Another dangerous criminal brought to justice

[Samus]

This time, it's a 12-year-old girl sharing music online. Good thing, too, because crimes like this obviously have a direct link to terrorism, amongst other things.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=501&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music_11&printer=1

A 12-year-old girl in New York who was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music over the Internet is off the hook after her mother agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000 to settle the lawsuit, apologizing and admitting that her daughter's actions violated U.S. copyright laws.
---
The family lives in a city housing project on New York's Upper West Side, and they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services. She didn't know any better, why should the mom have to pay money to the sue-crazy zealots at the RIAA?

[Skeptical Greg]

I'll be sure to try the " I didn't know " defense, if I find myself at odds with the law.. It can't hurt...:rolleyes:

[Samus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'll be sure to try the " I didn't know " defense, if I find myself at odds with the law.. It can't hurt...:rolleyes: Normally I'd roll my eyes, too, but remember we're talking about a 12-year-old here. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that she probably didn't know any better. Even if she did, the legal ramifications of violating copyright laws normally are not evident to 12-year-olds.

If you or I were served with one of these suits, we couldn't argue "oh, I thought that was okay" because we're expected to know better.

[Mr Manifesto]

Don't give me that crap, dwb! All 12 year olds know better, they should be tried as adults! [/sarcasm]




Mind you, technically since she's paying damages as the result of a civil suit she hasn't been 'brought to justice'. BRING IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY MIB'S!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Don't give me that crap, dwb! All 12 year olds know better, they should be tried as adults! [/sarcasm]




Mind you, technically since she's paying damages as the result of a civil suit she hasn't been 'brought to justice'. BRING IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY MIB'S!

Why sarcasm? You don't think a 12 year old should understand what thievery is?

In this case, the 12 year old wasn't held responsible, her mother was. Which is as it should be..

Your intelligence regarding this matter is overwhelming, considering the ' HOMELAND SECURITY ' reference..

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Why sarcasm? You don't think a 12 year old should understand what thievery is?

In this case, the 12 year old wasn't held responsible, her mother was. Which is as it should be..

Your intelligence regarding this matter is overwhelming, considering the ' HOMELAND SECURITY ' reference..

I don't think that 12 year olds should be tried as adults because they aren't adults. If you'd like to discuss this particular topic further, start a new thread.

I don't see why the family has to pay out $2000. It was not a deliberate act of theft, surely if the illegal copies were destroyed, everyone would be happy. The RIAA stands to get a big PR black-eye out of this by targeting the people who make the odd, innocent mistake (but who are easy to persecute -I mean, prosecute- since they are being honest) instead of going after the people who pirate illegally en masse who are a little harder to catch.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why sarcasm? You don't think a 12 year old should understand what thievery is? Of course, and I'm willing to bet most do. But stealing "intellectual property" is a little more complicated than swiping some candy from the corner store. People are freely allowed to record music tapes off of their friends, one who is not aware of copyright law may see no difference in letting people take music files off of their computer. Especially when that person is not yet an adult.

Originally posted by Diogenes
In this case, the 12 year old wasn't held responsible, her mother was. Which is as it should be.. The RIAA should have dropped the suit when they found out they were suing a 12-year-old who probably just didn't know any better.

The RIAA has little interest in "protecting artists" or whatever their propoganda machine claims. It's all about money and squashing any kind of competition for the way they choose to distribute music. They should, instead, be adjusting their business model to fit emerging technologies.

[Skeptical Greg]

After my flip comments, I actually read the story.. I agree with your assessment of this particular case..



I'm still pondering the ' HOMELAND SECURITY ' connection...:confused:

[Charles Livingston]

Look, the mom paid a registration fee of some sort (I believe about $30) in order to use the website. Someone should be held responsible. Now, whether the 12 year old knew what she was doing was wrong, and whether she should be held responsible herself I wont presume to decide. However, the mom certainly should be if the daughter is not. They violated copyright laws, period.

Someone above said they didnt know what they were doing was wrong. So what, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Plus, with all the media reports on the whole napster issue, how could someone (at least an adult) not know that they shouldnt be doing this?

"People are freely allowed to record music tapes off of their friends" quote from dwb

Really? thats not how I understand copyright law. Copying your friends tapes so you dont have to buy the tape yourself is still copyright infringement as I understand it. In some circumstances it is ok for you to make copies of your own stuff (assuming you bought it legally), for yourself, but not so others dont have to buy it.l Look at the fair use provisions for copyrights, do you see that in there?

[Wile E. Coyote]

If they had let the girl off with a warning, I would have said, OK, so they are reasonable. But they fined her mother $2000. And they live in the projects!

This really brings to light the evil, greedy nature of the RIAA. It makes me want to go out and download a bunch of songs just to spite them.

I don't think I'll be buying too many more CDs. I will support the artists who take a stand against the recording industry ... even if they suck.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm still pondering the ' HOMELAND SECURITY ' connection...:confused: I think that was a reference to my saying (jokingly) that sharing music online contributes to terrorism. My comment was a joke, an attempt to highlight the foolishness of the accusations against the girl.

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Really? thats not how I understand copyright law. Copying your friends tapes so you dont have to buy the tape yourself is still copyright infringement as I understand it. In some circumstances it is ok for you to make copies of your own stuff (assuming you bought it legally), for yourself, but not so others dont have to buy it.l Look at the fair use provisions for copyrights, do you see that in there? You are correct, and I should have been more clear on this point. The girl may have copied tapes (or burned CDs) from friends without ever being told that it is "stealing", and without ever being prosecuted, so she might have assumed it was okay to do the same with the online file sharing. My apologies for the failure to communicate.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
If they had let the girl off with a warning, I would have said, OK, so they are reasonable. But they fined her mother $2000. And they live in the projects!

This really brings to light the evil, greedy nature of the RIAA. It makes me want to go out and download a bunch of songs just to spite them.

I don't think I'll be buying too many more CDs. I will support the artists who take a stand against the recording industry ... even if they suck.

1. So because they live in the projects they shouldnt be held responsible? They broke the law, period. Someone should be held responsible, whether its the mother or the child herself.

2. $2000 - Was this figure any determined differently from the others prosecuted? I could understand if they were 'sticking it' to the poor people, but I assume that rich people also prosecuted were fined an amount that corresponds to their actions, and those rich people that committed similar actions to the girl in question were fined a similar amount.

3. I have no doubt taht the current recording industry is screwed up and probably screws a lot of artists, but that is a separate issue. For whatever screwed up reason, the recording industry legally owns the rights to many artists music, should they not be able to enforce those rights as long as they are the legal owners of them?

4. Artists standing up to the evil recording industry. As I understand, this is a separate issue as well (ie they are 'standing up to them for other reasons). ARe you suggesting that there are artists out there that want you to be able to download their music without paying them?

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by dwb
I think that was a reference to my saying (jokingly) that sharing music online contributes to terrorism. My comment was a joke, an attempt to highlight the foolishness of the accusations against the girl.

You are correct, and I should have been more clear on this point. The girl may have copied tapes (or burned CDs) from friends without ever being told that it is "stealing", and without ever being prosecuted, so she might have assumed it was okay to do the same with the online file sharing. My apologies for the failure to communicate.

This is just another ignorance of the law excuse. Also, just because she got away with similar infractions earlier, doesnt mean she cant be prosecuted for later ones.

Incidentilly, it is easy to see why copying friends tapes wasnt prosecuted. It probably didnt stop people from buying that many new tapes, as compared to the potential for online sharing. Basically, with the technology involved in online sharing you have a nation, or even a world, of friends who will allow you to 'borrow' their 'tape' and copy it. With so many 'friends' it is easy to see why online sharing is taking a bigger bite into the recording industries profits (or at least has the potential to do so)

[Malachi151]

You guys are really pathetic here, I mean seriously, a very sad group of people.

I think the laywer for this family needs to lose their license for not standing up to this crap.

First of all, millions of people around the US from multi-millionaires to poor people have been swapping mp3s on the internet for years now, and yes it has become acceptable and I'm sure that the legality of the issue has never even been solid in the minds of most people, and still isn't even now.

For the first person for them to go after to be a poor 12 year old girl, that is really pathetic. They should have been required to issue warning to anyone they had plans of suing first seeing as this is a totally new area that we are going into. $2,000 is a lot of money for a poor family, especially one where a 12 year old girl is the one that they are prosecuting. Jesus Christ go after an adult first! Give the girl a warning first! Damn.

Chirst, these people spend $2,000 on one hotel room for a nightl and they go harassing poor children for it, that's sick and twisted!

Definately a sickening industry.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Malachi151
"You guys are really pathetic here, I mean seriously, a very sad group of people.

I think the laywer for this family needs to lose their license for not standing up to this crap."

Sorry dont know how to make mine bold and not malachi151's

"First of all, millions of people around the US from multi-millionaires to poor people have been swapping mp3s on the internet for years now, and yes it has become acceptable and I'm sure that the legality of the issue has never even been solid in the minds of most people, and still isn't even now."

Just because millions of people have been doing it doesnt make it legal in the U.S. It has become acceptable? Well, not legally acceptable, maybe socially as some people dont think it is wrong or illegal. You are wrong, the issue is solid in the minds of anyone who has a grasp of the copyright laws in the U.S. Why should you get something for free? How are the artists/record companies supposed to make money? True, it would be perfectly accpetable if you were paying the artist or record companies to download the stuff, but you arent, you are only paying the website that faciliatates the transfer, and they dont give some of the profits to the artists (at least not the ones in question here.

"For the first person for them to go after to be a poor 12 year old girl, that is really pathetic. They should have been required to issue warning to anyone they had plans of suing first seeing as this is a totally new area that we are going into. $2,000 is a lot of money for a poor family, especially one where a 12 year old girl is the one that they are prosecuting. Jesus Christ go after an adult first! Give the girl a warning first! Damn."

She is not the first person, just the only one the media latched onto cause she is 12. She is only one of a large number of people named. The recording industry is simply trying to wake everyone up and say look, we will prosecute. Dont believe us, ok, here we go. The idea that this girl is the only one they are prosecuting currently is wrong, she is one of many. Whoever wrote the article just knew that by highlighting the 12 year old people would miss the rest. and they did issue a warning, actually even better, they said they would not prosecute anyone who would pledge they wouldnt do it anymore (I assume in writing). However, once you have been sued they will no longer accept the pledge. The only issue is how far in advance this pledge not to prosecute was issued before the first suits. I am not sure about that, but they certainly were not obligated to even pledge not to prosecute, they did that out of the kindness of their own hearts (or more likely PR).

"Chirst, these people spend $2,000 on one hotel room for a nightl and they go harassing poor children for it, that's sick and twisted!"

Who is they? the lawyers? the record industry? they are not harrasing the 'poor children', they are prosecuting someone who broke the law.

Definately a sickening industry.
Agreed, but for other reasons

[billydkid]

Personally, I have never been completely comfortable with the concept of intellectual property. Wouldn't it be cool if we all had gigs where we just kept getting paid over and over again for something we did once? Residuals - what a concept. I think we should all get residuals.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
If they had let the girl off with a warning,
I would have said, OK, so they are reasonable.
But they fined her mother $2000.
And they live in the projects!

This really brings to light the evil, greedy nature of the RIAA.
It makes me want to go out and download a bunch of songs
just to spite them.

I don't think I'll be buying too many more CDs.
I will support the artists who take a stand against the recording industry...
even if they suck.

Whoa! :eek:
Don't do it!
Free songs will make you sea sick with their warpidness - example:

Danielle St. Pierre (http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Danielle_St.Pierre/) - You Are The One.mp3 (http://artists.iuma.com/site-bin/mp3gen/7133/IUMA/Bands/Danielle_St.Pierre/audio/Danielle_St.Pierre_-_You_Are_The_One.mp3)

[Aoidoi]

Interesting comment on Slashdot about this... basically copyright infringement is not theft. Theft or stealing are criminal activities prosecuted by the government. Copyright infringement is a civil matter in which lawsuits are the only recourse. So, while there are millions of people commiting an act which can get them sued (and they will probably lose the cases), it is not a criminal act.

Personally, I don't share files online, I haven't even bothered to rip my own CDs to play on my computer. However, right or wrong I find myself disgusted by the RIAA and intend to do as little business with them as possible. Suing people because they're (the RIAA) too stupid and hidebound to come up with a legitimate solution is just a bit too much for me to accept.

edit for clarity

[Sundog]

Originally posted by billydkid
Personally, I have never been completely comfortable with the concept of intellectual property. Wouldn't it be cool if we all had gigs where we just kept getting paid over and over again for something we did once? Residuals - what a concept. I think we should all get residuals.

Umm, I think you're confusing actors with musicians.

:rolleyes:

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Sundog


Umm, I think you're confusing actors with musicians.

:rolleyes:

Actors, musicians, authors, directors, producers, song writers, people in the recorded entertainment business all get residuals and/or royalties. Money for something they recorded (on film, video tape, acetate, vinyl, paper and so on) once.