- Status
thundercleese
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2009
- 23
- 0
- 18,560
Dirty, crooked scum-bags. I'll have to teach my 5-year-old daughter to be afraid of perverts, deviants, drug-addicts and the RIAA.
You guys should do what i have been doing and that is to:
A.Do not buy any music from any large record label
B.do not buy any music from any artist who has signed with the RIAA
that is what i have done for years now and before the internet i was still not buying any large label stuff.Do you realize how much good music is out there by bands who are not RIAA or from small lables who are not RIAA.
yes and the MPAAA is a crock of krap so I don't even buy many movies
A.Do not buy any music from any large record label
B.do not buy any music from any artist who has signed with the RIAA
that is what i have done for years now and before the internet i was still not buying any large label stuff.Do you realize how much good music is out there by bands who are not RIAA or from small lables who are not RIAA.
yes and the MPAAA is a crock of krap so I don't even buy many movies
resonance451
Distinguished
- Feb 13, 2008
- 97
- 0
- 18,580
Pathetic. I hope the RIAA and MPAA die in a fire. Useless organizations hell-bent on destruction
haricotvert
Distinguished
- Mar 26, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
"The RIAA eventually dropped the charges against the mother after she proved that she was essentially computer illiterate."
Best line in the article.
Best line in the article.
I realize many of you are not old enough to remember a time before CD and DVD players but believe it or not there was. Before CD's there were cassette tape players and before them were 8-tack and reel to reel recorders. Long before the internet there was digital radio and they played whole albums that could and were recorded. We have been able to record from the radio as well. How is what is being done with file sharing any different than what we have been able to do for years? The only difference is how the songs are duplicated and the format they are in and what they are being stored on. There is nothing new here and there is no crime being committed as long as the parties involved are not reproducing the music for profit.
The Motion picutre association cried the same tune when VCR's came out, they complained that they would be ruined with people copying the movies, it didn't turn out that way just ask Blockbuster. Now both of these industry's find themselves behind the times, Blockbuster is about to go under and the RIAA hasn't a clue how to go about their business in a digital age. No bailout for them adapt or die.
The Motion picutre association cried the same tune when VCR's came out, they complained that they would be ruined with people copying the movies, it didn't turn out that way just ask Blockbuster. Now both of these industry's find themselves behind the times, Blockbuster is about to go under and the RIAA hasn't a clue how to go about their business in a digital age. No bailout for them adapt or die.
NuclearShadow
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2007
- 670
- 0
- 18,940
If the kids listen to Hanson and Michael Jackson I think they should have been able to use a insanity defense.
[citation][nom]baseline[/nom]There is nothing new here and there is no crime being committed...[/citation]
Spending a week sitting around the radio waiting for all the songs of an album to come on is not the same as getting any song you want in 4 seconds. You can't just take things at face value without considering the context and effects; how long would it take to make a hundred albums from the radio versus a thousand albums by downloading? There are orders of magnitude more volume going on now than back then with copying - I bet there are more illegal songs downloaded in a day today than tape recorders bought in a year back then. Business are allowed to keep profit in mind, it doesn't make them greedy - bread used to cost 14 cents 50 years ago but times change regardless if its still made the same way (i.e. is still "copying"). That doesn't make the people of the bread industry savages.
With that said, I am not siding with the RIAA. I actually know very little about the specifics of what they have done to piss everyone off so much. But targeting a 15 and 11 year old for what, I'm sure, is just publicity is pretty sick. Using [reasonable]scare tactics are fine by me if they're effective, but how about targeting someone who is actually able to realize the scope of what they're doing.
Spending a week sitting around the radio waiting for all the songs of an album to come on is not the same as getting any song you want in 4 seconds. You can't just take things at face value without considering the context and effects; how long would it take to make a hundred albums from the radio versus a thousand albums by downloading? There are orders of magnitude more volume going on now than back then with copying - I bet there are more illegal songs downloaded in a day today than tape recorders bought in a year back then. Business are allowed to keep profit in mind, it doesn't make them greedy - bread used to cost 14 cents 50 years ago but times change regardless if its still made the same way (i.e. is still "copying"). That doesn't make the people of the bread industry savages.
With that said, I am not siding with the RIAA. I actually know very little about the specifics of what they have done to piss everyone off so much. But targeting a 15 and 11 year old for what, I'm sure, is just publicity is pretty sick. Using [reasonable]scare tactics are fine by me if they're effective, but how about targeting someone who is actually able to realize the scope of what they're doing.
- Nov 23, 2004
- 1,161
- 0
- 20,310
The RIAA should be SHOT for this. Who sues kids? How do you try someone that many years after anyway. This is not murder. and is not different then tape sharing or recording the radio. Better sue ALL the cassette tape recorder makers?
[citation][nom]Ridik876[/nom]Spending a week sitting around the radio waiting for all the songs of an album to come on is not the same as getting any song you want in 4 seconds. You can't just take things at face value without considering the context and effects; how long would it take to make a hundred albums from the radio versus a thousand albums by downloading? There are orders of magnitude more volume going on now than back then with copying - I bet there are more illegal songs downloaded in a day today than tape recorders bought in a year back then. Business are allowed to keep profit in mind, it doesn't make them greedy - bread used to cost 14 cents 50 years ago but times change regardless if its still made the same way (i.e. is still "copying"). That doesn't make the people of the bread industry savages.[/citation]
Just for the record, whether you record off the radio or download from the internet, both are deemed illegal and detrimental by the RIAA/MPAA. Its not like they were saying, 'recording off the radio is ok but downloading is not', the RIAA/MPAA has been against any consumer replication in any shape, way, or form.
Having said that, the media often quotes ridiculous numbers such as an individual user downloading thousands of songs, in all honesty, who listens to a thousand songs in a day/week/month? More so, who would buy that many in one sitting? The magnitude of what you speak of is largely distorted due to the industry ignoring one of the many reasons of why downloading occurs in the first place (that its relatively free). People tend to take a lot of things if they're free, but the minute it has a price tag they tend to reconsider the proposal.
[citation][nom]Ridik876[/nom]
With that said, I am not siding with the RIAA. I actually know very little about the specifics of what they have done to piss everyone off so much. But targeting a 15 and 11 year old for what, I'm sure, is just publicity is pretty sick. Using [reasonable]scare tactics are fine by me if they're effective, but how about targeting someone who is actually able to realize the scope of what they're doing.[/citation]
I'm glad to see that many people, regardless of their stance towards the issue, can exercise their sensibility towards this case. I truly hope that its just a publicity stunt by the RIAA to scare others and they're not actually going to take $7,000 from children that should be using that money to go to University/College. If its true (I mean as in not a stunt), its excessive and petty on the RIAA's behalf and I hope that it does not go unnoticed.
Just for the record, whether you record off the radio or download from the internet, both are deemed illegal and detrimental by the RIAA/MPAA. Its not like they were saying, 'recording off the radio is ok but downloading is not', the RIAA/MPAA has been against any consumer replication in any shape, way, or form.
Having said that, the media often quotes ridiculous numbers such as an individual user downloading thousands of songs, in all honesty, who listens to a thousand songs in a day/week/month? More so, who would buy that many in one sitting? The magnitude of what you speak of is largely distorted due to the industry ignoring one of the many reasons of why downloading occurs in the first place (that its relatively free). People tend to take a lot of things if they're free, but the minute it has a price tag they tend to reconsider the proposal.
[citation][nom]Ridik876[/nom]
With that said, I am not siding with the RIAA. I actually know very little about the specifics of what they have done to piss everyone off so much. But targeting a 15 and 11 year old for what, I'm sure, is just publicity is pretty sick. Using [reasonable]scare tactics are fine by me if they're effective, but how about targeting someone who is actually able to realize the scope of what they're doing.[/citation]
I'm glad to see that many people, regardless of their stance towards the issue, can exercise their sensibility towards this case. I truly hope that its just a publicity stunt by the RIAA to scare others and they're not actually going to take $7,000 from children that should be using that money to go to University/College. If its true (I mean as in not a stunt), its excessive and petty on the RIAA's behalf and I hope that it does not go unnoticed.
ira176
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2006
- 21
- 0
- 18,560
I'm not sure who presides over these civil proceedings, be it a judge or arbitrators or what ever, but shame on them, for entertaining this case in the first place. According to the article, the RIAA targeted the mother for the the illegal downloads, but after she proved that she is computer illiterate, the RIAA *dropped the charges*. So, since the RIAA didn't actually loose the case, they most likely wouldn't have to repay lawyer fees to the mother. But the RIAA didn't stop there...instead of admitting a mistake on their part, they go after the kids for cash (what a way to really ruin a family's life). I know this is civil case which requires less burden of proof, but if the kids at least the 11 year old at the time couldn't have even been charged with stealing, they would have been not criminally responsible at that age. To make matters worse, in most states the statute of limitations would have come and gone on this larceny. So I guess what I am trying to say is that, yes the two children were wrong in stealing the music, the RIAA should have just forgiven these kids. This was just the wrong thing to do and isn't the right type of disipline for this case. SHAME ON YOU RIAA.
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]Am I the only one that thinks this is insane? Oh we lost, but you got kids right, so well just go after them. When is it going to be enough? When are the people going to demand that the RIAA stop their bullying?[/citation]
you are definitely not the only one. I think this is completely insane and unbelievable.
[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]wow she should have settled for the original $4,000. $7,000 + $24000 = ouch or $31 per song![/citation]
you are right. but that fact that this is true just shows how messed up things are to. a person should NOT have to pay +6 times the amount they are sued for to prove they are innocent! that is just completely retarded and there should be laws about this some where or govt. supported/financed defense against abusive law suits like this. the amount they can sue for maybe should be based on a % of a family's income. something. if it is this easy for the RIAA why the hell don't they just sue everyone for 4K since it would be easier and cheaper for everyone to pay them off? whose to stop them from doing that? and what the h377? how can they still be after this 7 years later? the law suit is almost as old as the boy was at the time - 11 years old. and how the h377 can they justify going after an 11 year old for cash? isn't there far better suited avenues of deterrence? make him clean their offices for 6 months for free or something. but give me a break - is ruining a family's life or at the least setting them back years even justified or something the RIAA would even want a spokesperson to comment on? I can't believe the spokesperson wasn't soo ashamed of who she worked for to even show her face much less speak.
you are definitely not the only one. I think this is completely insane and unbelievable.
[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]wow she should have settled for the original $4,000. $7,000 + $24000 = ouch or $31 per song![/citation]
you are right. but that fact that this is true just shows how messed up things are to. a person should NOT have to pay +6 times the amount they are sued for to prove they are innocent! that is just completely retarded and there should be laws about this some where or govt. supported/financed defense against abusive law suits like this. the amount they can sue for maybe should be based on a % of a family's income. something. if it is this easy for the RIAA why the hell don't they just sue everyone for 4K since it would be easier and cheaper for everyone to pay them off? whose to stop them from doing that? and what the h377? how can they still be after this 7 years later? the law suit is almost as old as the boy was at the time - 11 years old. and how the h377 can they justify going after an 11 year old for cash? isn't there far better suited avenues of deterrence? make him clean their offices for 6 months for free or something. but give me a break - is ruining a family's life or at the least setting them back years even justified or something the RIAA would even want a spokesperson to comment on? I can't believe the spokesperson wasn't soo ashamed of who she worked for to even show her face much less speak.
antilycus
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2006
- 397
- 0
- 18,930
This is absolutely ridiculous and shows how broken our legal system is. The RIAA COMPLETELY destroyed this woman's life and financial stability. Then, once her life is already wrecked and the children are old enough to pay for it themselves they make an agreement. THIS SHOULD BE THE NUMBER 1 REASON that PEOPLE REVOLT AGAINST THIS BROKEN SYSTEm!
g-thor
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2008
- 118
- 0
- 18,630
The problem with this case is that the RIAA has deep legal pockets, the family doesn't. RIAA had already broken the mother (even with the support she got from others), so the kids wouldn't have the finances to fight for long.
I expect RIAA was hoping that was the case, because then it would be settled out of court. Why is that important? I think a court ruling would have gone against them. As many have mentioned, statute of limitations, age at time of illegal file sharing, etc. What the RIAA has now is a psuedo-precedent. They can point at this and say, "See, this is the precedent in this kind of case" and the media will not only buy it, but spread it. It is NOT, however, a legal precedent. That only comes through a decision handed down by a court of law.
RIAA's tactics are, I believe, purely scare tactics. They made no money on this (their legal fees must have been staggering), set no legal precedent, but they will get a lot of media attention - especially on a slow news day. I don't like how they handle things - I would call it mafia tactics - "pay us what you owe us, or we break your hard drive".
But please, keep in mind that people who illegally copy and distribute music, movies, etc. are not modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. For example. if my neighbour has a veggie garden, and I steal all of his produce and give it to the food bank, it is still stealing. My not making money off of it, or not using it myself, doesn't mean I didn't take something that wasn't mine, and in our legal system, that's a crime (the question of whether it should be a crime is a whole different discussion). What I can do is try to persuade my neighbour that he should give some to the food bank.
If I don't like the music industry's way of doing business, my most persuasive act is to not buy what they make - and I generally don't. I pretty much quit buiyng CDs years back because I already have more music than I can listen to in a few months - and it's music I enjoy.
The challenge is, RIAA wants to claim their financial losses are solely based on piracy. The only way we can prove them wrong, and show them that it's their services and products we don't like, is to quit file sharing music long enough for them to keep losing money at a prodigious rate without any piracy going on. Then they will be forced to change their business model, without the excuse that "the pirates made me do it". Can we, as a society, do that? I don't think so, as long as the files are "free" for the taking. It would take a lot of character and moral fortitude for such a small thing.
I expect RIAA was hoping that was the case, because then it would be settled out of court. Why is that important? I think a court ruling would have gone against them. As many have mentioned, statute of limitations, age at time of illegal file sharing, etc. What the RIAA has now is a psuedo-precedent. They can point at this and say, "See, this is the precedent in this kind of case" and the media will not only buy it, but spread it. It is NOT, however, a legal precedent. That only comes through a decision handed down by a court of law.
RIAA's tactics are, I believe, purely scare tactics. They made no money on this (their legal fees must have been staggering), set no legal precedent, but they will get a lot of media attention - especially on a slow news day. I don't like how they handle things - I would call it mafia tactics - "pay us what you owe us, or we break your hard drive".
But please, keep in mind that people who illegally copy and distribute music, movies, etc. are not modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. For example. if my neighbour has a veggie garden, and I steal all of his produce and give it to the food bank, it is still stealing. My not making money off of it, or not using it myself, doesn't mean I didn't take something that wasn't mine, and in our legal system, that's a crime (the question of whether it should be a crime is a whole different discussion). What I can do is try to persuade my neighbour that he should give some to the food bank.
If I don't like the music industry's way of doing business, my most persuasive act is to not buy what they make - and I generally don't. I pretty much quit buiyng CDs years back because I already have more music than I can listen to in a few months - and it's music I enjoy.
The challenge is, RIAA wants to claim their financial losses are solely based on piracy. The only way we can prove them wrong, and show them that it's their services and products we don't like, is to quit file sharing music long enough for them to keep losing money at a prodigious rate without any piracy going on. Then they will be forced to change their business model, without the excuse that "the pirates made me do it". Can we, as a society, do that? I don't think so, as long as the files are "free" for the taking. It would take a lot of character and moral fortitude for such a small thing.
mdillenbeck
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2008
- 283
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]HotRoderX[/nom]Thats just insane how can you even go after the kids after 7 years not to mention when the committed this act nether was legal adult . . . I think people should just stop supporting the music industry[/citation]
I feel sorry for the two kids who settled - which means this apparently was handled out of court. Even in the statute of limitations had not expired for the RIAA filing a claim, as you said they were minor and thus standard criminal and civil code cannot be applied without a ruling waving them into adult courts. If only a lawyer would have stepped up and done a brief bit of pro bono work or they had spent the time doing some research.
As to the boycott idea - I have been doing it. I refuse to buy new CDs, used CDs (as someone had to buy those new), or listen to the radio (as they pay licensing fees to broadcast the music). Now I listen to a lot more public radio, read, or tune into classical stations. Do I miss rock'n'roll? Not really - after all, if I want to see a 90+ minute music video all I have to do is go see a movie in the theater. (Wait, MPAA is just as bad... guess that's why I only see about 1 movie every 2 years now.)
I feel sorry for the two kids who settled - which means this apparently was handled out of court. Even in the statute of limitations had not expired for the RIAA filing a claim, as you said they were minor and thus standard criminal and civil code cannot be applied without a ruling waving them into adult courts. If only a lawyer would have stepped up and done a brief bit of pro bono work or they had spent the time doing some research.
As to the boycott idea - I have been doing it. I refuse to buy new CDs, used CDs (as someone had to buy those new), or listen to the radio (as they pay licensing fees to broadcast the music). Now I listen to a lot more public radio, read, or tune into classical stations. Do I miss rock'n'roll? Not really - after all, if I want to see a 90+ minute music video all I have to do is go see a movie in the theater. (Wait, MPAA is just as bad... guess that's why I only see about 1 movie every 2 years now.)
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion I am going from Android to Iphone and need some help- Started by Panayioti
- Replies: 3
-
Question How to install custom rom(android 9) on lgv20(h910)?
- Started by Wing901
- Replies: 3
-
-
Facebook
Twitter