The RIAA sees the face of evil, and it's a 12-year-old girl

The Register ^ | 09/09/2003 at 13:54 GMT | Ashlee Vance in Chicago

[VRWCmember]

Perhaps your children, if you have any, wouldn't trust you.

My children bought into the notion apparently shared by several around here that there is nothing wrong with downloading music without paying for it and believed their friends who told them that as long as they don't sell the copies it's legal. I told them their friends are wrong and that taking something without paying for it is stealing. They trust me, but they still thought I just didn't know what I'm talking about. But since I pay the mortgage, and I pay the phone bill, and I paid for the computer, and I pay for our DSL, they understand that even if they think I don't know what I'm talking about they have to follow my rules when they are on my computer.

[babygene]

"So you really believe this was for education and not for entertainment? It really must have galled her to do that much homework."

Yes, could be...

The education of kids is much more than the 3R's. Kids must learn to relate to their peers, to fit in. Much of the discussions among youngsters is music and pop culture. Those that this is foreign to are on the outside. Just as I, at 57 years old am on the outside when it comes to teenagers and pre-teens. I don't understand them, and I'm sure they wouldn't understand me.

Within an age group, understanding your peers is essential to development.

As to it being entertainment; Kids don't listen to this trash because it's good, or even "music". They listen to it because it't "cool" to be in with the crowd.

[VRWCmember]

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...Her use was clearly nonprofit, and to a kid, educational

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

...work that is given away free on the radio

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

...not downloading the whole work, just one song of an arangement

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

...Since she would probably not be in a position to buy it, she did not effect the market

1. Sorry, the educational argument doesn't work. Entertainment is a commercial -- not educational -- activity, and whether or not the kid was running a profit enterprise is not the question.

2. The fact that music is broadcast on the radio does not mean it is "given away for free". Sorry, try again.

3. Each song IS a "work". A CD is a compilation of works. To qualify under this standard, the files downloaded would have to consist of mere snippets or a couple of lines from a song -- not the whole song. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

4. To suggest she did not affect the market is like suggesting that a shoplifter who just steals one pair of jeans doesn't affect the market. Sorry, but again the argument fails.

[babygene]

"But she was distributing the files to people who likely were in a position to buy it. She undoubtedly did affect the market."

I believe the article state she downloaded this music, not uploaded it.

If I understand correctly, these file sharing networks automaticly set up your computer to upload files as a default condition without asking you if that's what your intent is. If she was uploading music, she may have had no idea that it was happening. For that matter, there's probably no way she could have known unless she were a computer geek...

[Physicist]

I, at 57 years old

That makes you 231 trimesters away from conception. Did you become Born Again at age 35? ;^)

Within an age group, understanding your peers is essential to development.

Honestly, do you think that rationalization would fly in a court of law?

As to it being entertainment; Kids don't listen to this trash because it's good, or even "music". They listen to it because it't "cool" to be in with the crowd.

I quite agree, but "coolness" isn't covered under fair use any more than is entertainment.

[Consort]

The Bad Seed lives.

[beckett]

The whole middleman, distribution process that the RIAA represents has become obsolete. A new business model is required the utilizes the net and basically goes directly from the artist to the consumer without a middleman. Once artists get his fact, and the higher income for them that can result from it, through their thick skulls, it's goodbye RIAA.

[Protagoras]

So your kids trust you but think you are dumb? And the only reason they follow your rules is because you pay the bills?

Never mind answering, this is getting personal and I am opting out. I made my point, take it or leave it.

[Physicist]

I believe the article state she downloaded this music, not uploaded it.

Perhaps the article did put it that way, but my understanding is that the lawsuits were aimed at the major distributors.

If she was uploading music, she may have had no idea that it was happening. For that matter, there's probably no way she could have known unless she were a computer geek...

Ignorance is no excuse for the law, as they say.

Please don't anyone take my comments to mean that I have the slightest shred of sympathy for the RIAA. If the downloaders are a horde of barbarians, they couldn't be battering down the gates of a more deserving feudal tyrant. My point is simply about the law.

[babygene]

" 1. Sorry, the educational argument doesn't work. Entertainment is a commercial -- not educational -- activity, and whether or not the kid was running a profit enterprise is not the question.

2. The fact that music is broadcast on the radio does not mean it is "given away for free". Sorry, try again.

3. Each song IS a "work". A CD is a compilation of works. To qualify under this standard, the files downloaded would have to consist of mere snippets or a couple of lines from a song -- not the whole song. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

4. To suggest she did not affect the market is like suggesting that a shoplifter who just steals one pair of jeans doesn't affect the market. Sorry, but again the
argument fails."

So you have your view, same as the recording industry...

I am representing another possible view. It is my understanding that the USSC has not ruled on this yet, so neither view is cast in stone.

Let me ask you this. It's a little off topic, but not much.

Why are copy machines allowed in libraries? How many times have you and I and everyone else copied a page out of a book or magazine rather than buy a copy of it?

It’s the same copyright law… The library even SELLS photocopies for 10 or 20 cents a page.

[Axelsrd]

Maybe I just don't understand. Please splain to me how this differs from making a cassette copy of your favorite album, or copy songs of the radio onto a cassette, or even making a video (VHS) copy of a TV program or heaven forbid you tape (VHS) a movie so you could watch it later. In either case, you didn't pay for the original (music/radio, TV program/movie). I suspect 95% of the civilized world (population) has done one or more if not all of those things from time to time.

[babygene]

"Ignorance is no excuse for the law, as they say."

This is a civil case, and ignorance is a defense in a civil case. And the LAW hasn't been decided yet...

[babygene]

"Once artists get his fact, and the higher income for them that can result from it, through their thick skulls, it's goodbye RIAA."

I think you broke the code...

[jgrubbs]

I read in an article that the RIAA is only going after people who have "shared 1000 or more files on average". This girl didn't just download a few of her favorite songs, she had a good portion of her hard drive full of music that was not paid for. If the average mp3 is between 3MB and 5MB, and the RIAA is only going after people with 1000 or more files on average, she would have between 3GB and 5GB of music files available for sharing.

No matter how you try to justify it, if you have copies of the music and they weren't paid for, then you are stealing.

[Axelsrd]

I wasn't trying to justify it, I was just trying to understand how file sharing was different than cassette or VHS recording.

[austinTparty]

Hmm. Ergo: If you own a CD, and lend it to a friend, you're breaking the law. If you rip the CD so that you can listen to it on your MP3 player, you're breaking the law. If you borrow Madonna's book "Sex" or a video of a Hollywood moviefrom the library ... can you really call that "education"?

Murky, murky waters, my friend. The law is not abundantly clear in these matters.

[Skooz]

The law is not abundantly clear in these matters.

It would be helpful if someone could post the specific statute file swappers are accused of breaking. There seems to be a lot of "the law says ..." and "they are breaking the law because ..." but no one, to my knowledge, has actually quoted chapter and verse here.

[moehoward]

Already happening.
Many "new" artists only heard locally in clubs, have figured it out.
Keeping all of what they sell on the web is better than getting a couple of pennies from a big label release.

[ImphClinton]

I agree.

When the RIAA stops playing music on the Radio or Satelite I will then think they might have a point.

I can get far better quality off my Cable Service than on line. It is ignorant to say you can record on a tape recorder or VCR but not a computer. You are doing exactly the same thing either way.

[Skooz]

Good point. I have Direct TV, which has a couple of dozen digital quality music channels. If I pop in a VHS tape and record the music from the satellite, have I broken the law?