Posted on 09/09/2003 8:04:18 AM PDT by jgrubbs
The RIAA has nailed one of the most prolific file-traders in the U.S., filing a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara.
When not at the playground with her friends, "Biggie Brianna" is trading music files from her home in New York. The little girl received one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) on Monday, according to the New York Post. She may look like a sweet and innocent child, but the RIAA says it's only going after major copyright violators at the moment. So you make the call.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna told the Post. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
It turns out that Brianna's mum paid a $29.99 service charge to KaZaA for the company's music service. Brianna, however, thought this meant she could download songs at will. How naive!
When reporters charged into Brianna's home, she was helping her brother with some homework. She is an honors student at St. Gregory the Great school.
Brianna could face charges of up to $150,000 per infringed song. but we have a feeling this might be a tad unrealistic. We suggest the RIAA take all of her toys instead.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," RIAA president Cary Sherman said in a statement. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
Go get her, Cary.
Let's not forget that the recording-industry "fat cats" have been picking the consumer's pocket at every turn. The duplicity is amazing - if they want to discourage home recording of music, they certainly sent the wrong message by tacitly approving of it early on. That's right, there is a tax paid by the manufacturer of Blank "Music" CDR disks under the "Audio Home Recording Act", as well as a 3% tax on every CDR recorder. The manufacturer adds the tax to the wholesale price, so you never see it. The money collected is administered by SoundExchange which is housed in the RIAA headquarters and headed by a former RIAA employee.
There's another dirty little secret: RIAA is actually *benefitting* from the data they receive on file-sharers. Not just what they find in Kazaa users' "shared folders", but in every P2P search request. Companies such as "Big Champagne" compile data from P2P searches (NOT downloads). So, to the RIAA, file-sharers are evil people and must be stopped - but it's okay to use them as a marketing resource to look at trends in music tastes and such (before dragging them off to court, I suppose).
If I've never used my CD burner for music recording but only data backup, can I get that 3% tax refunded to me? No, I didn't think so.
Yeah, sure. Let the Mars Candy Company sue every 6 year old that ever stole a stinking candy bar.
"And no one uploads music to these sites out of the goodness of their hearts. They reasonably expect that the site will attract others who do the same so they can download music which doesn't belong to them."
More of your assumptions. FYI. Most file sharing occurs peer to peer, not from a "site". The files are shared from harddive to harddrive.
Look, as someone who has made his living in Intellectual Property for the past twenty years I see both sides. While I worked for RCA/A&M (what is now BMG) I saw real piracy and counterfeiting. Retail record stores routinely bought counterfeit (cut-out, wink wink) records. Labels never bothered these retailers or their customers. Now I work with licensed sportswear, still see the effects of REAL copyright infringement and counterfeiting all the time.
IMO file sharing is no different than checking out a cd from the Library, or recording a song from the radio (legal, BTW).
Probably because the copyright cartel is such a scam. Why is it that inventions go into the public domain after a period of time, but music is perpetually "copyrighted" for eternity?
The monopolistic practices of the industry tend to send music lovers into a tizzy, furthering the P2P revolution. Everytime they paid 16.99 for a CD full of filler. Or where the single is great song, but the rest of the album is trash. Can you return it? If you buy a coffee maker and and it's a piece of garbage, usually the store will allow you to return it for credit. Try that with a CD.
The consumers pay what they are willing to pay. That is free markets. Government regulations come into play regarding protection of intellectual property rights (one of the Constitutional powers specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate purpose of the government by the way) and those regulations interact with the market in determining costs of production for certain items that then are passed on to consumers.
If you want music, pay for it. If you think what's out there isn't of adequate quality to warrant buying it, then don't. But don't use the industry's "duplicity" or the quality of the product as a justification for stealing.
And no one swaps? They expect nothing in return? I have a bridge to sell you in the desert.
IMO file sharing is no different than checking out a cd from the Library,
Then you need a remedial course in logic. The CD or book you borrow from the owner is legal because you aren't COPYING it. It's called COPYRIGHT for a reason. If you COPY the cd or book it's theft.
or recording a song from the radio (legal, BTW).
The radio station paid. The courts have decided that you can record anything floating around in the air. But you cannot then COPY them and sell or trade them for value. Now do you get it? You wasted 20 yrs it seems.
Libraries have copiers for the expressed purpose of COPYING pages of books and magazines. Many smaller libraries never purchase CD's, computer games, or movies at all. They are donated by private parties, and as such the library doesn't even have the "right" to the media period. Blockbuster pays fees to the copyright holder for "X" amount of rentals per video. The library has no such arrangement with ANY copyright holder.
Xeroxing an entire book and giving it away may indeed be infringement, but unless monitory damages can be proven there is no case.
You are dead wrong on the radio subject. The radio station (supposedly) paid ASCAP fees for each time the song is played. I assure you very often these fees are NEVER paid and frequently UNDERPAID. The station does not pay for a million listeners recording the song.
And you certainly CANNOT "record anything floating around in the air". Try sitting at the NSA's gate and recording "what floats around".
If you think that people don't swap files quid pro quo you might buy a useless bridge from a person who doesn't own one. That's the point. Some people will believe anything or can convince themselves of anything.
They are donated by private parties,
The gift transfers ownership.
Copying small amounts of books is fair use. Brush up.
Obviously.
"The gift transfers ownership."
Not according to the RIAA. And even if it did, it would be a single user right. Not for multiple listeners.
"Copying small amounts of books is fair use."
According to "Fair Use" copying an entire cd is as well. But again, not according to the RIAA.
"Brush up."
I'd rather "Brush off"... cheers.
Much as VRWCmember will learn to respect the rights of the owners of the copyrights to the news stories posted here on Free Republic.
So what about the "theives" here at Free Republic who "steal" news stories. That differs how?
Do you subscribe to all the newspapers that have stories reposted here on Free Republic? Are you a thief for not subscribing?
Nonsense, owners can lend their property to anyone as many times as they want. This is not public performance we are talking about. It is lending to one person at a time for personal use.
When you read a newspaper's story posted here rather than subscribing you are choosing as well. What's the difference in getting free access to news articles here and not paying for them and in getting access to songs on Kazaa and not paying for them?
We comply with their wishes as far as I know. When we get our asses hauled into court, we either win or comply.
No but if I go the the bookstore and find the price of a new bestseller too high and I go to the library and check it out instead, is that fair use? Are libraries themselves legal?
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.