Posted on 05/27/2004 12:57:50 PM PDT by jjm2111
Tammy Lafky has a computer at home but said she doesn't use it. "I don't know how," the 41-year-old woman said, somewhat sheepishly.
But her 15-year-old daughter, Cassandra, does. And what Cassandra may have done, like millions of other teenagers and adults around the world, landed Lafky in legal hot water this week that could cost her thousands of dollars.
Lafky, a sugar mill worker and single mother in Bird Island, a farming community 90 miles west of St. Paul, became the first Minnesotan sued by name by the recording industry this week for allegedly downloading copyrighted music illegally.
The lawsuit has stunned Lafky, who earns $12 an hour and faces penalties that top $500,000. She says she can't even afford an offer by the record companies to settle the case for $4,000.
The ongoing music downloading war is being fought on one side by a $12 billion music industry that says it is steadily losing sales to online file sharing. On the other side, untold millions of people — many of them too young to drive — who have been downloading free music off file-sharing sites with odd names like Kazaa and Grokster and who are accusing the music industry of price gouging and strong-arm tactics.
Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it.
"She says she can't believe she's the only one being sued," Lafky said. "She told me, 'I can't be the only one. Everybody else does it.' "
A record company attorney from Los Angeles contacted Lafky about a week ago, telling Lafky she could owe up to $540,000, but the companies would settle for $4,000.
"I told her I don't have the money," Lafky said. "She told me to go talk to a lawyer and I told her I don't have no money to talk to a lawyer."
Lafky said she clears $21,000 a year from her job and gets no child support.
The music industry isn't moved. It has sued nearly 3,000 people nationwide since September and settled with 486 of them for an average of $3,000 apiece, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major and minor labels that produce 90 percent of the recorded music in the United States.
"Our goal in these cases and in this program (of lawsuits) that we're trying to achieve is to deliver the message that it's illegal and wrong," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs for the RIAA.
Since the music industry began its lawsuit campaign, awareness of the illegality of downloading copyrighted music has increased several-fold this year, Pierre-Louis said.
"And we're trying to create a level playing field for legal online (music) services," he added.
These services sell music for under a dollar a song, and some have become well known, like Apple Computer's iPod service, which advertises heavily on TV. Others are just getting off the ground.
Pierre-Louis said the RIAA does not comment on individual cases like Lafky's, but he said the music industry typically finds its targets by logging onto the same file-sharing services that the file-sharers do. Its agents then comb the play lists for names of songs that are copyrighted and that they believe are being illegally shared.
The record companies follow the songs when they're downloaded onto computers, and they also note how many copyrighted songs are stored on that computer's hard drive memory, because those songs are often "uploaded" or shared with others through the file-sharing service.
Since January, the industry has filed 2,947 lawsuits, most against "John Does," until the record companies went to court to get names of the downloaders from their Internet service providers. Last month, the music industry filed 477 lawsuits nationwide, including two "John Doe" lawsuits against users at the University of Minnesota whose identities have not been revealed.
The industry is particularly keen on stopping people who keep their computers open on the Internet for others to share. On Lafky's computer, for instance, record companies like Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Bros. found songs by groups they publish like Bloodhound Gang, Savage Garden and Linkin Park. Also found were songs by artists Michelle Branch, MC Hammer and country stars Shania Twain and Neal McCoy, which not only were downloaded but also available to others to upload, according to the lawsuit.
Federal copyright laws allow for penalties that range from $750 per infringement or song up to $30,000 per infringement, Pierre-Louis said.
If a defendant is found to have committed a violation "in a willful manner," he or she can be fined $150,000 per song, he said.
The record companies are willing to negotiate cases individually if someone says they cannot afford the penalties. So far, no case has gone to trial, the RIAA said.
Pierre-Louis said the RIAA isn't afraid of a consumer backlash. "We're facing a daunting challenge and we have to face it head-on," he said.
Tammy Lafky is facing her own challenge. She said she doesn't know what she'll do. "I told her," she said, referring to the record company lawyer, "if I had the money I would give it to you, but I don't have it."
I thought the law doesn't matter anymore in California. Anyone can ignore it if they think it is "not constitutional" or doesn't agree with their social agenda. Someone call the mayor of San Fran for some legal advice...
I stopped buying CDs when they started selling for $17 or $18 bucks a pop. I'd like two or 3 songs, and I was out nearly $20. Doesn't it cost the record label something like 20 cents to produce the disc itself, maybe another $1 in packaging? Sell the darn CD for 10 bucks, and I muight buy it. Why not give the artist, say, $2 in royalties, and the label makes $6.80 in profit (before any other promotion they pay for). That seems fair.
If they want us to buy the CDs, they need to price them fairly.
Lest we forget parents ARE responsible for their children, unless of course it may interfere with the indoctrination to the liberal doctrine, then they are powerless and overwhelmed by the states laws.
If the daughter committed the crime, why is the industry going after the mother?
Are the parents of the Columbine killers being jailed for the murders committed by their sons?
BTW, I don't DL the music illegally if I can't buy it, but I don't buy the CD either.
If they want to prosecute, they should focus on those people who burn zillions of cds and turn around and sell them at flea markets and such.
As far as this woman, if it were me, I would just stand my ground. They can't get blood from a turnip. A smart attorney will go where the money is, not waste time suing someone who has no means to pay.
I use the 'sharing' services to try before I buy (and sometimes to find new artists). I don't mind paying for content, but I hate spending $18 for a cd w/ one good song.
The RIAA wants its cake and to eat it too. They want a perfectly docile public that will buy whatever tripe is pushed on them in large numbers.
Better yet -- If they want us to buy the CDs, put some decent material on them! Not all of us like Rap, Hip-Hop, Metal, Madonna or the other garbage. What ever happened to music? You know, that artistic combination of melody, harmony and lyrics that actually comprised something meaningful.
They are such compassionate, kind, gentleman who only make the world a better place.
The lady should send the RIAA attorney a letter saying that her daughter will cease and desist downloading music and will delete any content that is copywrighted and not previously purchased (i.e. - you buy a CD and then download a the song you already own). Like you said, you can't get blood from a turnip.
The service lets you preview 30 seconds of a track for free, so you're not buying completely unheard stuff.
It's still there, it's called "Country" and "Gospel".
One question:
Is it illegal to go to the local library and borrow a book on CD and make a copy of it to listen to at home?
I was just wondering since a book on CD was paid for using my tax money and support of the local public library.
Well, the record company has to recoop the money it lost in the class action suit (that I joined) by falsely inflating CD prices for the past 10 years. Since their introduction, labels are still charging the same price- if not more.
It would be interesting to know how many songs her daughter has downloaded..... and shared with friends.
Anyone else notice how similar the RIAA is to Sen. Lurch F'ing Kerry?
I LOVE MusicMatch.
If the child downloaded smutty music, couldn't the mother sue the record company for distributing it to kids?
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.