Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Now Targets Pirates' Parents

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the it-just-gets-wierder-and-wierder dept.

Music 1098

cecil36 writes "In a follow-up to the subpoena silliness by the RIAA, the Associated Press is now reporting that the RIAA is now issuing subpoenas to family members of suspected online music swappers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course (5, Insightful)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525306)

The subpoenas are going to the owners of the computers, as these are the ones who can be found. From the article:
Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address were being turned over to music industry lawyers.
Your computer belongs to you. What happens with that computer is your responsibility. It should be apparent, but for some reason it isn't to most people.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525332)

Sure, you let a friend use your handgun for target practice and he shoots the cashier. Why wouldn't you be guilty. Oh wait, you wouldn't.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525374)

If nothing else, the investigation would land on your doorstep when they discovered that the weapon belongs to you. They'd subpoena your weapon, and it would be up to you to show evidence that you didn't kill the cashier, 'cause they already have evidence that you did.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525442)

No, they have evidence that the gun killed the cashier, that's it. While it is more likely that you did it than the other 6 billion people on the planet, this isn't enough evidence to arrest, much less convict.

Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525497)

it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence
If there is enough evidence that says you did it, you have to prove that the evidence is incorrect. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but enough circumstantial evidence can prove guilt incorrectly.

Re:Of course (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525462)

Owning the gun wouldn't be evidence that you commited a murder with the gun. Theres stuff like gun shot residue, some sort of evidence that you were physically there when the act was committed, you know things like that.

Re:Of course (1)

pdan (624244) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525463)

Actually "innocent until proven guilty" still applies here. Therefore it is their's problem to find the killer. You would, of course, be a prime suspect, and while being questioned you could either tell who had a gun or refuse to answer such question.

Re:Of course (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525382)

Actually, you would be.

Re:Of course (2, Insightful)

josephgrossberg (67732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525394)

Except if your friend is a minor. Then your arse is most certainly on the line.

Re:Of course (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525450)

Guilty of the murder No! Liable for the murder in the cival suit YOU BET YOUR ASS.

Re:Of course (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525471)

the original commenter was wrong. It's the person that owns the account. Of course the person who's name is on the account is liable for whatever is done with that account.

This is a virtual world, you only know the name of the user by their records.

Re:Of course (1)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525492)

More like I loan a book to you and you end up copying pages out of it.

Is that my fault? No

Re:Of course (5, Insightful)

pbox (146337) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525495)

But of course you should. If you demand the right to own a firearm, please note that it should come with very heavy penalties for letting it out of your control. You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.

We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.

Re:Of course (5, Insightful)

Quixadhal (45024) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525398)

Yup, just like if someone breaks into your house and uses your (legally registered) gun to kill your family, you should go to jail since you are responsible for the firearm.

IANAL, but I think there's a lesser crime involving negligence, with which you should be charged... not the multiple murder raps the person doing the killing should get. Likewise, the RIAA shouldn't be able to sue you if someone else uses your computer to break the law... but since you are an unknowing accomplise, perhaps you should get a (smaller!) fine of some time?

Re:Of course (1)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525453)

Here in Canada, you'd probably get careless storage of a firearm [cfc.gc.ca] .

Re:Of course (2, Interesting)

arf_barf (639612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525496)

What about this: my computer gets infected with this brand new trojan/proxy server for P2P network due to remote exploit in Windows. Am I or MS guilty of a copyright infringment?

Re:Of course (1)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525535)

You cannot be an unknowing accomplice. At worst, you could be negligent, but that would require that you knew the roommate was likely to do it, and you had the ability to stop him/her.

If you foolishly leave a gun out in the open, and someone uses it, you are NOT guilty of murder/homicide. If a kid did it, you'd probably go to jail for negligence (you are responsible for the kid). If someone broke into a place where you had a reasonable expectation of security (i.e. your house), it's doubtful you'd go to jail.

Re:Of course (1)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525402)

yeh, lets do that, and make sure that no one ever does anything illegal with someone elses computer.

here's a little story along those lines [gnu.org]

Re:Of course (1, Redundant)

tekspot (531917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525410)

So this is what happens next:

1) RIAA becomes skynet
2) After taking over all computers, they will set a terminator to the past, to kill all future leaders of file swapper resistance.
3) ???
4) Profit

Not always true (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525418)

My car also belongs to me, but I doubt that if I borrowed it to a (adult, licensed to drive) friend, I would be liable for him hitting someone or using my car as a getaway car in a robbery without my knowledge (naturally, if I knew it in advance I would be accessory or something like that).

Re:Of course (1)

arf_barf (639612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525424)

you are a moron. If I lend my car to a friend and he gets into a lets say DUI accident or gets a speeding ticket, I will definitely be not liable.

Re:Of course (1)

mrtrumbe (412155) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525472)

This is ridiculous! And patently false.

So if I lend my car to a friend and he gets drunk and kills a pedestrian with it, do I get a manslaughter/DUI charge brought against me?? Hell no!

Sure, the police might contact me in order to figure out what happened, or my involvement in the incident. But if I lend an object to a friend, and that friend commits a crime with the object, the only way I am liable is if I knew or suspected that the friend was going to use that object to commit a crime. In certain situations, neglegence might also come into play (like if I gave a loaded hand gun to a baby, who then kills my neighbor).

Taft

Re:Of course (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525512)

Not only that but I don't see what all the hoopla is over.

People were basically hiding behind their super-l33t codenames on P2P networks while they *BROKE THE LAW*. Now they're being caught. It's as if people put cameras in their stores to catch shoplifters... oh wait....

What is even worse about this [and you EFF freeloading left-wingers pay attention], by causing a scene over what should be a "no shit" situation when a real cause comes by people will not care e.g. "wasn't this on last week?"

For example, by causing a huge scene over PERFECTLY LEGAL law actions of the RIAA if they ever did break the law it will be harder for the average joe to know what is important and what is not.

Let me tell you a story about the boy who called wolf....

Tom

Re:Of course (1)

x_man (63452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525517)

Suppose you have a wireless LAN behind a firewall and the IP address in question is that of the firewall device and not the actual PC? Can you invoke the DMCA "carrier" provision since anybody is free to logon to your LAN and use your network? What if the firewall belonged to a company? Is the company liable for one employee running Kazaa on its network?

I think there is no way the RIAA can prove who did the actual downloading. The only problem is going to be prohibitive lawyer costs on the defendents' side.

My take on this... (2, Troll)

Jack Wagner (444727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525309)

Great article.

As a law-abiding citizen and one who not only supports IP, but who makes a living off of it, I think this is a great idea. It's fairly well documented that most adolescents have little regard for the law and perhaps if enough of them are forced to move into the YMCA, homeless and hungry, where they will be at high risk of forced sodomy and other vile disgusting acts, all because their parents are imprisoned, well, this might be just the ticket to wake all these kids up.

I've gone as far as to build back doors into some of my networking products that gather and track information straight from the level II socket upstream layer and although I've yet to use this information in any way, it would be real easy for me to bring some lawsuits against some of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the US. You guys would be shocked by the amount of IP theft that goes on by large multi billion dollar companies.

It's a shame that most of these kids can't see that if they were out there busting their hump and trying to make a living on their own and millions of people were stealing their IP they would be as angry as Metallica or any of the other people who back the RIAA.

Warmest regards,
--Jack

Re:My take on this... (1)

Lost Dragon (632401) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525385)

Homelessness? Rape? Parents in prison? I'd hate to know what you'd do if somebody cut in front of you in line. Sheesh.

Re:My take on this... (1)

kuleiana (629890) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525421)

Yes, as we know, no employee, associate, customer, musician, adolescent or otherwise has ever listened to an illegal 'net stream, downloaded an MP3, OGG, AAC, MP3+, or listened to a CD borrowed from a friend, ripped a CD to their HD, used an MP3 player, played a song over the telephone to their friend, or listened to a non-ASCAP-liscensed radio playing in a restaurant, or any other illegal music activity which is the only way that the vast majority of new music gets heard, thereby selling more CDs all over the world. Funny, the RIAA and similarly limited individuals seem to think that music trading reduces music sales... hmm... - tm [thinkingman.com]

Re:My take on this... (2, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525439)

Remind me not to hire you for anything. Building backdoors into your code to monitor what is going on? You sir, should be the one imprisoned.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525456)

die... now
please... just stop breathing

you sound so much like this total dolt [kuro5hin.org]

Re:My take on this... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525465)

"I've gone as far as to build back doors into some of my networking products that gather and track information straight from the level II socket upstream layer and although I've yet to use this information in any way, it would be real easy for me to bring some lawsuits against some of the largest Fortune 500 companies in the US. You guys would be shocked by the amount of IP theft that goes on by large multi billion dollar companies."

and then look at his sig:

"Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time

jwagner@usa.com for references and quotes


If that's all true, than you sir, are truly the most retarded person I think I've ever seen on the Internet. You post to /. with your full identity (Yes, I've checked out your website... it appears real), and then you go on to tell about 300,000+ deviants and script kiddies that your software has backdoors built-in to your product that you have sold to Fortune 500 companies???!!! Are you insane?!

I think tomorrow's headline on /. will be about the 10 Fortune 500 companies who have all descended upon a small-time consulting firm for purposely installing a backdoor into his software that allowed thousands of script kiddies to totally crack, hack, and steal from their multi-billion dollar businesses.

Either that, or that's truly a worthy troll post, complete with realistic website to check up on you. ;)

Re:My take on this... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525466)

Great to have a lecture on ethics from somebody who spies on his clients.

Re:My take on this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525475)

You are not law-abiding if you are stealing Fortune 500 company proprietary information.

troll. btw, your site's down. heh

Nice headline (0)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525310)

Heh just for a moment I thought I was reading the Onion.

The family that shares together stays together... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525319)

IN JAIL.

Don't make your kids angry... (5, Funny)

Burlynerd (535250) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525320)

What an excellent way for a rotten, rebellious brat to get his parents in trouble for spanking him!

SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (2, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525322)


What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?

I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (1)

dasalvagg (667838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525392)

sounds like the classic my dad can beat up your recording industry's lawyers.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (1, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525467)

You're going to tell me that Bill Gates' Daughter downloads MP3s from Kazaa? HA!

If Bill gates is the Richest man in America, then his daughter is the most SPOILED BRAT in America.
She wouldn't download MP3s, she would *BUY* the CDs.
She mentions to Daddy that she likes the new smashmouth disc, and Bill hires Smashmouth to play at her slumber party.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (4, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525468)

Nevermind Laura Bush.

What happens when the RIAA tries to sue a relative of some crime family? Someone wake up next to a decapitated horses head.

Re:SO what happens when Laura Bush is sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525477)

If anyone deserves to be sued it has to be the son or daughter of the richest man in the world.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525323)

fp

Exciting news for me.... (1)

SpaceCadetTrav (641261) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525326)

I don't live at home anymore... will my parents still get the bill?

Question. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525328)

I have a serious question for the Slashdot community becuase I am researching this topic for a paper I am doing on P2P file sharing.

The question is : do you agree with the following statement and if so, why and if not - why not?

I should be able to take music and movies off the internet for free. I should be able to do this becuase:

(a) the RIAA/MPAA is ripping off the artists anyway, so I should just steal it anyway and they both can burn for all I care;
(b) I'm not really 'stealing' it because it's still 'there' after I have taken it;
(c) Music and movies suck nowadays anyway so I should be able to get them free;
(d) Everyone else is doing it, normal people who don't shoplift or anything, so it must be okay.

Thanks Slashdot!

Missing Option... (1)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525397)

I think that you've forgotten an option... (e)I know it's wrong, but I don't really care so I'll download everything anyway.

Re:Question. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525400)

You forgot:

(e) Copyright is meaningless to me at this point.

Nothing created during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain. That public domain is MINE and YOURS! The media companies have stolen it from us with their hired guns (congress) and society as a whole is lessened because of it.

Due to that, I have no respect for copyright law anymore.

Re:Question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525527)

Nice try, but just because I don't have any respect for you still doesn't make it right to shoot you in the head with my 9.

Re:Question. (2, Informative)

josephgrossberg (67732) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525435)

(e) Because a consumer should have the right to do whatever they want with their property, including sharing it with others.

Re:Question. (2, Insightful)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525507)

How about:

e) I download, but I also pay for CDs when an artist is worth it; in fact, I'll often download a few songs, and then pay up for the CD. That is, until the RIAA started to wage warfare on P2P.

Everyone likes subpoenas! (1)

whitelabrat (469237) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525333)

Let's all have a subpoena party! Everybodys gonna get one right?

How about a CD party? (4, Funny)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525364)



We can throw our CDs into the habor!

Re:How about a hunting party? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525428)

We take all our CDs, grind the edges down to a razor's edge, and throw them at RIAA employees. The death of a thousand cuts - by CDs (where CD = Cutting Disc). Yay, all the lovely blood...

Re: Everyone likes subpoenas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525452)

Let's all have a subpoena party! Everybodys gonna get one right?

Can my parents come? Oh wait, they have to...

The Dawn of a new age... (0, Offtopic)

felonious (636719) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525341)

I used the following terms in a post today and felt they needed to be added to my list of terms....
CD-Socialism/Stalinism/McCarthyism :

CD-Socialism:add CD to the following definition and it's a definite possibility of what's coming..socialism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

CD-Stalinism:Ok add CD to the following definition but remove the stuff relating to Stalin?Marxist shit at the end..Stalinism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stäl-nzm)
n.
The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application (ignore)of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.(/ignore)

CD-McCartyism:Add CD in front of the following.. McCarthyism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kärth-zm)
n.
The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

Wow doesn't this sound like the RIAA's tactics?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA ARTICLE READS YOU (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525351)

Elderly Are Targets in Internet Subpoenas

By TED BRIDIS
AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Move over, college kids. Grandparents and roommates may be the first ones to pay in time and money for downloading songs on the Internet.

The music industry's earliest subpoenas are aimed at a surprisingly eclectic group, including a grandfather, an unsuspecting dad and an apartment roommate.

"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpoena had been issued over his daughter's music downloads.

The legal papers required an Internet provider, Comcast Cable Communications Inc., to hand over Pate's name and address. They were among nearly 1,000 subpoenas issued as part of the recording industry's high-stakes campaign to cripple online piracy by suing some of music's biggest fans.

Pate, 67, confirmed that his 23-year-old daughter, Leah Pate, had installed file-sharing software using an account cited on the subpoena. But he said his daughter would stop immediately and the family did not know using such software could result in a stern warning, expensive lawsuit or even criminal prosecution.

"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."

The president of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest music labels, said lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users.

"The idea really is not to be selective, to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," Cary Sherman said. "It doesn't matter who they are."

Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."

In Charleston, W.Va., college student Amy Boggs said she quickly deleted more than 1,400 music files on her computer after the AP told her she was the target of a subpoena. Boggs said she sometimes downloaded dozens of songs on any given day, including ones by Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, Incubus and Busta Rhymes.

Since Boggs used her roommates' Internet account, the roommates' name and address were being turned over to music industry lawyers.

"This scares me so bad I never want to download anything again," said Boggs, who turned 22 on Thursday. "I never thought this would happen. There are millions of people out there doing this."

In homes where parents or grandparents may not closely monitor the family's Internet use, the news could be especially surprising. A defendant's liability can depend on their age and whether anyone else knew about the music downloads.

Bob Barnes, a 50-year-old grandfather in Fresno, Calif., and the target of a subpoena, acknowledged sharing "several hundred" music files. He said he used the Internet to download hard-to-find recordings of European artists because he was unsatisfied with modern American artists and grew tired of buying CDs without the chance to listen to them first.

"If you don't like it, you can't take it back," said Barnes, who runs a small video production company with his wife from their three-bedroom home. "You have all your little blonde, blue-eyed clones. There's no originality."

Citing the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest targets.

Pate was wavering whether to call the RIAA to negotiate a settlement. "Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.

The RIAA's president was not sure what advice to offer because he never imagined downloaders could be identified until Internet providers turned over subscriber records, as the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires them to do.

"It's not a scenario we had truthfully envisaged," Sherman said. "If somebody wants to settle before a lawsuit is filed it would be fine to call us, but it's really not clear how we're going to perceive this."

The association has issued at least 911 subpoenas so far, according to court records. Lawyers have said they expect to file at least several hundred lawsuits within eight weeks, and copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.

The AP tracked targets of subpoenas to neighborhoods in Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; San Francisco; New York and Ann Arbor, Mich.

Outside legal experts urged the music industry to carefully select targets for its earliest lawsuits. Several lawyers said they were doubtful the RIAA ultimately will choose to sue computer users like the Pate family.

"If they end up picking on individuals who are perceived to be grandmothers or junior high students who have only downloaded in isolated incidents, they run the risk of a backlash," said Christopher Caldwell, a lawyer in Los Angeles who works with major studios and the Motion Picture Association of America.

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists. Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.

Barnes, who used the Napster service until the music industry shut it down, said he rarely uses file-sharing software these days unless his grandson visits. The RIAA found songs on his computer by Marvin Gaye, Savage Garden, Berlin, the Eagles, Dire Straits and others.

Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.

"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.

---

On the Net:

Recording Industry Association of America: www.riaa.org

Subpoena Defense: www.subpoenadefense.org

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

While your after the parents... (1, Funny)

unixwin (569813) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525359)

Dear RIAA,
Kindly go after the school the kids are in, the district and the State they live in, oh hell even sue a few Congressmen and Senators and the U.S. Government while your at it.. !!

Kind Regards
A Clueless bum

Re:While your after the parents... (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525408)

Please furnish us a list of all of the related organizations. Send replies to richlawyer@riaa.com -RIAA

I targetted CmdrTaco's mom (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525361)

with a baseball bat. Next time use birth control!

Because they hold the internet accounts (1)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525370)

The RIAA is only going after parents because the accounts being used for the activity is in their name. The example given in the article is about a 23 yr old girl who uses her parents' account. Whether it's her parents' responsibility for her actions with their service or not, I am not one to say, but if she was under 18, they would sure as hell be responsible (see, in the real world, you're responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18, whether you like it or not).

Re:Because they hold the internet accounts (1)

javatips (66293) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525532)

That is not entirely true. You are responsible for civil actions NOT criminal actions.

At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525371)

At what point does this become harassment/malicious prosecution/etc.?

Re:At what point... (1)

Anti Frozt (655515) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525474)

I think in the mind's of the general public, it's already past the point of harrasment and/or malicious prosecution.

However, the RIAA is the bosom-child of the government and until this changes, they'll be able to get away with a lot more than they should legally be able to. Just look at the fact that they are a cartel, but are passed off as only being a monopoly (which is just sligtly less evil).

Arrrrrrrhhhhhh .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525376)

the scurvy dogs. Make the RIAA walk the plank.

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bluebeard: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525378)

Please turn over the doubloons previously designated as the "college fund."

It don't mean a thing... (5, Insightful)

sharky611aol.com (682311) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525383)

...if it don't bling-bling.

This just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with "intellectual property" and everything to do with money. Of course they can't go after kids, so they're going to go after their parents, who, in most cases, have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet.

I'll offer up my family as an example. My parents are fairly clueless when it comes to anything remotely technological. My youngest sister, on the other hand, can find damned near any song she wants online. (Note: I'm not implying that this equals any level of computer competency, but not bad for a nine-year-old).

Last time I went home, my lil' sis had about 500 songs shared on Kazaa til I un-sharified them. I can guaran-damn-tee you that my parents have absolutely no idea about this, and now the R*AA is going to be suing folks like my parents?

Let the backlash begin. We'll be the whip.

The RIAA will SUEICIDE (0)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525449)


Let them sue 60 million people, and when people decide to stop buying CDs and start buying indie music, the RIAA can then attempt to pass new laws forcing us to buy CDs each month else we go to jail.

Re:It don't mean a thing... (3, Insightful)

nlvp (115149) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525511)

I suppose the legal argument is that as a 9-year-old, she is under the supervision of her parents, cannot be sued individually, and so ultimately her legal guardians are responsible for "losses" she caused.

The political reality is that this is legal harassment by the RIAA, but it's "legal" legal harassment, if you get my meaning, and while it may cost them a fair bit of money to get going, that (a) goes to show how much money they must believe they are losing, and (b) is probably going to be quite effective in stopping many of the filesharers (IMO).

Hmmm (1)

anonicon (215837) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525386)

Regardless of the relative arguments about filesharing, having the grandparents or other family members getting served with subpoenas is guaranteed to put an end to any teenager silliness on the home pc. Saying how bad the RIAA is isn't going to cut it with anyone who's been inconvenienced by these things.

Of course, the flip side (?) is that the RIAA is now possibly making the number of people who hate them potentially much larger, if that was possible. Time will tell how this plays out...

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525515)

... In a lot of cases, I bet this puts and end to the home pc entirely, or at least, to internet accounts.

From the article... (1)

Cat_Byte (621676) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525387)

"Within five minutes, if I can get hold of her, this will come to an end," said Gordon Pate of Dana Point, Calif., when told by The Associated Press that a federal subpoena had been issued over his daughter's music downloads.

In other words....she's not answering the phone because the wrath of Dad is coming....heh.

This is predicted in fictional writing (2, Interesting)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525390)

Although this is fictional, the events of this story [macopinion.com] is already happening now.

Self fulfilling prophecy? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525407)

The RIAA claims that downloading music will drive them out of business. Anybody else smell a massive boycott brewing?

Re:Self fulfilling prophecy? (1)

nlvp (115149) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525432)

I think the RIAA is already smelling the economic equivalent - mass downloading.

Re:Self fulfilling prophecy? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525518)

"I think the RIAA is already smelling the economic equivalent - mass downloading. "

You're absolutely right.

Makes you wonder what Apple would have done in the RIAA's place. Even Microsoft would have found a way to make money from this brewing demand.

*sigh* (1)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525409)

"Should I call a lawyer?" he wondered.

Well, considering you just got a federal subpeona...

On the other hand, he has the idea straight:

Barnes expressed some concern about a possible lawsuit but was confident that "more likely they will probably come out with a cease and desist order" to stop him sharing music files on the Internet.

My question is this: With 911 subpeonas issued so far, what if every person takes the RIAA to court? Do you know how much 911 seperate cases will cost the RIAA?

I'm also wondering if there's anything in the DMCA that protects file sharers...

Re:*sigh* (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525508)

Unfortunately the percentage cost to each of those 911 people is going to be higher for the defendants than the prosecutors, so it's likely the RIAA can afford the costs better than the defendants.

Misleading at best (1)

kagejishin (631359) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525414)

I like how the article mentions specific artists' music "found" on the individuals' PCs but fails to mention where the music came from instead leading the reader to believe they were downloaded illegally.

Re:Misleading at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525520)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's still legal to make a backup copy of something you already own as long as you don't sell it or distribute it to others in a way that goes against the agreement posted on the box or during installation. Couldn't we all burn our combined millions of cd's and just let them come after all of us looking like idiots when we show the original purchased copies? As long as you're not sharing your collection they would only be wasting all of their supposedly dwindling cash reserves due to illegal downloading.

With apologies to Spaceballs (5, Funny)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525417)

RIAA: You're my father's Brother's Uncle's Sister's Roommate's Cousin.

Dude: What's that make me?

RIAA: Nothing, but we're suing you anyway.

3 Things (4, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525425)

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists. Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.

First of all, Pate is fully within his rights to videotape movies off cable! It's called Fair Use!

The fact that he 'zealously respects copyrights' only means that he is misinformed, and most likely has been taken in by **IA propaganda that would lead you to believe that there is no Fair Use.

Secondly, I am looking forward to several things: The death of CD sales and painful realization of the RIAA that they are going down. The explosion of indi artists and methods of distribution, and no more focus-group artists!

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, let the 80's die a noble quick death, not a lingering bedridden death like the 70's. Ironic that I would say that, as I played in a 80's cover band, friends don't let friends share Def Leppard.

wait.. (1)

Dorothy 86 (677356) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525427)

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a law that states that you dont have to testify against your own family? how can they subpoena that?

Many Parents are Pirates (2, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525434)

you insensitive clod!

Good parenting (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525436)

  • Timmy: Dad, who was that on the phone?
  • Dad: Grab the Vaseline, son. You're going to Folsom Camp for the next 5 summers.

I'll sue to make sure I have p2p access... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525437)

...on the computer in the prison library.

Social Security Coverage (1, Funny)

SkiddyRowe (692144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525441)

My Dad downloads music, sometimes more than I do. Does that mean the RIAA will go after my grandpa? What'll they settle for, half of his pension check each month?

Personal Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525446)

The same thing will happen if you lend someone your car and they kill someone with it. Your insurance rates go up, not theirs. Nothing new here, move along.

Oh, and how oblivous can this guy be? He's the father of a girl who was sharing files on her/his PC:

"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal. I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."

Riiiiiiiiiiight. They figured out how to get on the net, install the software, and download the files, but didn't notice the front page news stories over the past year or so about how the RIAA and others are going after people who do this? Jesus, if ignorance is bliss, this guy must be one of the blissest on record.

Woah... (1)

dethl (626353) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525461)

getting desperate there RIAA?

Oh well...sue away...eventually you won't have enough money to continue this insane amount of suing you seem to be so intent on doing.

Heh, that reminds me... (0, Offtopic)

H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525473)

This story (just vaguely) reminded me of this Malcolm in the Middle episode [fox.com] :
Finally, Dewey and Craig arrived. Craig went ballistic but the gang responded by making him their sex slave. We were about to abandon Craig but apparently he and Dewey bonded and Dewey wasn't gonna leave him. So he did the only sensible thing anyone could do in the situation: he told on them...to their mothers.


Surprisingly enough, it worked like a charm. These "mothers" came over and berated the gang and they left. Who knew? The best part - Mom and Dad didn't even find out. I guess this could go down as the first time in adolescent history, blah, blah. But we didn't exactly have a party now did we?

Of course, the analogy falls apart, because in the TV show they were calling the parents to come over and actually do some parenting, whereas this sad story has the RIAA coming after the parents to hold them accountable... Anyway.

And now for something completely... similar. (1)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525476)

Next up, the RIAA starts targetting computer makers. Then they'll go after OS writers (look out, microsoft! You should have known better than to allow people to develop software for your OS! Software that could BREAK THE LAW!), and after that they'll start hitting media-player programs. Finally, they'll take legal action against music artists themselves - the TRUE source of all this piracy!

Suggestion for action... (5, Interesting)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525478)

The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:

- Pick a day.

- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)

- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.

- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.

If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.

I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.

This is so depressing (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525481)

"There's no way either us or our daughter would do anything we knew to be illegal," Pate said, promising to remove the software quickly. "I don't think anybody knew this was illegal, just a way to get some music."

This is sad on so many levels. First, of course it is illegal to download music and I am sure at least his daughter knew that. Second, the guy makes it sound like p2p software is the problem and that uninstalling it stops the illegal activity. Just stop downloading and sharing music, the p2p software is perfectly legal. In the grand schmeme of things though, this is just disgusting. The RIAA is going too far, and I will never buy a cd that they profit from again.

Suing for file sharing? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525483)

The recording industry said Pate's daughter was offering songs by Billy Idol, Missy Elliot, Duran Duran, Def Leppard and other artists.

Christ, I'd consider suing her for bad musical taste, probably have an easier time making that one stick too.

War On Piracy? (5, Funny)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525486)

Over the coming months this may be the Internet's equivalent of shock and awe, the stunning discovery by music fans across America that copyright lawyers can pierce the presumed anonymity of file-sharing, even for computer users hiding behind nicknames such as "hottdude0587" or "bluemonkey13."
Does this mean there will be heavy civilian casualties, lots of property damage an eventually guerilla warfare with nothing much gained?

sounding familiar (3, Interesting)

stagl (569675) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525488)

why does sound so much like the infamous (not for positive reasons) "war on drugs".

i feel like this will never end, and there will never be any resolution with the current approach at stopping file sharing.

what's the classic line? "the tighter you grip the more that slips through your fingers"

any wifi owners contacted? (2, Interesting)

Comsn (686413) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525494)

i'd love to see what happens when an unsecured wifi network owner gets a letter.

"Well gee, I just got this set up. Whats kazaa?"

who will be first? (1)

happers (647249) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525510)

What will be interesting is to see who is the first person(s) to actually get sued. I mean think about it..the RIAA has to play its cards just right because if they pull grandmothers and little kids into court and sued then for the anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song the backlash would probably be enough to hurt them even more then they are already hurting themselves.

HA HA HA! (1)

H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525525)

From the end of the article:

"I think they're trying to scare people," Barnes said.

No... You think?!?

RIAA 800 line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525526)

Call the RIAA's 800 line and tell them what you think about that.

800 223 2328

Rebellion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525531)

From the article :

Pate said that he never personally downloaded music and that he so zealously respects copyrights that he does not videotape movies off cable television channels.

It's a wonder his daughter only downloaded a bit of music. Her father's obviously some kind of loony and you'd think her reaction to that would push her the other way.

they've got it all wrong. (2, Interesting)

Ashetos (634147) | more than 11 years ago | (#6525534)

Nothing original, I concede, but the obvious should be restated. often:

Sharing is the best way to stimulate a market, if I like a piece of music, I want to tell others about it. It enriches them and raises my social status (or at least sense of worth). This is what "tape trading" used to be all about and it is exactly what file trading is now about. Sucky music doesn't stay in my shared directory for very long.

The truth is that the RIAA is fighting against the very essence of civilized culture, they are doing their best to defend their short term interests while ignoring the fact that without an enthusiastic audience they will be the first to loose. When no one is willing to pay money for the next one hit wonder's overproduced album, and the record companies slowly starve there will still be a million independent artists working hard for our attention, they do know how to use the current technology and they will be the ones benefiting the most from all this.

If you ask me, this issue has already been won. All they can to is try to intimidate anyone they can. This attempt to get parents to "police" their children will only reinforce the idea that "sharing is cool." It makes sharing, and resisting the media conglomerate's influence immediately anti-authority and anti-establishment, forbidden fruit, therefore immensely cool. It's over.

How low can they go? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6525536)

Elderly Are Targets in Internet Subpoenas

I bet if these RIAA guys were on the Titanic they would build rafts made of women and children.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?