This is all BS. They lose lots more from the black marketers. Music, movies, and software CDs in Eastern Europe go for $2-3 a disk.
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."
Some lawyer needs to take on the recording music industry that sells their music on line. The recording industry is an "attractive nuisance" to the parents of American children. The Recording industry comes right into the American home via the computer and uses the computer that the children or their parents pay for with no permission at all. I would label the music industry that is trying to sell their music on line, using a computer that they have not paid for, an "attractive nuisance". I would like to see the recording industry sued for this. No, I have never downloaded any music from the internet, nor would I!
Yeah, but as long as parents allow their kids to buy loads of these things at $20 a pop, the industry knows it can get the price it asks.
p.s. Good login name.
Why is she even bothering with this suit? People must always refuse to be served on any suit. Then, over a year later, even if the Plaintiff gets a default judgment, it can be vacated for lack of proper service. Meanwhile, the record industry has gotten nothing but defeat in the courts on this issue. Everyone is stupidly settling, instead of fighting it. If they did so, there are a host of pro bono attorneys who are happy to help in hopes of being part of a landmark ruling on the issue.
Can one refuse to be served? I thought that was impossible.
iTunes Rocks!
It is easy to set up and easy to browse around. I like it because I can pick and choose what I want. If I want to buy an album, I will. If I don't want to waste money on an entire album, I will just get the tune(s) I want.
The problem I have with spending money on an entire CD is that 90% of the music produced in the past twenty years is uninspired garbage pushed on the market in order to make a quick buck. The music execs don't give a damn about a quality product as long as it can make some money. I also use iTunes to rip the CDs I do own and then transfer them to my iPod. I am even a Windows user and it all works seamlessly.
DON'T SETTLE. FIGHT! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF LAWYERS WHO WILL TAKE YOUR CASE FOR FREE.
Waht gives them the right to impose their morality on others?
Thanks! We make a great team.
And you're right--that's the only way rap has sold so much and is so popular: white suburban wanna-be kids buy the most obscenity-laced rap they can, and the parents pay no attention to the garbage their kids hear.
I don't begrudge poor people getting Internet access. It's not like she's trying to get welfare or something, she just thinks it's stupid to sue her.
It is very easy to avoid service on lawsuits, and delay civil suits for a very long time. And you don't need a lawyer at all. First, just don't open the door when they try and serve you. After 2-3 tries the party will just mail it and say they served you. But then track the case on the internet and wait until they get a Default Judgment (at least one year). Then you can (for around $25) file a Motion to Vacate Judgment, stating that you were never served. These are vacated by the courts in 99% of cases. Then you can delay via Adjournments almost indefinitely. When you finally have to answer, file an Answer denying everything, and you can then hold up the process via Motions of Appearance, etc. All told it is very easy to hold up most civil lawsuits for 2-5 years without even consulting an attorney (although you can get a lot of great advice from attorneys in free phone consultations under the guise that you want to retain them). They may finally get a judgment, but the long time delay gives you plenty of time to move your assets around in order to make any final Judgments all but uncollectable (also almost every state has Homestead exemptions protecting your home up to $50,000 or unlimited in the case of Florida and Texas.)
This is all BS. They lose lots more from the black marketers. Music, movies, and software CDs in Eastern Europe go for $2-3 a disk.
She's effectively judgment-proof. They can't take away her house and she makes too little for them to garnish her wages so it'll cost RIAA more to proceed with the suit than it does for them to say they made their point, collect a few hundred dollars and move on. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually settle for a fraction of the $4,000 offer in exchange for a promise never to illegally download songs from the web again.
The industry's lawyers re working on salary, possibly with bonuses for convictions.
If I were in the RIAA's position, I'd allow them to settle for $1, an admission of guilt, and the promise you mentioned. The "victory" matters more to them than the damages, and they certainly don't need the additional bad PR of trying to bankrupt a single mother.
I would say a majority of the people who stupidly settle are judgement proof, because of inadequate or Homestead-protected assets. Which underlines why NO ONE should settle. At worst they should call the E.F.F. or other groups who are chomping at the bit to set legal precedent on this--if ANYONE would fight the damn bloodsuckers.
See my post 31. No, you cant say "yeah it's me" and then refuse. But you can easily avoid service.
The best they could do is to get a judgement, then send it to a collection agency who will then put it on her credit report. That goes away in 7 years.
I know this from my brother's experience: A towing company that tried to extort $5500 (6 months) of storage fees out of my brother. The car was only worth perhaps $1000..it didn't even run. He told them he didn't want it back AND the law provides for them to dispose of it after 30 days (not 6 months--no reason at all for them to keep it that long!).
They sent it to a collection agency who put it on his credit report. That was about 4 years ago. How much of a problem has this been? Not much--I bought another townhouse and I'm renting it out to him. Plus when he moves out I'll likely be able to sell the townhouse for a bit more than I paid for it OR I can sell MY townhouse and move into that one and own it outright.
In 3 years it's history and the towing company still won't have any of their $5500 (and they'll still likely be calling credit card numbers over the VHF radios in the tow trucks for anyone with a scanner to pick up, but that's another story for another time...)
And she probably has a house rather than a tent, and wears clothes rather than a barrel or fig leaves. Right. Better she pay off the big company extortionists with her money than insist on living under a dry roof.
Do you really think you can't download music over a dialup connection?
I saw nowhere in the article where it said she had a dedicated connection.
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.