milliseconds since the big bang.

That too is a limited term, but I doubt that's what the founders meant.

[Bush2000]

That too is a limited term, but I doubt that's what the founders meant.

Irrelevant. By refusing to specify what "limited term" means, the Founding Fathers abdicated any expectation regarding its definition. What you and I think is irrelevant. It's up to Congress to make that determination.

[Bush2000]

Only some conservatives hold that view. Most have the basic intellect required to recognize that the law is often not correct and/or ethical. Blind adherence to the rule of law is for slavish and collectivist peoples who are too mentally lazy to think critically.

BS. If conservatives disagree with a law, they work to change it. They don't take out pitchforks and shotguns.

[supercat]

But they do it, anyway -- because, without the rule of law, we're nothing but a nation of rogues and thieves.

Do waitresses ever receive tips? Why?

You may believe that government is the only thing that maintains order, but I would suggest the opposite: order is best maintained by the people, not by government; indeed, to the extent that government prevents people from maintaining order themselves, it in fact undermines society.

[supercat]

Irrelevant. By refusing to specify what "limited term" means, the Founding Fathers abdicated any expectation regarding its definition. What you and I think is irrelevant. It's up to Congress to make that determination.

Indeed, Congress made that decision when they passed the 1920-something copyright act which made copyrights 28 years renewable to 56. So that a work which was published in 1940 would fall into the public domain in 1968 if the copyright wasn't renewed, or 1996 if it was.

I don't dispute Congress' authority to establish different rules for new works (though the notion that a work published today could still be copyright in 2150 even if there are no further extensions is rather galling), but what is the meaning of copyrights being 'limited' if they can be extended indefinitely?