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?"
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.
News source: Slashdot
View: NewYork Post - MUSIC PIRATE
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?"
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.
News source: Slashdot View: NewYork Post - MUSIC PIRATE
2.21.54 Version - 06/09/2003
- Full compatibility with the new MSN Messenger 6.1.
- Full compatibility with MSN Messenger 5.0.575 (Windows 95 release).
- Some translations have been improved.
- New translation added: Hungarian.
- When the /all command is used, tags are now interpreted differently for each chat.
- The Initialize() function of C/C++ plugins isn't called in a different thread anymore (it make things easier if you want your plugin to display a window.
- The title of chat windows is now always updated correctly to remove multi-format tags from contact names.
- Some people are experiencing problems with their encryption password (Messenger Plus! refuses a valid password). The reason of this problem has yet to be found, however, if you get the bug with this new version, you'll have a workaround: go in the Preferences, click the "Change" button and reenter your password (same one or a different, your choice). This will reset Messenger Plus! internal settings so that you can continue to use your password as if nothing happened.
- The "Old Password" field has been removed. Instead, the "Change" button is disabled when you're not signed in.
Now, I don't agree with the RIAA at all - but I think this is a media-hype and the family is using the 12-year-old daughter to get themselves out of trouble. Just because you don't know the law doesn't mean that you can't still get in trouble.
This is definitely an interesting issue...
You have to realize that not everyone out there is completely knowledgable.
There are sites that sprung up all over after the Napster-fall, that users paid a fee and were simply instructed to download Kazaa, and other P2P software.... a total scam, but the majority of the people that paid for it actually thought it was legit.
Agreed though that ignorance is not a valid excuse...... but then on the other side, with such an extremely large amount of ignorance on the net, suing is not really the answer.
Pardon my ignorance, but I have never used Kazaa, but I thought it was a free service.
This is what she had to be talking about.
Complete scams, all most of those sites just instructed ppl to d/l kazza or another p2p program, and all the while the people that were paying though it was a legit service.
BBCNews - Grandfather caught in music fight
Durwood Pickle, 71, of Texas, said his teenage grandchildren used his computer during visits to his home. "I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," he said
fjv
You guys all have to grow up and get a job someday. I can't wait for those of you who want to work for a software company. What happens when you company has to downsize due to piracy? What happens when Microsoft has to downsize due to piracy? Many of these music (Sony, Vivindi(sp)) companies are having money problems, so they aren't ripping people off. Though of course 10 dollars vs FREE seems like a ripoff. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be allowed to be done. Does make it right. People can speed, kill, etc... Those aren't right. Neither is piracy or stealing music.
12 or not. I knew at age 12 that if it was being sold somewhere, but I was getting it for Free, then something was wrong. It sounds all good Free music, but people were buying lots of CDs before Napster and company got popular.
If your argument holds true, then I take it that you've never listened to the radio, and are morally opposed to the broadcast of copyrighted works that allows those terrible jobless kids to download and listen to music.
All of the current woes of the RIAA and MPAA are brought on by themselves, not downloaders. Look at the profits that movies are posting in the box office - there is no way in hell that you can tell me that piracy is endangering their industry. The entire business and distribution models of the music and movie industries will have to change eventually, and believe me, a place in this model is what these organizations are fighting for, not the rights of their artists, simply their continued existence.
Oh please. She's a juvee. The worst that happens for breaking the law in various states in juvee hall, not a lawsuit. She's not even a legal adult for Christ's sake!
Oh please YOU.
Juvenile or not, she knew the difference between right and wrong. Most 4 year olds I know do know that taking things that aren't theirs, no matter how easy, is wrong.
You want music, PAY FOR IT, OR MAKE YOUR OWN.
It isn't your damn right. It's a privilige.
Alister
Sure there are the P. Diddy's, J. Lo's, etc... Though for all of those, there are groups that fail, but before these groups fail Sony has to pony up money for them to work in the studio. Audio recording is time consuming, expensive and high tech to get high quality.
Also, How in the world is someone downloading 1000 songs or 1 song better for a Record Company over that person buying it? There is no way it can be.
And Vivendi (notice the spelling) is not in trouble because of mp3's - please. Vivendi is in trouble because they ran up a ton of debt buying things they shouldn't have been. Do you read business statements?
The argument could easily be made that CD sales are down, not because of mp3's, but because they are too expensive for not getting anything good. Instead of the record companies admitting that that is the reason, they are going after mp3's as the scapegoat. Is it hurting sales - probably. Is it fixed by stopping mp3's - probably not. Instead, lower CD prices or move and embrace the medium (a la Apple.) Alienating everyone by suing everyone and their mother isn't going to be the long term solution to the problem.
There were actually studies done during Napster's day that indicated that people that used Napster bought more mp3's than those that didn't - haven't you heard a couple of tracks and thought - that is an album worth buying? I know that I have. I would have to search for the studies, and I'm not sure how valid they are, but it is just an example because it is something that I'm sure we can all relate to.
For them to say profits are down since the year 2000 sounds about right, because EVERY industry virtually has been seeing some decline since then. Wake up, the economy has been rolling downhill since 2000.
The only difference is now they are making billions, instead of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Oh no, whatever will Hillary Rosen do now, with THOSE kinds of profit margins she will only be able to buy 5 Ferraris and 3 Lamborghinis this week! Call the press!
The bottom line is, if something is copyrighted, you can't copy it and give it away. Thats the whole point of copyrighting it in the first place. Under copyright laws, the owner of the intellectual property (whatever form it takes) has the right to control the circumstances under which their property may be copied (and to seek legal remedies if someone violates the terms and conditions of the copyright).
It would definitely be nice if everything were free and nobody needed to work for anything, ever. I'd love to be able to just walk into a store and get what I want and walk out again without having to pay anyone for anything, ever. There'd be no need for copyright laws in such a world, for sure.
Oh well ...
I was just starting secondary school when I was 12 - I wouldn't have known then that it was illegal to download music. I used to copy tapes or borrow music off friends back then.. i'd of had no idea of legal implications then.
If we're going to bring profit into it, someone has to decide when someone else has made "enough". Who's going to do that? Consideration of the various possibilities is a fascinating thought experiment. What sort of societal structures evolve under each variant? I can see possibilities ranging from total anarchy to totalitareanism. I'd personally like to be somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
If I download a song from the internet, I never saw the copyright for the song. How am I supposed to know that it is copyrighted material. The person breaking the law is the person that purchases the CD and then rips and uploads it. They purchased the CD and have seen the copyright and violated it. If I never purchased the CD and never saw the copyright how can I be responsible for the copyright violation?? I never agreed to the copyright in any way -- did not purchase, did not read....
Alister
Piracy hurts and it is wrong, it is black and white. You cannot steal music, it is wrong, and there is nothing you can say that makes it legal....it is copyrighted work.
The fact that "recording companies" are really marketing companies, hyping the latest brand does not justify the inflated costs of CDs. You only have to look at Universal planning to drop the price of CDs by $6 - surely they must still break even at the very least after this cut. In which case, it's just an admission that for the past few years these companies have been raking in enourmous profits from the sales of music.
Truth is Metallica don't deserve a hundred million dollars - they're just musicians, the same kind of people who used to play/busk for free and scream "**** the system". It's not about music, it's about corporate shills, branding, profits and an industry fighting it's death...but it's not death by piracy, it's death by reality. No "artist" deserves millions of dollars, no record company exec deserve millions of dollars and no-one deserves a criminal record for duplicating sound and not denying anyone else of the same.
It may legally be considered theft, but in my mind it's about time music went back to being about music and bands survived by virtual busking, with people donating money based on their merit. Britney Spears would disappear and Metallica would make their money off touring and t-shirts.
If it's a choice between paying for some recording execs coke and merc or doing without commercial music, i'll go with those who post their music for free on the web and ask for donations (plus the huge archive of music no longer covered by copyright).
Just my 2 cents (about the amount i'd pay to download a song).
Oh please YOU.
Juvenile or not, she knew the difference between right and wrong. Most 4 year olds I know do know that taking things that aren't theirs, no matter how easy, is wrong.
You want music, PAY FOR IT, OR MAKE YOUR OWN.
It isn't your damn right. It's a privilige
Hey m0r0n. Nice logic there. you don't see a 4 year old getting sued when they steal from the grocery store. Get a life and go back to ethics and some sort of US Law class. You need some work and a GED.
Last edited by 1544 on 10 Sep 2003 - 00:20
The economy in general was much better 3 or 4 years ago as well. Take a look at the economy as a whole before blaming downloading for the drop in CD sales. Also, some people might argue that there hasn't really been that much good music coming out in the last few years as well, which I'm sure has added to the drop in sales. There have been some studies that indicate that people that download music actually buy *MORE* CD's than those that don't, so how does your little theory account for that?
Last edited by 22518 on 10 Sep 2003 - 21:42
Another reason stores are closing down is because of used CDs and online music stores. I quit going to music stores to buy CDs years ago. I hate going into the stores and trying to find something and half the time they don't even have it in. It is much easy to find music at an online store and they always have it listed. Every CD that I have purchased in the past few years have been from online retailers. I bought a couple of CDs a few months ago at BestBuy.com (easy to find the cds and they are delivered to my door for free), but with all of this RIAA crap I have decided that I will not be buying any more CDs. If I do they will be used CDS.
Another reason the big music stores are closing is because of places like Wal-mart and Best Buy selling the CDs at much cheaper prices.
Alister
Piracy hurts and it is wrong, it is black and white. You cannot steal music, it is wrong, and there is nothing you can say that makes it legal....it is copyrighted work.
Wherehouse music closed because there prices were to high because they had no other merchandise to pull other customers in. Target pulls people in with all there products and they can lower the CD Prices to $11.99 and make up for it by raising the prices of other things by 3 cents. Wherehouse didn't have that advantage, so they had to sell there music at the price they bought it plus 4$ just to stay open. Another thing that Wherehouse music did wrong was there Trade-In policy, you had to trade 5 GOOD Cds just to get 1 cd.
And you can Steal music, it just doesn't mean its right or ok
Sure there are the P. Diddy's, J. Lo's, etc... Though for all of those, there are groups that fail, but before these groups fail Sony has to pony up money for them to work in the studio. Audio recording is time consuming, expensive and high tech to get high quality.
Surely the thing then is for all of the record companies to stop ponying up the exhorbitant amounts of cash for the likes of J.Lo (why does anyone need a fleet of limo's to go a couple of yards down the road???) and with the money saved they can distribute it amongst the smaller artists.
Just remember P.Diddy's drinks bill for just one of his parties is more than a lot of people on welfare will ever see in their lifetimes.
Moron Brian? I'm touched you can put a coherent thought together.
Duh. Yes, that's right that they don't sue 4 year olds. But 12 year olds know damn well music isn't free. When you get YOUR college degree let me know. Then I won't have to dumb down my comments so you'll have a prayer of understanding them.
If I download a song from the internet, I never saw the copyright for the song.
There is nothing to see, copyrights are automatic and implied, whether stated or not.
How am I supposed to know that it is copyrighted material.
Every piece of music is copyright the instance it is created... even a recording of my 3y/o beating on a trash can with some spoons is copyrighted. You do not have the right to own, distribute, or even hear that recording w/o her permission based on the current law.
Your HS term paper is copyrighted, pictures of your last vacation are copyrighted.
The person breaking the law is the person that purchases the CD and then rips and uploads it.
True, but so is the person who downloads it w/o the copyright holder's permission.
They purchased the CD and have seen the copyright and violated it.
Again, there is nothing to see, but yes they did violate it.
If I never purchased the CD and never saw the copyright how can I be responsible for the copyright violation??
Because copyrights do not have to be stated, read, seen, or whatnot. They are automatic on all created artistic works.
Last edited by 10547 on 10 Sep 2003 - 10:58
Duh. Yes, that's right that they don't sue 4 year olds. But 12 year olds know damn well music isn't free. When you get YOUR college degree let me know. Then I won't have to dumb down my comments so you'll have a prayer of understanding them.
For your information, I have two college degrees, plus a stint in the US Navy. As for you, I have no clue, but you make yourself sound more and more retarded with each passing breath.
What's the difference if that 12 year old records a song off of the radio? That's free to do! Let me ask you, how many songs have you d/l'ed/recorded off of the radio?
Look, I know it's wrong. The issue I'm presenting here is that the punishment does not fit the crime. If she stole something from the Gap (and she knows it's wrong), the worst that she would get is juvee hall, least, would be a slap on the wrist. Again, I beg you to prove to me why she should be fined as a juvee. If she didn't settle, she would have won in court, hands down. If not, the worst case scenario would have been juvee hall, but it would have never gotten that far. And you know that too.
Last edited by 1544 on 10 Sep 2003 - 16:36
In any case, you're seriously not comparing FM radio quality, with it's 30Hz-15KHz, low channel separation, compressed dynamic range (not to mention the artifacts and noise generated by broadcast) which is then TAPED to a low quality medium to copying a CD original???
It's not like she stole something from the Gap. You act like she downloaded ONE song and was then sued. How many songs did she take? How many different albums must she have purchased to hear them otherwise? Probably hundreds, if not thousands of dollars worth.
I think settling for $2k is a punishment that fits the crime. You can bet she won't do it again, and anyone she knows might stop doing it as well.
In any case, you're seriously not comparing FM radio quality, with it's 30Hz-15KHz, low channel separation, compressed dynamic range (not to mention the artifacts and noise generated by broadcast) which is then TAPED to a low quality medium to copying a CD original???
It's not like she stole something from the Gap. You act like she downloaded ONE song and was then sued. How many songs did she take? How many different albums must she have purchased to hear them otherwise? Probably hundreds, if not thousands of dollars worth. I think settling for $2k is a punishment that fits the crime. You can bet she won't do it again, and anyone she knows might stop doing it as well.
Yeah, so were my scores. Enough to get into the Nuke program (and that is even high). I wanted a challenge, not sitting on my arse all day!
Still, recording a VCR tape of a movie, or something from the radio, is essentially stealing, right? This was discussed before in an earlier post. It doesn't matter what the frequency, make or model. We are all guilty of doing it.
The point I'm making here is that she is 12. We are going into a legal precedent that was already made up by our justice system: That anyone under the age of 18 is to be treated and tried as a iuvenile. What she did is wrong, yes. But the RIAA is crossing what the Justice Dept had set limits to.
I could see required community service, but not this lawsuit. To me, it's the RIAA trying to turn up a profit by exploiting it from a 12 year old.
Oh, and sorry for the flaming in the previous threads. This issue just really irritates me.
Guys, not everyone out there are as computer savy as you nerds and geeks are. Give the "poor" girl a break.
Lawyers are scum.
The riaa too.
12yo's... wtf?
Grow up children - the free ride is over - time to pay the piper.
and end dramatic music..Pan camera across, and fade to sunset.
Anyways, I smell a dog of the RIAA here, only one would spout off with a line such as "1000s of songs off 100's of cds". Honestly, lets say that's true, then why is the RIAA even concidering her for a lawsuit? There are people out there with 10,000's of songs off 1,000's of cd's. Wouldn't that be a bigger prize for the RIAA lynchings? Oh right, RIAA has them targetted to, which it's probably some 10 yrs old with down syndrome.
RIAA < Dirt, their *******s.
It seems like you are discriminating against a group of people, I especially like the "grow up children". Tell me something:
Do you have a VHS player that you've used to record TV shows?
Have you taped songs on the Radio?
Umm...ever hear the difference between ANALOG and DIGITAL?
Did you know those analog copies WERE legal by a court?
Grow up, study the law. If it were some moron running out the store with an unpaid CD they'd be serving JAIL time. Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean it isn't stealing. YOU DID NOT PAY FOR IT. Period. The artist nor the record label gave you permission to download it. It's theirs until you PAY for it.
Kindly leave your door open so I can come in and take some things. I'll promise to take stuff less than $15, OK?
Taping off XM Radio (for personal use) = Wrong?
Taping off an HDTV channel from your PC with a high-def capture card = Wrong?
Both are pure digital to me...
oooh heres a good kicker...
Taping off a online radio that broadcasts in 128kbs (via a piece of software or by using SPDIF out on a PC to a SPDIF compatible recorder.
The Analog/Digital arguement does not stand.
I download music, yet to be quite honest... I download GAME music and sometimes I just download a song that is on one of the CDs I already own.. (easier to download then hunt down and rip).
"Rhetoric is the tool that dumb people use to sound smart." - D. Quesinberry
Aaron660R: we need to stop this madness. Stop buying CDs so it will hit'em where it hurts in the wallets. I totally agree with that, i aint going to buy anymore cds!
Just so you don't go around telling me to grow up and stop pirating music, I don't pirate music I buy mine, but I do realize most people are ignorant when it comes to copyright laws and anything to do with the intenet, including downloading music.
Everytime you defend the RIAA it makes baby Jesus cry
Sheesh. Some people are so ignorant it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
DVD recorders don't have DIGITAL VIDEO OUT/IN. They have a DV INPUT for recording off of camcorders. (any moron knows there aren't any prerecorded copyrighted materials in DV format). Just because it records digitally doesn't mean there isn't degredation from analog steps. Not to mention DVDs use Macrovison on their analog outputs.
MP3 Players are meant for your OWN CDs.
It's also lossy compression, not a "true" backup.
Not to mention people bitching about CD prices. I remember buying tapes at $10 a pop, and they were NOWHERE as good as CDs. Not to mention t