rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | Mobile? Big Music wants Britanny Chan
p2p news / p2pnet:- Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.
She was 13 when this all started, but she’s now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian —- which she’ll definitely need with the venal and unscrupulous labels trying to get her.
“Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution,” says the complaint. “Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.
“Candy Chan ultimately testified that she had a conversation with Brittany Chan in which Britanny Chan admitted to using the ‘Spicybrnweyedgirl’ name associated with the copyright infringement.
“Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.”
“Forced” the cartel to attack Britanny directly?
As we posted here:
The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she’d given Britanny a computer. “After taking Ms Chan’s deposition, the RIAA moved to add the daughter,” her lawyer, John Hermann, told p2pnet. “I objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that they had to appoint a guardian ad litem before for the child before they could proceed.
“In the meantime, I threatened filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Ms Chan”. That frightened off the RIAA legal hit men and the complaint against her was dropped.
Go here for an update.
Go here and here for more on the Chan case.
Stay tuned.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
See:-
posted here - RIAA lies and disinformation, September 27, 2005
October 5th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
So the RIAA sues Brittany and wins. What are they going to do? Confiscate her allowance? Can a 14-year old file bankruptcy? A chapter 13 would be off her credit report in 7 years, when she’s 21. They can’t touch the mother because the case against her was dismissed WITH prejudice by the judge so they can not sue her again for the same incident.
I think Brittany should stand there in the well of the court all by herself at the defendants table staring at the RIAA’s henchmen in their expensive suits. Hopefully TV cameras will be allowed in the courtroom and the whole world can see just how heartless and cruel the RIAA’s strategy is and how silly Mr. Kirchbaum and associates are going to look beating up a 14 year old girl with a law book.
It would seem that the RIAA has stepped in a big pile of poop with this case and should have just let it go, but I’m sure they were so pissed off at being outmaneuvered, they are pressing on just for spite.
–TG
October 5th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Hey, everybody! Stop buying RIAA’s products.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I think it’s time for soccer mom’s to unite …
Write your congress about your objections to these RIAA thugs. Create a list of all corrupt congress people so we can throw them out of office. Some of you have children fighting a war on one front, we don’t need a corrupt organisation going after the other children. Stand up and be heard.
October 5th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
there was a comment from the lawyer representing Britanny’s mom to a post I made awhile back. Correct me if I’m wrong but he said he believed they wouldn’t go after her. If he’s reading this could you give us your take on whats happening?? Is the RIAA just trying to scare off other parents or are they serious in persuing this??
October 5th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
I forgot to mention my belief that if the media got involved they could portray Britanny’s mom as a bad mother for allowing her daughter to go though this emotional and stressful time instead of taking responsibility for her childs actions. Hopefully they won’t.
October 5th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Not the RIAA. This is what the RIAA was formed for, to deflect bad publicity from their clients.
The headlines should read:-
Sony/Warner/Elecktra/Priority/Motown Record companies sue 14 year old girl for sharing files on the internet.
I think that has more impact. The record companies hide behind the RIAA to protect their repective trademarks. Once their clients start getting the bad publicity, we will see a change of attitude.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
I think that would backfire on them in a big way since they are the ones actually putting the 14yr old girl through the emotional stress in the first place.
October 6th, 2005 at 5:24 am
“The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she’d given Britanny a computer.”
I guess by that reasoning, if I give my son a car, then I’m liable for his speeding tickets? No court in the land would uphold that line of reasoning.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Actually…
If your son is a minor, and has no way to pay for the tickets, you as his guardian become liable for the ticket cost.
(Also, if he doesn’t go to traffic court for said ticket, his insurance will go up, which you’re most likely paying)
October 6th, 2005 at 11:06 am
“Create a list of all corrupt congress people”
was this a joke? the list already exists. its the entire directory of congress.
they ALL need to go. nobody deserves to stay. period.
October 6th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
I already did. Three years ago. I will not even buy products from small labels that are in any way associated with the major labels, even if they just use the major’s pressing facilities.
October 6th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
You may be liable for it, but not for the reason they give I think. If you use that argument and you go a little further can’t the RIAA sue themselves for producing music (hence giving people the opportunity to make illegal copies from it)?
Then again, record companies making mindnumbingly stupid claims have proven succesful in the future… we pay a tax on our empty CD-R’s and DVD-R’s that goes directly to the record companies ‘because they make less profit thanks to illegal copying of CD’s’, which is quite annoying if you use a lot of em to back up your stuff.
Why aren’t there taxes to replace my stolen car?
indeed… cause it’s mindnumbingly stupid.
October 6th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Any easy way to determine which are which? Prefereably a tool or something that I can feed a band or label name into and get a response. Thanks for any info.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Matthew E. Krichbaum = matthew@srkllp(dot)com
October 6th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
check out riaaradar.com
October 6th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Maybe they should tax my pen and paper/keyboard/paint brush on the possibility that I might possibly plagerize someone’s book or copy someone’s art, in turn causing said artists to make less money…WTF???…we are being slowly forced to conform and walk single-file, mindlessly submitting to big government, which caters directly to big businesses threatening our children with imposed fines and jail time…I know at 14 I would have been scared to death
Don’t they realize these are the very children that will in turn grow up and refuse to buy their products, or even worse, become future political leaders and put them out of business for good?
October 6th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
…or if I kill somebody my is to blame because she gave my birth
October 6th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
…or if I kill somebody my mother is to blame because she gave my birth
sorry
October 6th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
RIAA is right, the 14 year old isn’t.
It doesn’t matter if the offending party is 14 for 24 or 34 or whatever. Even though I don’t like the RIAA/MPAA (for their lobbying for crappy technology), they do have a point.
You are not allowed to distribute a work that someone else owns the copyright to unless you have their permission. Doesn’t amtter if it’s a starving artist or a multi million dollar company.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
That hasn’t stopped them before. Why would it now?
October 6th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
If people would stop stealing, and don’t kid yourself that it’s not, this wouldn’t be an issue. There would be no reason to sue 14 year old little thieves.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
They’re already doing this to gun companies. Some thug gets ahold of a weapon and uses it to kill someone, it’s the fault of the gun company for making the gun. The legal system in this country is so corrupt and stupid it’s beyond belief.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
RIAA has no other choice but sue the little girl.
Why?
If they don’t do anything or loose in court, everyone will say that their kid was downloading music illegaly, or the neigbor kid was comming by and downloading music.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Quote: “The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she’d given Britanny a computer.”
does that not mean that Microsoft/Apple are responsible for creating the opperating system which these peer to peer protocols run on?
does it not make the computer manafaturers responsible for creating the machine itself?
or the retailers for selling Mrs Chan the computer in the first place?
-Shadow Sword
October 6th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I wonder if civil suits can be tried by jury. I doubt they could find even a single jury member that would find in favor of the RIAA. Heck, I doubt they can find a judge who will.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Yes but the law was originaly setup to protect artists RIAA is abuseing its powers and is only protecting its own interests as far as i can see. Something maybe technically right that does not make it ethically right.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
So why doesn’t the RIAA go after the root source of this copyright infringement (please use the right term, theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing… go ask a lawyer)? Suing Britanny Chan to stop piracy is like arresting a drug addict to fight drug cartels.
There are moles in the music industry releasing albums before they reach stores and there are release groups putting out dozens of albums each week. Sue those people. Attacking a 14 year old girl in court just makes the RIAA look like the helpless losers they are: they can’t figure out how to solve the problem, so they’ll just try random things until maybe something works.
If they really wanted to solve the problem they’d recognize that even $0.99/song is too expensive and they’d drop the price to $0.10/song. Remember that a big part of operatinga business in a capitalist economy is knowing what price the market will bear. In the last ten years we’re seeing that the market has decided $15-$20/CD is too much and the record companies have to adjust their price. The only reason they can still get away with charging high prices in the stores is because of illegal price fixing, which they’ve been found guilty of on more than one occasion.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Well, in many countries pens/paper/keyboard and anything you can think of is taxed. And artists are supported by the government from those taxes, so ….
October 6th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
People wouldn’t need to steal if the product was fairly priced. Music was free up untill the invent of the gramaphone so why should we pay for it now. If a band is writing music just to make money then fuck em. Theres plenty out there that do it for the music and they’re good too. Major artists would still make money from personal appearances and devoted fans would no doubt want to own the original CD. Recording comapnys are in this soley for the money. If WE stopped buying, THEY wouldn’t have anything left but we would still have music.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I am so glad someone brought up this point. As much as it sucks that they are going after a 14 year old. The point here is that the 14 year old BROKE THE LAW! As inane as the law may be, as badly as the RIAA is abusing the law to make themselves more money, it is still the law!
I don’t think that pot should be illegal, but it is illegal, and if I use it then I am breaking the law and should be punished. Complaining about this lawsuit is ignorant, if you want to see these types of suits stop then lobby to get the laws changed, don’t complain about companies protecting their interests under the jurisdiction of the existing laws.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
It’s the artists fault for creating the music in the first place! If they hadn’t made it, she wouldn’t download it!
I think those who are in agreement with the RIAA sueing this little girl (or anyone in that matter) need to reconsider. How often have you heard of any major organization sueing shoplifters or the illegal street vendors? These are minor crimes that local Police Deaprtments deal with. They are targeting individual people in an feeble attempt to stop “piracy”. They are not the brightest people in the world, music has been pirated in mass ever since the mp3 was founded, now we just have p2p technology. Hmm, maybe it’s time to figure out new ways to make money, there won’t be a stop to music sharing, it’s not a possibility. It’s just a way to get some publicity and strike fear in people (hmm, a mafia mentality?).
October 6th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Yes. As a citizen in the US you have the right to trial by jury in both criminal cases and civil cases, excepting small claims court. You can also demand a jury trial if you appeal the small claims court decision to circuit court and the amount in question is greater than $100.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
People just don’t learn. Who copies DVD’s now? Nowhere NEAR what they used to be. Why? Because they are cheap enough it’s cheaper to buy then to copy. The illegal copies are so bad I don’t touch them regardless of the price. I can easily copy DVD’s but at $12 I’ll just buy one. CD’s are another matter: I see average of $20 for the CD’s I want to buy from the plaintiff’s labels. If this girl was making money off of this filesharing, I’d say, sure, go after her. But since she isn’t charging fees to make money off it, this is just pure greed. Why not sue people for singing the songs in the presence of their friends. Isn’t THAT another form of sharing? There is a limit to how much money you can make using copyright. Of course the music companies don’t want to hear this, but it’s a fact. Having unlimited capacity to make money on music not matter how old, would bring creativity to a complete halt. If copyright existed during the time of the great composers like Bach and Mozart I’d hate to think of the state of music now. Nobody could learn from their music without paying insane fees. (Europe has learned from this being more enlightened than we are).
What this case does do for me as an artist and consumer is to never even consider using the afore mentioned labels for my publishing my works, and to avoid buying their CD regardless of which artists they have. I would also encourage other artists to public music through MP3s directly or smaller more human companies rather than these corporations who under a psychological profile would be categorized as sociopaths.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
I think it’s the people that misuse the legal system that’s stupid.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
“then I am breaking the law and should be punished.”
Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., the jews of Nazi Germany, all were breaking the laws of their land. I supposed they deserved their punishment too.
“Complaining about this lawsuit is ignorant, if you want to see these types of suits stop then lobby to get the laws changed,”
I would if I was a billionaire who could buy off crooked politicians. You honestly think an average citizen has a chance to do that??
“don’t complain about companies protecting their interests under the jurisdiction of the existing laws.”
Copyright laws were established to protect the rights of the ARTISTS and to give the ARTISTS an oprotunity to make money off of their work. Not fat cat corporations without any creativity who STEAL these copyrights under the guise of “the law.” These corporations are not the victims here, they are the brutalizers.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
agreed people should stop stealing. but what does that have to do with the shady area of copyright laws???
October 6th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
So what. the burden of proof is on them. all they have is an IP address (which may be incorrect) and a list of suposed songs that any moron could type up on their wordpad software. They have little evidence to take to court if the victim deneys it.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Just quit buying music. I haven’t bought a CD in at least 5 years and haven’t missed a thing. Do something else: write a program, read a book, write a book about writing a program, work, talk to people (as opposed to sitting around with headphones on), learn to play an instrument, or start a band. Any and all of that will provide you with a greater ROI than listening to music.
Enough people do that and the record comapnies’ shareholders will make sure they get the message.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
All you industry supporters since you’re so morrally outraged by little girls downloading music (akin to kids on a playground swaping their favorate Britney CD’s to take home to copy, Perhaps we need RIAA spys in our schools to stop this rampant piracy) where’s your outrage at these poor innocent multimillion dollar corporations who are only protecting their hard earned rights when they engage in price fixing, or do their own bootlegging to avoid royalty payments. Or never pay royalties to their artists to begin with by hiding the figures with creative accounting. Why don’t you stand up in the press and denounce these things along with those evil children? Untill I see that I only see the counter argument as nothing but hyprocracy.
BTW I think this debate is creative and healthy. it shows both sides without stooping to name calling, back biting, and personal insults like you see on some other sites.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Amen! We have been saying that since the first DRM crippled disks came out at www.dontbuycds.org
October 6th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
I agree, but you have to start somewhere, discussion among the masses is where it all starts.
October 6th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
I’ve read a bunch of comments most arguments seem to boil down to “poor little Britanny against the evil suits.” I think someone referred to her as breaking the law in the same model as Ghandi or Jews in the Warsaw getto. (Note: Those truely pursuing civil disobediance do so prepared to pay the cost by going to jail–or worse.)
Please. Maybe Brittany didn’t commit the worst crime around, and no doubt the RIAA are bullies. Music costs may indeed be higher than the market wishes to bear.
However, it’s the RIAA’s music (or at least they argue that they are the copyright holders) and if Brittany and the people she gave this music to don’t want to pay for it they don’t have to get it. They can create their own music. They can go play in the park. They can do any number of other activities to satisfy their creative and spiritual needs–without downloading and distributing products illegally.
If the RIAA pursues this case, it will not keep me up nights. Brittany is lucky to have these problems, given the hunger, violance and poverty faced by the vast majority of 14 year olds in this world.
October 6th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
There are so many things wrong with this case. Our legal and political systems are so screwed up that it’s almost impossible to fully grasp how bad its gotten.
When the legal system of this country was first put together, great pains were taken to prevent the type of indiscriminate legal action that governments often imposed upon innocent people. For example, in England, the King had the legal authority to impose punishment on just about anyone for any reason. If someone offended the king, they could find themselves with a noose around their neck.
With the development of a new democracy, the founding fathers wanted to make sure that this type of thing could never happen. Intent played a large part in determining whether or not someone should be punished, and how severe the punishment should be. Accidents were recognized as being accidents, and unless someone was severely injured or killed, unintentional consequences of innocent actions were not punished. They were instead recognized as necessary learning experiences for individuals as well as for society. After all, everybody makes mistakes until they learn how not to make them.
But somewhere over the past 230 years, this has gone out the window. People don’t have the luxury of trial and error anymore, since even the slightest error in judgement can result in prison. There always has to be someone to blame for everything that goes wrong, even when things really aren’t anyone’s fault. The laws are no longer used to punish evil-doers, but are instead used to place blame on anyone that happens to be standing nearby. Politics often dictate who is arrested and tried, not facts. Politicians want to get reelected, so they need to show people ‘Look, we punished someone!’ without caring who it is that’s punished. Who cares that there’s evidence that proves someone is innocent; that evidence is inadmissable, and the case is strong for us, so let’s try him anyway.
This need to blame someone for everything that goes wrong has corrupted every aspect of our society. Healthcare costs are insane because insurance companies need to cover the costs of malpractice lawsuits. A restaurant gets sued when a customer buys hot coffee and burns herself with it. Homeowners get sued when a burler trips on a loose step and breaks his legs. And a mother gets sued when her 13 years old daughter downloads some songs that she likes without paying for them.
Yes, a 13 year old broke a copyright law. Tell me, when you were a kid, did you ever record a movie or TV show onto a VHS tape? Or did you ever make a mixed audio tape and give it to a friend or girlfriend? If the answer is ‘yes’, then you broke the same copyright laws. So why didn’t the Hollywood studios or recording industries come after you?
Because these lawsuits are not about the law. They’re not about intellectual property or hurting the artists. And they’re certainly not about doing the right thing. They’re about money.
Did the 13 year old girl knowingly steal something? Did she intend to be part of a revolution against the music industry? Did she intend to share music with millions of people so that they can get free music? No, she didn’t. She’s a kid who likes music, and was presented with a way of obtaining music.
Consider a situation in which a 13 year old boy downloads naked pictures of a 14 year old girl. Should he be charged with possession of child pornography? Is he old enough and responsible enough to know that by downloading those pictures, he’s supporting an industry that exploits and harms young girls? No. He’s a 13 year old boy who’s just discovering his own sexuality.
So what about the parents of these kids? Should the mother be held responsible for the daughter downloading music? Well, that depends. If she installed the software and showed her daughter how to do it, then yes. But remember that in today’s society, most children know MUCH more about how computers work than their parents, no matter how hard the parents try. Computer’s are becoming necessary tools for school and for learning, but parents are having a very difficult time monitoring how their kids use those computers. Can you automatically place the blame on them for their children’s actions?
I have no objection to the RIAA suing people who are intentionally trying to harm the industry. If you provide high-speed server that contains thousands of songs because you want to stick it to the man, then you’ll have to accept the consequences of your actions. But here the RIAA is grasping at straws. They’re trying to scare people into ceasing and desisting. After all, if they can win a judgement against the actions of a 13 year old, they figure parents will try to protect their own kids (and themselves, since parents are financially responsible for their children) by going the extra mile to prevent their own kids from downloading music. But scaring a kid and possibly financially ruining a family to set an example wrong, and it’s not at all what our forefathers envisioned when they created a government where all people have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Ok, I’ve talked long enough. But I will leave you with two thoughts:
1. How can the RIAA claim the moral high ground here when they only went after the child after the case against the mother fell apart? If they were following their moral compass and honestly felt that the child was the culprit, then why go after the mother in the first place if not because she’s a better, easier target?
2. If the RIAA is continuing to sue over copyright infringement, then why are there taxes on blank CD’s that go to the recording industry? How is it right that everyone is paying the recording industry extra money because music is being shared while not being allowed to actually share music? It’s like paying for a service without being allowed to use the service.
October 6th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
the law is the law reguardless. weather you’re a jaywalker or just happen to be born of the wrong race at the wrong time in the wrong country. doesn’t matter because if it’s against the law then you deserve to be punished. It doesn’t matter who makes the laws or under what circumstances the laws were made, if they get on the books then they’re gospel. that’s what I’m hearing. that argument has been given by every colaborator in the history of the world in order to justify their inability to stand up to what is wrong.
October 6th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
— People wouldn’t need to steal if the product was fairly priced —
File sharers don’t steal anything, and to say they do plays right into the cartel’s hands.
Nothing has been taken from anyone without their knowledge or permission, and no one has been deprived of something they had or formerly owned.
Nothing is ‘lost’. No money changes hands and, despite Big Music’s claims to the contrary, a file shared does NOT equal a sale lost.
File sharers share.
Cheers!
October 6th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Actually, if you want to take it technically, Music has been pirated in mass ever since the Cassette tape was founded. I remember making tapes for friends and things like that. it really isn’t anything new…
October 6th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
I agree that you have a few good point there, but there’s one small problem: the intentions of the founding fathers don’t matter. That’s right, they make absolutely no difference. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t, but they don’t. Those who are in the positions to enforce the laws (and we put them there) just don’t care what the intentions of the founding fathers were. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not on the side of the RIAA, but this is the unfortunate reality of the society we live in. You mentioned the high cost of healthcare because of all the malpractice lawsuites as an example of corruption in our legal system, but think about it: if your father was having “routine” heart surgery and the anesthesiologist messed up, ran out of blood and your father became a vegetable and eventually died because of the air bubble in his veins, you would expect compensation for that, wouldn’t you? Or would you just let that slide and chalk it up to trial and error?
The problem is, people don’t learn anything unless there are consequences. If the RIAA just sent this kid a letter and said “Stop downloading music. It’s a violation of copyright laws.” Do you think she would stop? Most kids would think of it this way: “I broke the law, they know about it, and didn’t do anything about it. Why would I stop?” You can say the RIAA is using scare tactics or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is, the publicity they’re generating by sueing these people is bringing attention to the fact that sharing music is illegal and they’re going to enforce that law. I’ve never talked to anyone who downloaded music off Napster and didn’t know it was illegal. They just didn’t care because nobody enforced the law. Now, they decided to enforce the law and everyone is criticizing them? Quite frankly, the whole thing on both sides can be chalked up to human nature and the depravity of man.
And by the way, the ruling was made that taping a movie or song from a public broadcase is NOT a violation of copyright laws.
October 6th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
As consumers of music, you can make your voice heard where it counts.
If you don’t like what the big labels are doing, boycot the sale of their music until they change what they are doing.
If file sharing is their big problem, they must realize the this has been going on for more years than the internet has been available to the public. It goes back to tape decks.
And if the big labels can’t think of what to in a way that consumers support, they could ask for ideas from consumers or as consumers you could send or post ideas the big labels could think over.
But no matter what, if the big labels aren’t hit in the moneybag, they aren’t likly to listen to alternatives.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
I have not bought 1 single recording from these so called
companys since this all started.
And I will not EVER buy from them as long as this witch hunt
for money continues.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
That is all.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
“The problem is, people don’t learn anything unless there are consequences.”
but consequences doesn’t have to be imposed by frivous lawsuits. besides his example of learning from mistakes excluded the example of the fathers surgery you mentioned.
He’s absolutly right that we are in a society of trying to blame someone for everything that goes wrong and isn’t perfect. The legal system is being misused.
You’re right that what our founding fathers intended doesn’t matter. that’s why this countries in such a mess and so many are opposing this governments actions in all things.
we should be oposing and trying to change it rather than sit and make excuses for it. The “that’s the way it is” philosophy only leads to complacity and colaboration.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
I am afraid I have to disagree, if the anaesthesiologist messed up I would not sue him. Everyone makes mistakes at some point; to assume healthcare professionals are infallible is ridiculous. If things carry on down this trend you will find nobody wants to be a doctor anymore because of fears of getting sued.
Think of it this way, if there was no anaesthesiologist at all then your father would most definitely be dead because he wouldn’t have had an operation at all.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
I used to record 33-1/3 records on my Reel to reel tape recorder and trade copies with friends in the 60’s I still have some. It wasnt a big deal until digital came about. Copies of copies lost fidelity on every copie untill nothing is left, but digital is the same from the first to the last copy.
I also have always objected to the argumentthat if someone downloads a song they have lost a sale. 99% of those people wouldnt buy the song in the first place, so they have lost nothing. Only if they can prove that the person thet download the song WOULD have been inclined to buy it had they not found a free copy are they loosing a sale.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
The fallacy is if we all boycott them then the blame the lack of sales on piracy, which is already the case. People dont buy as much because of the rising cost so they blame piracy. Now the movie industry is doing the same thing. Lack of sales is due to piracy not the cost of seeing a movie or bad movies.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Woohoo! Free money! Just gotta be an artist and get those tax-funded reparations-checks flowing in.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
“the intentions of the founding fathers don’t matter.”
You hit the nail on the head there. You’re right, they don’t matter, even though they should. And I don’t mean that in an ethical or moral way. One of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws as they were originally intended. This means that they are supposed to make rulings based upon the intent of the founding fathers (or whoever else) when the laws were created. And while other laws have come and gone over the years that change the original laws established by the founding fathers, the basic democratic principles in the constutition are supposed to be enforced in the same spirit in which they were conceived. To be fair, I’m sure that the Supreme Court judges DO try and rule based upon the founding father’s intentions. But times have changed, many years have passed, and many politicians have warped our laws and society to the point that the original intent is often difficult to see, and harder to enforce.
You also addressed my example of health care costs. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have lawsuits, or that malpractice suits are all the result of greed and scapegoating. Legitimate lawsuits are fine. The problem is that most lawsuits are not legitimate. If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, he deserves to be sued. He was taught to double check which leg he was operating on and knew what he was supposed to do, but didn’t do it. However, if a doctor does his job correctly and a complication arises (as they often do), then he shouldn’t be help responsible. He’s not God. There’s a difference between a screw up that could easily been avoided an an unforseeable accident. However, people in today’s society expect perfection from others while at the same time refusing to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. In both my personal and professional life, the people that I respect the most are those that are willing to step up and say, ‘That was my fault. I’ll fix it and try not to let it happen again.’ Unfortunately, that’s a very rare thing today.
And I didn’t realize that taping a movie from a public broadcast is not a violation of copyright laws. But distributing that broadcast is, right?
-Dave
[original ‘The issues’ poster - sorry, should have IDed myself earlier]
October 6th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/priority_chan/chan_order_2.pdf
October 6th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
People are already afraid of becoming doctors. There is a shortage of doctors, nurses, lab techinicians, etc. across the entire country. The worst off are the OBGYNs. If they deliver a baby, then current laws in many states allow that doctor to be sued for anything related to the delivery until the child reaches the age of 18. The end result is that those states now have a very serious shortage of OBGYNs.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
there are “ethics” in business???
And the abuse of the law is the problem, but the 14 year old should not have the right to distribute Satan’s works if he doesn’t want that.
There is a difference between a license says that you cannot re-distribute it and one that allows distribution with credit etc.
One problem comes when you rip a single song from a CD, because it is not a complete performance, the entire-CD is a complete performance. Unless there is only 1 song on a CD.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
You’re mistaking the “ARTIST” for “Copyright holder” … there is a difference.
I am a Comp Sci major. and when I go work for a software company, any code I write belongs to the company, not me. Because it is what I get paid for. Music is the same.
In russian pop-culture, you have artists like here. Usually there are “performers” then the people who write the music and the words. Although recently there have been more “artists” like in american pop-culture.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Something to remember is that court-ordered debt cannot be automatically dismissed via a bankruptcy. In addition, there are newer, tougher federal bankruptcy laws coming into effect this month. Even if she did declare bankruptcy (which I don’t believe a minor can do, though I could be wrong) it probably wouldn’t do her any good.
Most likely what would happen is the court would establish a wage garnishment against future income and any inheritance and/or trust fund monies.
That’s IF the RIAA wins. If the plaintiff in Andersen v RIAA is successful, there is a better than average chance the RIAA’s days of bullying little children for their lunch money are over. In other words, this whole thing could go away.
I am not a lawyer, so I won’t even hazard a guess as to what their next move SHOULD be, but Chan and her guardian (assuming the court accepts the RIAA’s motion to appoint one) if it were me, and I thank God it isn’t, I’d demand a jury trial and hope the RIAA can take the heat of being seen as a bully trying to extort money from an individual.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
IANAL, but couldn’t the RIAA press for a *specific* guardian ad litem? If they could, then I fear for the worst… An RIAA lawyer not associated with the case could be appointed, then that lawyer wouldn’t be defending the girl, it’d be defending the RIAA
October 7th, 2005 at 12:51 am
what about not buy any cd from them??
October 7th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Amazing, put a lollipop on the table and… got another child…. lets do it again…
October 7th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Something is stolen indeed: the quality of the product. I think that a solution to this problem would be to sell the same product at a range of quality recording and the lowest quality to be free to share.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Don’t those Bastards ever quit?! I surely hope they get what is coming to them. These days, those bastards are “working overtime”!!!!
I’m going to go back and brainstorm how I can thwart their bitch campaign…
October 7th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
The music industry has always made so much money that they think they are entitled to billions of dollars of profits.
There was an interview on the radio this morning with George Jones, one of county music’s biggest artists, who recently started his own record label. In just 2 or 3 releases, he says he’s made more money than he ever got from any record company when he was a multi-platinum artist.
This is all the same issue as with the iPod pricing. Greed greed greed.
I refuse to pay $15 or more for an entire album when I know I’ll only like 1 or 2 songs from the album. (I know that an entirely different issue). They haven’t seen a dollar from me in over 20 yrs. Thank god for the deal iTunes has had with Pepsi/Mtn Dew the last few years and for people who throw away their free iTune caps! I’ve gotten 100’s of free songs from iTunes legally over the past 2 yrs.
October 7th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
I have basically never downloaded music off the internet, but I STILL agree, and basically refuse to buy CDs from a major labels these days. I have plenty of other things to do with my time (and can listen to the radio or my existing CDs or go to concerts if I do want to listen to music) that I don’t need to be buying CDs all the time (I used to buy lots, usually at least a couple a month, but stopped about 5 years ago).
The TV folks have realized that internet use is eating into TV viewing time. The movie folks are realizing the same thing (and that people increasingly wait to see them on DVD or TV), and are also starting to live up to the fact that people don’t go to see crappy movies in the first place, which is mainly what Hollywood has been putting out. They have also tried to price DVDs fairly.
So why are the record folks so brain-dead?
October 7th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Sooner or later the labels will have to come to terms with the fact that they depend on us. We don’t depend on them.
Sure - stop buying their ‘product’ But don’t just leave it there.
Bug the hell out of your local congress person, MP, or whoever is supposed to represent you, wherever you are. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, demonstrations.
And if you’re into organizing, organize a petition, get everyone you know to sign it and then hand-deliver it to your political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
When Scott Simm, member of parliament for the riding of “Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor” in Newfoundland, asked the Heritage Minister if changes to copyright law would target his 10-year-old son, the Minister avoided the question.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/22
Many members of parliament have children that will be targeted by the American and European major labels that make up the “Canadian” recording industry association. I suspect if they realized just how bad this situation is they would then speak up in parliament and not allow those MPs practically “owned” by the major labels to bend over backwards to hand Canadians over to CRIA.
Please do what you can to protect our children. If you are a youth (under 18) that isn’t yet voting age, write your member of parliament anyway and get your patents involved!
Information on finding your member of parliament: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ectools
If you want help writing letters, or want feedback on something before you send it, please connect with me or the other folks with Digital Copyright Canada http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
October 7th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Complaining about and exposing such existing exploitative, antisocial laws, is the first step to changing them.
October 7th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
IMO, the RIAA should be shot with a load of sh*t and then shot for stinking. I’m an old musician, singer, and songwriter, and I understand that people who create music need to be paid for it. However I feel that the RIAA is going about this all wrong. I think it has outlived any usefullness it might ever have had, and any musician worth his (or her) salt would dump them. When this crap started I quit buying music from anyone affiliated with the RIAA. I miss the music, but I refuse to support the bastards. And no, I don’t download songs for free unless a friend sends them to me. For instance, my brother (and best friend) sent me a song he wrote and mastered down quite nicely, and he wanted my opinion of it. I listened to it several times and pronounced it excellent, but it needed some percussion… I’m thinking Conga drums here. He’s my younger brother and wrote this song about his recently deceased wife, who was younger still. It’s a very touching song and I think he did a very good job with it.
The thing is, I used to play for a living, but I *had* to play. The main thing I love about making music is sharing it with people and I’m driven to do that, even if I don’t make a cent. If I get paid, well, so much the better, but if I can brighten up somebody’s day that’s payment enough.
Oh, and TG, I consider yours an excellent post.
- Alphtoo… old hippy
October 8th, 2005 at 3:35 am
whoa that’s a new one. first time I heard that
October 8th, 2005 at 5:04 am
Ok, that was just dumb.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
That’s what I’ve been saying.
A one year ban on buying anything from the RIAA gang.
Throw in movie tickets for that year too and they’ll
get the message….DON’T SCR_W YOU CUSTOMERS.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Excellent point, everyone should use the true company names in all their messages and mention RIAA only in a footnote.
They need to stop hiding behind four letters.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
…and the local utility company is liable because they supplied the electricty too!…
Boy oh boy are the Sony,Motown….gang dumb.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Listen you rocket scientist, laws are made by those in power and not by those at the bottom. Usually the laws are good but many are bad. What happens in this case is that they get changed or totally scrapped. Laws are not handed down to us from God or some mighty source. We make them. Through the years there have been hundreds of bad laws. Usually time shows this to be true. Times are changing now, technology is changing us. The laws will be changed.
We are going through a growing process, a change right now. The sounds of change are here in these blogs, messages and emails.
You know I’m right, we all can feel the change coming.
Sony/Warner/Elecktra/Priority/Motown Record companies are outnumbered by….us. Big machines take time to get up to speed and millions of people are a big machine.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
You are not very intelligent are you? While a portion of our congress has corrupted politicians; a decent amount of them only swing with the people/the party they run under. If a bill is passed in one way, and they voted in an opposing view as you, this does not make them “corrupt”.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Just found this site today. Last night, we got our paperwork that we….me, actually…..are being sued. The intent is to fight it, as I think its an unconcionable thing for them to do. The download was done by my son, innocently.
I would just ask that anyone following this issue would please send any information to innhawk@aol.com. It’s a big roll of the dice, but if no one fights…and thank God for those who are….it will only get worse.
Thanks
October 25th, 2005 at 8:11 am
No other choice?
How about this: STOP SUING, and find a way to live with technology instead of fight it!
Or does that not count as a choice?
November 7th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
…………..And the courts complain there isn’t enough time and money to to prosecute real criminals, nor jail space to hold them all
February 25th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Most, if not all,of the copyright infringement lawsuits by the RIAA,MPAA et.al., have only cropped up since Bush took office and the Republicans gained control of both Congress and the White House? I understood that they were for limited government interference, yet what we hear today is that Congress wants to make any fileshareing illegal.