Cue echo chamber:
"Mwa-hooa-ha-ha-ha!"
Posted on 09/09/2003 8:04:18 AM PDT by jgrubbs
September 9, 2003 -- The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers - including a 12-year-old Upper West Side girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment on West 84th Street where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"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?"
The Recording Industry Association of America - a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits - couldn't answer that question.
"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.
Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."
Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock."
"My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said.
The family signed up for the Kazaa music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said.
When reporters visited Brianna's home last night, she was helping her brother with his homework.
Her mom said Brianna's an honors student at St. Gregory the Great, a Catholic school on West 90th Street.
Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software - and thousands more suits could be on the way.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet.
People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.
Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
Additional reporting by Tim Arango
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said. ...The kaaza fee allows them to listen to the songs online. As long as they did what they "usually" did (listening to the songs without recording them), they were complying with the law. But when they DOWNLOADED the songs, making an unpurchased copy, they violated the law. So Ms. Torres, I'm sorry but it is exactly like you were doing something illegal, regardless of the girl's age, for crying out loud."It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
No since she is twelve and reasonable people can conclude that she would believe her mother when told it was paid for she should be left out of it altogether and if anyone is to be sued, let it be the adult responsible. And come to think of it, if you thought you paid for something and then found out you didn't, it's not theft, it's a MISTAKE.
My children never did it because I told them it was wrong. Alternately they would have happily downloaded with complete confidence if I told them it was paid for.
Perhaps your children, if you have any, wouldn't trust you.
As for the wired generation, I fear that the Marxists in our schools have convinced these kids that anything is OK so long as it only hurts the "corporations"
But swapping isn't giving. It's value for value trading. It is precisely like selling them.
If you give the copies away, then people have copies of the music that were not paid for. Take your argument one step further: Don't even buy the music in the first place; check it out from the library and make your copies; then you don't have to pay for your music and neither do your friends. It really isn't that ambiguous -- it is simply stealing.
Cue echo chamber:
"Mwa-hooa-ha-ha-ha!"
So you really believe this was for education and not for entertainment? It really must have galled her to do that much homework.
But she was distributing the files to people who likely were in a position to buy it. She undoubtedly did affect the market.
Your analogy would apply if it were actually swapping; but it's not. For example, if you buy George Strait's latest CD, and I buy James Taylor's latest CD, and we swap them, then I will have George Strait's cd and you will have James Taylor's cd, and both cd's were legally purchased (i.e. paid for). That would be a true swap.
But if I make a copy of James Taylor's cd and you make a copy of George Strait's cd and we swap those copies, now you have George Strait's and James Taylor's cd's and I also have George Strait's and James Taylor's cd's, but each of us only paid for one cd. James and George each have been denied their rightful royalties for their work. The fact that each of them are wealthy and won't miss the royalty from the measley one CD that we stole from them is completely irrelevant.
Whether file-sharing is morally right or not is irrelevant to my point. The LAW is ambiguous.
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.