P2P group: We'll pay girl's RIAA bill

CNET News.com ^ | September 10, 2003, 1:24 PM PT | John Borland

[yonif]

A peer-to-peer group says it will cover costs for a 12-year-old New York girl who agreed to pay record labels $2,000 to settle a file-swapping lawsuit. P2P United, a peer-to-peer industry trade group that includes Grokster, StreamCast Networks, Limewire and other file-trading software companies, said Wednesday it had offered to reimburse Brianna Lahara and her mother's payment to the Recording Industry Association of America. Lahara's mother agreed Tuesday to settle copyright infringement charges on behalf of her daughter.

"We do not condone copyright infringement, but someone has to draw the line to call attention to a system that permits multinational corporations with phenomenal financial and political resources to strong-arm 12-year-olds and their families in public housing the way this sorry episode dramatizes," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P United.

Eisgrau said he had not yet been in direct contact with Lahara or her mother.

In the few days since Lahara's unexpected rise into the public eye, the schoolgirl's case has become a cause celebre for RIAA critics, who say the recording industry's wave of lawsuits against file-traders is misguided.

According to a New York Post profile, Lahara is a 12-year-old honors student who lives in public housing. Her name turned up in one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the record industry group on Monday.

Lahara's $2,000 settlement was the first announced deal of what is expected to be many out-of-court agreements. RIAA President Cary Sherman said Monday that a handful of settlement agreements, averaging around $3,000 apiece, were already being negotiated.

In a statement released jointly by the RIAA and Lahara on Tuesday, Lahara said she was "very sorry" for what she had done. According to the RIAA, the girl's computer had illegally been sharing more than 1,000 songs through the Kazaa software.

"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," her mother, Sylvia Torres, added in the statement. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

The RIAA said the deal with Lahara satisfied its goal of sending a message to file swappers.

"As this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers," Mitch Bainwol, the group's new chief executive, said in the statement.

Previous targets of RIAA lawsuits have sometimes found financial help from the file-swapping community.

Daniel Peng, a Princeton University junior who agreed to settle file-trading charges with the RIAA for $15,000 earlier this year, has raised nearly $10,000 toward covering his costs from public donations made through PayPal and other online payment services, according to his Web site.

Eisgrau said P2P United had no plans to pay other file-swappers' legal fees. The recently founded group plans to lobby in Washington, D.C., for policies such as compulsory music licensing on peer-to-peer networks, which would force the music companies to allow songs to be traded on file-trading networks in return for some payment to copyright holders.

[novacation]

Your silly argument makes no sense. Did you write a song or a book? You can get a copy right on those things.How would you like if you wrote a book, got a copy right,and found that your cousin was having it printed and selling it for his profit? You have no argument. There are copy right laws being broken that need to be enforced.Did you know you aren't suppose to play a copy righted song at a public performance without permission?Do you understand that the people who produce music and books do it for profit also? Did you know that it is illegal to sell copies of software?Did you know it is illegal to use another products label as your own?Do you understand that you are not suppose to make copies of movie videos for yourself or profit? You have no argument.

[Hodar]

But this was all pre-digital, pre-internet.

Thus, the only thing that has changed is the speed, and the distribution of what happened in the 70's. These kids that are file-swapping will eventually have disposable income (just like we did) and will eventually buy these CD's for nostalgic reasons (just like we did). The best selling point of this, is that although the MP3's sound good; they do NOT sound as good as a CD. If you like a song, you will want the best quality of the song you can get your hands on. This fact sold 'Master Recordings' at triple the cost of a standard LP in the days of vinyl, and Superbit CD's today. It will also sell existing CD's tomorrow.

[bvw]

Yes. I would speak to my uncle. Yes. Yes. In many cases it is legal. You'll have to be more clear what you mean on that one. You certainly may make copies of some movie videos, and for profit.

Do you need to talk about our easy financing plan for that $3600 fee? We can help you by offering you a comfortable $36 a month plan.

[=Intervention=]

"Freepers who are concerned about doing the right thing should, above all, choose their music wisely."

Now how do you propose that we hear this music? I prefer to hear mine before I purchase it. So I research. I read reviews. I borrow from friends. I go to the band's site. I go to the record company's site. I download MP3s. Why do I do this? The music I enjoy (doom metal) is not readily available in stores, and I can't stand getting ripped for $15 or so. Now, by your own admission, since MP3s are not usable, then that forces the customer to support shoddy art and to buy things sight unseen.

All the moral posturing by RIAA defenders end with the same conclusion -- screw the customers.

[=Intervention=]

"You get a clue. Tobacco and asbestos are health issues"

Only very tenuously, so, and that was his point. They are really rubrics under which the lawyer class turns various folks into paupers.

[=Intervention=]

Well, again, here's my dilemna.

1) Listen to an MP3 of a band I like. If I can do that, it will influence me to buy the album. If there are enough good songs off that album (50% or more), I buy it. There are no singles available from this band, and its songs are not available via pay-for-song sites, so that's my only option.

2) Do not listen to the MP3. I don't know what's on the album and so I won't buy it.

Option #2 leads to no revenue for the band or the record company. Kinda silly, don't you think?

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Now how do you propose that we hear this music?"

The same way we always have: On the radio, in the store, through friends and family who have similar tastes in music. If it is obscure material that is hard to find and offered only as MP3s the RIAA isn't going to pursue it. Most indie artists have nothing to do with the RIAA anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA largely ignores MP3 offerings from the "unknowns."

As for quality, popular music, it is in the interest of the industry to make MP3 sample clips available so folks can get at least a peek at what they're buying.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"What's a serf of the ludicrous American 'legal' system like you doing on a Constitutional board?"

For some reason I believe other people's property should be protected by law and valued as such. The real question is, "What's a pipsqueak anarchist like you doing on a Consitutional board?"

[Fester Chugabrew]

"I wonder if any of the individuals being sued by the RIAA will try this argument in court."

I don't think it would wash since they made use of the "commercial" outlet for their unauthorized duplications. Still, the law and the RIAA are, IMO, forgiving of those situations where individuals who have purchased a recording choose to make extra copies for themselves in other formats.

[supercat]

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law.

I believe that depends upon the medium and device used to copy the MP3 in question; if you burn it onto a "CD-R Audio" disk, then the royalties have been paid [which is why "audio" disks cost more than other CD's]. If you store it to a hard drive, the royalties have not been paid. That having been said, keeping a file both on a hard drive and on a royalty-paid CD-R audio disk shouldn't be a problem.

[Jack Wilson]

The real question is, "What's a pipsqueak anarchist like you doing on a Consitutional board?"

Thanks. I thought I was the only one to notice....

[an amused spectator]

For some reason I believe other people's property should be protected by law and valued as such.

It's not real property - the kind recognized by the Founding Fathers, and all the RIAA spin in the world won't make it so.

I asked your little pal Jackie Wilson why the pharmaceutical companies don't "copyright" their products instead of patenting them, and of course he had no answer. How about you?

The real question is, "What's a pipsqueak anarchist like you doing on a Consitutional board?"

I guess Jim Robinson is a pipsqueak anarchist, too, because he fought the phony copyright claims of LATWP back in the day.

I was kicking a** on Eschoir, ash and billy paul before you knew what the Net was. I outlasted them, and I'll outlast the two of you. At least I know how to spell "Constitutionalist", Chugaslug.

Deb, get a load of these two - Chugabrew and his sidekick Jack Wilson. Wilson loves to claim that Free Republic and Democratic Underground are pretty much the same thing, and the mods let him get away with it. **shrug**

[Fester Chugabrew]

"It's not real property."

Oh really? Is it just in your imagination? I don't care how long you've been around this place. It certainly hasn't cleared up your ignorant bias in this regard.

[Jacky Wilson]

IP is clearly a legal construct (e.g. it still seems to have (barely) a limited life) and treated quite differently in the law from real property.

[an amused spectator]

Don't confuse Chugalug with the facts. ;-)

[Jack Wilson]

I outlasted them, and I'll outlast the two of you

They say cockroaches will survive nuclear war...

[truenospinzone]

Yeah...where's my thirteen dollars?

[an amused spectator]

They say cockroaches will survive nuclear war...

You were in a nuclear war? That's gonna leave a mark...

What's up with you? First you side with Chugalug, then you side with me. I'm glad to see that you've swung around to the rational view that IP isn't real property. It appears as though you must have been doing some reading in Constitutional history overnight. Good for you. ;-)

[=Intervention=]

"On the radio, in the store, through friends and family who have similar tastes in music."

That's the problem. Radio doesn't serve up this type of stuff, and family isn't into it. If you go the friend route, that's still someone taking the hit for buying it blind. I agree that the RIAA won't be pursuing me or others like me that aren't ripping Coldplay or Aerosmith or something, but I just wanted to bring out the point that a good number of file sharers/swappers are those who deal primarily in obscure/indie material.

[natewill]

A general question on this whole RIAA thing. They can't go after people that download movies/DVDs/Divx, or software, can they? The only thing they are pursuing is music/MP3s, right? Has anybody heard about this side of the argument?