RIAA, Again, Sues Family Without A Computer
from the legal-eagles dept
Not that they're breaking any new ground, but the RIAA has again managed to sue a family for file sharing despite the fact that they don't have a computer (via Broadband Reports). As we've pointed out before, cases like this underline the problematic nature of the RIAA's legal strategy, which amounts to little more than legal bullying, and relies on attempting to trample people's rights and coercing people into settling, while contorting the law and attempting to contravene the legal system and not to mention perhaps breaking the law itself. Is it any wonder some people think what the RIAA is doing is tantamount to extortion? Apparently suing non-owners of computers is easier than suing dead people, but aren't all these lawsuits equally frivolous and deserving of some form of punishment? Update: We couldn't get to the hometown paper of the family being sued this morning, where the story started (presumably it was suffering from the Digg effect), it contains another important tidbit: "Carma Walls said that the family did once own a computer -- for about two months. They haven't had a computer in their home for more than a year, she said." The woman also says she did download some songs "from Internet sites", so perhaps the case doesn't have the sensationalist undertones some might imply. However, the RIAA suit alleges the family continues to use file-sharing programs -- which is a little hard now that they don't have a computer.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
nearly as stupid as this:
"Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. (That section already has been used against a Princeton computer science professor, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov and a toner cartridge remanufacturer.)
Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else."
What about possessing circumvention tools?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nearly as stupid as this:
The ultimate punishment would be for people to STOP BUYING THEIR OVER PRICED, OVER COMPRESSED DRM LADEN PRODUCT. Whether on iTunes or on the store shelf, if it says Sony BMG, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal or EMI, don't touch it !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
I frequently remind all my friends and family members about Sony's strongarm techniques, not to mention their rootkits, but sometimes its like pulling teeth with non-techies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re divide & conquer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
Actually, the RIAA is made up of a ton of labels, not just these four.
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nearly as stupid as this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nearly as stupid as this:
"Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices."
What a stupid law. Every personal computer on earth with at least a pentium/powerpc processor is able to do that....
I think it would be easier on the RIAA for us to just go back to the middle ages. At least then we wouldn't all be threats to their multi-billion dollar empire of extortion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
getting too outragrous anyway i dont have a problem with the singers becomming a milionairs but when they start doing crap like this they should loose their money because they aint go no sense lol (pun intended)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once they actually enforce the laws they have
Given the RIAA says putting your CD's on an iPod is illegal, and you can't buy Beatle songs on iTunes, Mr. Bush is in violation of the laws the way the RIAA sees things.
If the RIAA is unwilling to sue Mr. Bush, why should common citizens worry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Renaissance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indie Music
Because everything underground is good, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRY THIS
allofmp3.com
Article about them:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6493.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TRY THIS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw the RIAA
'I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.' - Nathan Hale, American patriot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes I am a nerd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes I am a nerd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Could RIAA File?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e: Re: nearly as stupid as this
Maybe we need to stop consuming their "music" & look for access directly to people we can pay for ... our money goes into their pockets & once & for all - we cut their prehistoric middle men out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: e: Re: nearly as stupid as this
www.calabashmusic.com
As someone else mentionned, if you must consume their crud, do it where it hurts RIAA and not your purse. Again uncompressed and DRM free:
www.allofmp3.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and the law
Downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is theft, is it not? Why would the RIAA not vigorously pursue this problem?
Suing someone without a computer doesn't mean the overall purpose of the RIAA's struggle is unjust. It is more indicative of a clerical error.
Labeling the RIAA a "bully" for making an error in a fight against theft is a deeply flawed position, to say the least.
--Don Long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
I don't consider the term bully to be inappropriate, and in fact I consider it to be very lenient. Nor do I consider the RIAA's action to be an "error". The original provisions for copyright were to protect authors and inventors to retain exclusive right to their works for a limited period of time, so by forcing musicians to sell out their rights is to to me nothing short of extortion. I consider the RIAA nothing but a "kneebreaker" arm of a music cartel and I see little reason to protect the rights of criminals and thieves regardless of how "legally" they conduct their extortion.
Plus, it's a well established fact that almost no artists ever make any money off album sales. Buying CDs supports the record labels and the record labels alone - there are other ways to make sure the musicians themselves actually get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA and the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
Regardless, it shows a loss of integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
Downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is theft, is it not? Why would the RIAA not vigorously pursue this problem?>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA and the law
Are people still buying CDs? I can't remember the last time I bought one. Leave station ripper on overnight and you will quickly fill up a hard drive with music off shoutcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
It is not. Technically it's copyright infringement, not theft. The RIAA may call it theft, but that doesn't make it so.
If you were to copy an article from a magazine or the pages of a book for someone to read, would you say that copy had been stolen? Technically you've only infringed on the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11653130/
their "fight against theft" is nothing more than the lashings of an obese merchant whipping their slaves for daring to pet the cash cow with their grubby hands. When it's all ones and zeros, and their loss is nothing more than an electronic whisper based on that pattern, your idea of "theft" is the flawed position regardless of how many of the rich agree with you. Their "struggle" is the struggle of the rich to keep their precious money machine extorting money from the mass-media-manipulated masses, and if you can't see that, if that "flawed position" is too difficult for you to understand it is for one of two reasons: either you benefit from this system, or your ethic is corrupted by an over-inflated sense of self-righteousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
If anyone represents thieves, it is the RIAA. Sure - downloading music can be intellectual property theft, but when comparing the RIAA to the average home PC user that downloads unauthorized content, it is like comparing the Mob (RIAA) to the grandma at the grocery store who picks and eats a grape to see if she wants to buy a bunch.
On a side note, I downloaded some Modest Mouse about 4 yrs ago - liked it so much, despite my boycott of the major record labels, I purchased 3 CDs. One of the CDs I paid for was the exact same Cd that I downloaded - I paid for it because I liked it. I never would have paid for it if I hadn't got to listen to it over time to decide if it was worth owning.
Anyway - the RIAA is a bully. And I bet you work for them or a company that RIAA bullies for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
The problem with your view point is they are using methodology that amounts to a blind man throwning darts at a dart board. They are hopping people will just settle due to their imaginations of what they did or did not do in the past. Do you remember what you looked at on the internet a year ago? Can you tell me a day to day account of your activities? Probably Not.
I think RIAA should be forced to provide full disclosure to each of its victims. Thats not the case because that would eat into their Revenue. Instead they provide very generalistic sopenas to the ISP. Who then sends the users involved a even more vague form letter. I think there is something very wrong with their tactics. Its tone is very extortionistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA and the law
I do not approve of infringement, and do not practice it. But that said, the IP stealopolists have the best law that money can buy. Not happy with the current fair use rights stealing DMCA, there are new bills in Congress that will criminalize everyone who owns a computer. Ten years in jail for possession of software that can be used to violate the DMCA. Ten years for attempting (even if failed) to circumvent the DMCA. These are legal clubs which provide a mechanism for the extortion of monies from individuals, somtimes just from those who wish merely to enjoy their legal purchases.
Right now, some stealopolists are basing their suits on someone having a file in a shared directory under Windows. No downloading need have taken place. Convert a track on a CD to an MP3 placed on your own PC,in a shared directory, and now you are fodder for barratry. Now that is theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Labeling the RIAA a "bully" for making an error in a fight against theft is a deeply flawed position, to say the least.
--Don Long"
YOU DUMB DONG, HOW CAN IT BE STEALLING IF THE PERSON YOU ARE DOWNLOADING FROM IS WELL AWARE THAT YOU ARE DOWNLOADING IT??, AND DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED WITH THE COPYRIGHT BS, BECAUSE THE REAL AUTHORS OF THE MUSIC BEEING DOWNLOADED HARDLY SEE ANY MONEY FROM THE CD SALES, PLUS THEY HAVE NO COPYRIGHTS ON THEIR OWN WORK!!!!....IT'S THE RIAA WHO KEEPS IT!!....SO...WHO'S THE THIEVE??
PLUS THE REVENUE PROCUDED BY THE COURT RULINGS IN THESE CASES STAYS IN THE "RIAA'S" POCKET, SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PIRATED THE COPYRIGHTS FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTISTS AT THE TIME OF CONTRACT SIGNING!
I FOR ONE WILL CONTINUE TO DOWNLOAD ALL I WANT AND THE DAY I'M SUED, I WILL PAY THE RESTITUTION CHARGES TO THE ARTIST THEMSELVES ACCORDINGLLY AND NOT A SINGLE CENT TO THE 'BILLIONAIRE-MONOPOLYCING-INDUSTRY' AKA RIAA!
IM AM UPSET BECAUSE I NEVER BOUGHT ANY CD'S IN MY LIFE UNTILL I STARTED DOWNLOADING. I REALIZED THERE ARE PLENTY OF MEDIOCRETLY RIPPED MP3 IN CYBERSPACE AND THEREFORE I HAVE SPENT ALMOST $1,500.00 OVER THE YEARS NOW ON CDS.
AND DO YOU THINK YOUR FRIENDS AT RIAA WILL CONSIDER THIS??....NO! THEY ARE THE MODERN CRUSADERS! WHO BITE THE HANDS THAT FEED THEM!
ARE U SURE YOUR NAME IS 'DON LONG'? AND NOT LONG DONG???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITMS NO MORE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The lawsuit states, “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, AND CONTINUES TO USE, an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings.
Which clerical error is right?
Of course, never mind the fact RIAA has sued dead people, PC illiterate elderly folk, children and disabled low income single mothers. Nevermind the fact every single 18,000 Americans sued and those yet to be sued are considered guilty until proven inncocent which means they must fork over 4200$ or fight their extortion in court at the risk of costing 100K or more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Don Long
Don- It's actually nice to see somebody post from the other point of view. We can actually make this an intelligent debate instead of RIAA bashing. I'm going to address some of your points from the "other" point of view.
--Downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is theft, is it not? Why would the RIAA not vigorously pursue this problem?
I think most people here will agree with you, except for one word in your sentence; vigorously. The manner in which the RIAA sues somebody leaves a lot of room for error, much less clerical error. The tactics that are used are shady. The problem is they sue the name on the ISP contract, not the offending party. Identifing the offending party is a difficult, if not impossible task, but suing the
ISP contract holder is only causing problems. They also file the suit in the city of your ISP, which in most cases is thousands of miles from where you live. They file dozens of cases as one suit. They have yet to see ONE case go to court, with most cases settled out of court for thousands of dollars. They files the cases under seal so the only documentation the person who is being sued gets is a vague piece of paper from his ISP. This is all indicative of strong arm shady tactics. RIAA, protect your assests, protect your share holders, protect your artists, protect your salaries (no seriously, this is a capitalist country right?), but do it in a respectable way. I wonder if any family member of an RIAA exec has been sued? I bet somebody has been flagged.
--Suing someone without a computer doesn't mean the overall purpose of the RIAA's struggle is unjust. It is more indicative of a clerical error.
This was no clerical error. A clerical error is a wrong address, mis spelled name. This was an error in their broken logic I described above. The person who was sued almost definetly had the ISP account in their name, while the person who actually downloaded copyrighted material never left a paper trail. A more likely scenario would be; let's say the person who was sued decided to rent a room out of their house. Since the phone (in DSL's case) or television (in cables case) is in the owners name, when the renter asked for high speed internet it would be an extra service in the owners name. Perhaps the renter didn't work out and ended up leaving after a month. Months later the owner is being sued by the RIAA. The owner need not have a computer to be sued under these circumstances.
--Labeling the RIAA a "bully" for making an error in a fight against theft is a deeply flawed position, to say the least.
They are not a bully for making a "clerical error" they are a bully because of their shady business tactics.
Don- I look forward to your reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA is wrong on the "continue to use" portion of their website, but there is an admission, to a reporter, of downloading music.
Neither is a clerical error. The RIAA left their working in their lawsuit because they're lazy and obnoxious bastards. The article the TechDirt linked to left out the quote because they wanted to be sensationalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at this...
http://www.nettwerk.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa? you're trying too hard, looking too hard
2: www.piratebay.org, learn it, love it, breathe it. It isn't in the US, so guess what? free. I wouldn't support the MPAA anymore than RIAA so they can go find someone else. I watch movies, listen to music, all that. But I'll never let a dime of my money fund any of them, and yet...oh yeah, piratebay is free!
and guess what else is on there?
windows, microsoft office, other things people are stupid enough to pay for. As if a legitimate licensed copy for home use makes any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Inevitable
It seems to me that the RIAA is fighting the inevitable, scaring people from accessing the online community that is potentially their demise. They know that these scare tactics work with their target consumer. How often do you hear about the RIAA targeting a shrewd computer user? Not often, if ever. In their eyes, this is just cheap marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open your horizons to the bands that DO use the RI
I know the RIAA sucks monkey balls and all that, but just because a band uses/supports the RIAA, is that supposed to mean you are supposed to deprive yourself of some seriously asskicking music?
for example: I think that even though they support the RIAA, Tool kicks those monkey balls right offa em - so good that even though they use the RIAA, I dont give a damn, I'm not going to deprive myself of good music just to boycott the RIAA
If you are one of the people saying "Broaden your horizons, ditch the RIAA bands" I think YOU need to broaden your horizons and look past the flak they catch and check out the good bands that do use em'...
BTW: IN NO WAY WHAT-SO-EVER AM I SAYING YOU SHOULD GIVE IN TO EM OR DONATE YOUR LIFE SAVINGS SO THEY CAN SUE GRANDMA COMPUTER-ILLITERATE, JUST DON'T DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF GOOD MUSIC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Tapping
What's next, forcing ATT to tap our phones to monitor us in case we talk about the best place to download music illegally? Oh, wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File sharing is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the "winner" is...
Think about that.
In general, most music is not as good as it used to be. Underground is not necessarily better it's much more unrestricted and different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALLofMP3.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALLofMP3.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robin Hood
I can't wait to get paid (2 more days), then I can steal some music...with a clean conscience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U2 can do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U2 can do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on ffs, sueing ppl who dont even have a computer, hell, dead people.
Oh, and fuck books.
And you cant just 'not buy it' moron. we like music, whoever destributes it (that part being irrelevant btw, incase it wasnt obvious).
Oh its not bullying, its systematic removal of opposition and fear tactics. remember Hitler ?...
Wheres the system to stop this shit ? grats america.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back in my day we had Library Cards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have to ask....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
judges
Ready stuff like this just makes me sick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The outcomes of the RIAA suits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The outcomes of the RIAA suits...
There is no outcome. The DMCA has unleashed a magic formula for them, it's called extortion. Peaple targetted pay the 4200$ settlement fee and they are not ashamed to tell these people they will face an army of lawyers and possibly tens of thousands of dollars in litigation fees if they dare fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgetting something important???
I buy CDs when I find a good one and thats once every 3-4 years. I have broadband and I download whatever I can...if what I download isn't good then it gets deleted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever RIAA do, there is always new wind blows..
Recently I checked CNET download.com and found 'Windows P2P Extension Pack'.
After the installation, walla! NOW YOUR Windows Explorer is your file sharing application!,
What else would you need more?
No registration, No log on, No spyware, bundle whatever the headache NO MORE!
This program gives pure file sharing experience!
This is the future of P2P application for Windows users!
This type of p2p program will apprear more and more and eventually RIAA will surrender sooner or later...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$6,350 judgement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]