The RIAA scaring the nations youth into paying u

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 10 Sep 2003 12:58 am

1st story

Sued for a song
Tue Sep 9, 7:08 AM ET

By SONI SANGHA and PHYLLIS FURMAN
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.

Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.

"Oh, my God, what's going to happen now?" she asked after hearing of the suit. "My stomach is all in knots."

Told she may have to go to court, Brianna's eyes widened behind wire-rimmed glasses and she said, "I'm just shocked that of all the people that do this, I'm on the list."

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said the suits filed yesterday included about 60 that targeted suspects in New York who downloaded more than 1,000 songs.

The group blames computer users such as Brianna, who use software programs to trade music with others on the Internet, for a 30% drop in music sales.

Each person sued yesterday could be liable for fines up to $150,000 for each poached track.

'Appropriate action'

Experts had predicted a large number of the suits likely would name youngsters.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said Carey Sherman, president of the recording association.

Sherman warned that the group may file thousands more lawsuits against people who use programs like KaZaA, Grokster, Gnutella (news - web sites), Blubster and iMesh.

Brianna's mother, Sylvia, 40, director of a nurse placement agency, said her daughter was helping her 9-year-old brother with his homework when the Daily News arrived at their apartment on W. 84th St. with word about the suit.

"For crying out loud, she's just a child," the mother said. "This isn't like those people who say, 'My son is a good boy,' and he's holding a bloody knife. All we did was use a service."

The mother said she signed up for KaZaA, paying a $29.95 fee. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about?" she asked.

She said Brianna downloaded music by Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey, along with the themes to television shows like "Family Matters" and "Full House" - and even the nursery song, "If You're Happy and You Know It."
"That's really threatening to the music industry," she scoffed.

"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing. But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music," said the mother.

She vowed to get a lawyer to fight the suit, which she termed "ridiculous."

------------------------------------------
Follow up story

Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000
Tue Sep 9, 7:19 PM ET

By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON - A 12-year-old girl in New York who was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music over the Internet is off the hook after her mother agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000 to settle the lawsuit, apologizing and admitting that her daughter's actions violated U.S. copyright laws.

The hurried settlement involving Brianna LaHara, an honors student, was the first announced one day after the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) filed 261 such lawsuits across the country. Lawyers for the RIAA said Brianna's mother, Sylvia Torres, contacted them early Tuesday to negotiate.

"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," Torres said in a statement distributed by the recording industry. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The case against Brianna was a potential minefield for the music industry from a public relations standpoint. The family lives in a city housing project on New York's Upper West Side, and they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services.

Even in the hours before the settlement was announced, Brianna was emerging as an example of what critics said was overzealous enforcement by the powerful music industry.

The top lawyer for Verizon Communications Inc. charged earlier Tuesday during a Senate hearing that music lawyers had resorted to a "campaign against 12-year-old girls" rather than trying to help consumers turn to legal sources for songs online. Verizon's Internet subsidiary is engaged in a protracted legal fight against the RIAA over copyright subpoenas sent Verizon customers.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also alluded to Brianna's case.

"Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" Durbin asked RIAA President Cary Sherman during a Senate Judiciary hearing.

Durbin said he appreciated the piracy threat to the recording industry, but added, "I think you have a tough public relations campaign to go after the offenders without appearing heavy-handed in the process."

Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

"We're trying to let people know they may get caught, therefore they should not engage in this behavior," Sherman said. "Yes, there are going to be some kids caught in this, but you'd be surprised at how many adults are engaged in this activity."

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 10 Sep 2003 1:42 am

sadly this will be the first of many..and the RIAA will loose in the end..

Sueing the nation is not the answer.

Whoever decided to pull the trigger on the young kids made a major mistake in the scheme of things.Yes they are trying to scare them but now the can of worms is open and the RIAA and the lawyers are looking like Hitlers.If they haven't lost all of their public support by now they will, by the weekend.

What would have been wrong with sending a notice of intent to these downloaders..same effect..no legal action..

As usual, the small artists and writers will loose again..the lawyers will get some cash but this is not good for the Music Industry who produces real trash and wonders why people will not pay $16 for a worthless CD that they cannot return for poor quality or no satisfaction.

Especially when we see some Artists boasting millions of $$$ and living like Arabs who own all the oil..and the one downloading thier song lives in a 1 room apartment.

I am not stating that downloading for free is the right thing, but sueing the minions isn't the answer.

Change the technolgy to streaming audio for listening only. Whoever invented the MP3 needs to release the MP4..

I guess it's a good day to be an RIAA lawyer..at least you'll be busy...

tp[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 10 September 2003 at 02:44 AM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 10 Sep 2003 3:52 am

The R.I.A.A. probably thinks that if Brianna hadn't illegally downloaded 1,000 songs, she would have bought 1,000 CD's instead.

Yeah, right.

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 10 Sep 2003 5:00 am

I've said it once and I'll say it again....
Whatever enters my house is mine. If it be be via radio,T.V.,internet,MP3,CD,DVD,cable,etc,etc,it don't make any difference. By the time I get acces to it,it has been paid for many times over. The music industry should take notice of what the Movie folks have learned,put good stuff out there at a price the public is willin' to pay and then,everybodys happy !!

I wish the RIAA and the Gaylords of the music world would be forced into bankrupcy and then they would see just how many people would rush to their side to help them. (Hey, RIAA, Don't hold your breath while waiting.)

One of the greatest (IMO) screw-ups by money grubbin' pricks was the flap with the jingle "Happy Birthday to You " thing. That has to be the most stupid thing ever done. Dose the music industry really think that the public should pay a fee every time they want to hear a song or etc,etc ?? Boy,the RIAA really don't get it yet, do they ?? It's over !! The days of stiffin' the public and the song writers,artist,is gone.

Even by todays kids,the music is sub-standard and mostly trash. They ain't buying the stuff and as the internet can/will give them access to what they want,Why pay $18.00 to $$22.00 for a CD that has 99.9% trash. (Pay attention here RIAA).....

May the RIAA and other money grubbers go the way of Sadam and his kingdom !!

Nicholas Dedring · Post by **Nicholas Dedring** » 10 Sep 2003 8:17 am

I'm no fan of the RIAA, but I feel it's important to clarify the following: this kid didn't just swipe the 1,000+ songs, she OFFERED them to be swiped in turn on the P-to-P network.

I used to grab the odd tune off those services (albeit a Mac-oriented one), but only if they met two conditions: I wasn't going to buy a whole record to listen to one song anyway, and most importantly I don't rip-off cds, even copy from friends, by artists who are just scraping by who I respect.

You can all assume that this won't work, but try this: go online and see how much harder it gets in the next month or two to find music on KaZaa or similar services. Because they are targeting the people who offer files for download, instead of those who download them, it will suddenly become a community of "leeches", who are all looking to get, but not give, and the system will conceptually break down.

erik · Post by **erik** » 10 Sep 2003 4:59 pm

Just cause it's easy to do and everyone else does doesn't mean it's right. Looks like the education is going to float through society quickly. The RIAA pulled off a cheap effective strategy. Kind of like a speeding ticket.

Dan Dowd · Post by **Dan Dowd** » 11 Sep 2003 5:46 am

How did the RIAA get the detailed info on who was doing this???? Do they have the right to see what we are doing on the internet??? We cant find out who is creating virus's and screwing up our computers and hurting business with their distruction, but we can find out who is downloading a song. What is the differance if someone records the song from the radio. Is this going to be the next music police charge. I think it is a violation of our privacy for a group(not the government)to have access to our data. There should be a class action law suit against this group for violating our right to privacy on the internet. We had better wake up and see what is really going on here and it goes far beyond music copyright laws. If I send a letter addressed to someone it is illegal for someone else to open it. The same law should apply here. I wont purchase another CD by the major label's because of their action. I hope everybody will join me on this. If they think that the internet caused their problem, they should look closely at the crap they are putting ot for our consumption. MADD has put more musicians out of work than the internet has.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 11 Sep 2003 6:15 am

If you told me 10 years ago that someday drinking water would come in small bottles that cost a dollar each and that musicians would no longer be paid for there labor I would have said you were nuts.

Bob

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 11 Sep 2003 9:02 am

How did the RIAA get the detailed info on who was doing this????

Easy, on most of these download sites (like MP3.com), you have to give them your email address to get the download, so they know exactly who (or rather, where) the .mp3 is going. (This is why I've never "logged in" on one of these sites.) On sites where you don't have to enter information, they can still get the IP address of where the file is going, and track you that way. The fact that they don't know exactly who did the downloading hasn't reared it's head yet, but I'm sure it will. Sooner or later, there's going to be a household with 10 people, and everyone will say "I didn't do it, they did it!" Will the courts charge everyone in the household? Or will it be an "owner responsibility", like the red-light camera summons'. We'll have to wait and see.

My major complaint with this newfound nefarious practice is twofold. First, what people are doing is no different, really, than taping something off the radio or TV, except that it's a lot harder to find out if someone's taping from those devices. There have been no "major" debacles over this type of filesaving for that reason. But with our "computer age", what you do on the internet can't be kept a secret. Everything you do can be traced.

Second, a precedent was set over many decades that this type of thing was "O.K."...not really right, but it was tolerated. Now, they see a revenue source, and they're jumping on it. It's not unlike the bill that was recently put before Congress to charge the senders of emails. That bill was defeated, but will be back...again and again, until it gets passed. That people have enjoyed the "right to sent email freely" for many years won't make any difference. The old axiom "it used to be free, but now you must pay" seems an inevitibility in our representative democracy.

There's never been a big stink about taping songs off the radio, has it? And the argument that the radio stations have paid for broadcast rights just doesn't hold water for two reasons.

Number one is that you can't get songs without someone paying for them. (Except that the radio stations do get free CD's, though.) As far as this "computer file sharing" thing goes, somewhere along the line...someone had to buy a CD to upload the thing in the first place.

Number two is the simple fact that what the recording companies pay the radio stations to get (and keep) their songs "in rotation" on their playlists far exceeds what the stations pay to other organizations for permission to play them. (Yes, "payola" is still alive and well, only now it's called an "marketing incentive".) The only other argument heard is that radio stations have a limited range compared to the internet, but since they're all (thanks to the nationwide networks we have now) broadcasting the same stuff anyway, that becomes a meaningless argument, too.

Unlike all the recording interests, I see the current downturn in the sales of CD's as a normal event, and not due to widespread file-sharing. The 12 year-old girl in NY certainly wouldn't have bought 1,000 CD's if she couldn't download files, would she? Of course not! The CD technology that was introduced about 15 years ago has fizzled a little, and now that everyone has a couple hundred CD's at home, their buying is naturally slowing down. The market for most any mass-produced product eventually becomes saturated, and sales decline. That's the same for everything from Veg-O-Matics to computers. You have to come up with a new product or new features to maintain your sales. Home computers became laptops and PDA's, and Veg-O-Matics became George Foreman Grills. Unfortunately, the recording establishment expects to maintain sales levels with absolutely no "product improvements" or enhancements. And that's not gonna happen.

Other "entertainment medias" also enter into the equation of reduced CD sales. Kids who are tired of listening to music might just as soon get a new computer game the next time they go to the store. Users have always been prone to use alternate forms of entertainment, and the (home-entertainment) mass market is, in essence, "competing with itself".

Doug Brumley · Post by **Doug Brumley** » 11 Sep 2003 10:04 am

The RIAA would argue that there's a big difference between peer-to-peer file sharing and taping off the radio. Perfect digital copies can be made now; no degradation from one generation to the next. They'd argue that there's no need to buy the album when you can get CD-quality (or very close) tracks already--whereas someone who taped a song off the radio might consider paying for a full fidelity version. And as for tracking down the computer users, the RIAA has been sending subpoenas to ISPs with support from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (that's a whole other story). Verizon resisted violating their customers' privacy, but the courts ruled against them. As mentioned in the follow-up article above, the battle between Verizon and the RIAA wages on in the courts. Meanwhile, the RIAA is getting the names it wants.

The overriding theme here is that the RIAA is trying to eliminate all competition from anyone other than the Big 5 music labels. They've already practically shut down small Internet radio webcasters (who are capably filling the void left by the Clear Channels of the world, who refuse to offer true diversity or innovation on their over the air stations). Increasinly, this leaves the average (read unmotivated) listener to get all of his/her music from over the air stations. Now the RIAA is trying to put the clamps on file-sharing, which also offers massive exposure for bands that would otherwise not receive it. If the RIAA succeeds, there will be few if any alternatives to the major labels and corporate radio conglomerates.

I hope a day comes when a band/artist won't need a record label. They'd simply record an album, market it on their Web site or even through a legitimate digital service along the lines of Apple's iTunes music service, and get *all* of the net profits rather than a small portion after the label's cut. Sure, they won't have big budgets for their first albums or tours, but I would wager that the increased net profits would soon offset any lack of label support. I'm probably being too idealistic here, though. A huge obstacle to this is clearly promotion... but most band's complain about how their label is promoting them anyway.

More practically, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has tried to come up with some ways to keep P2P while making sure artists get paid.

I agree that pinning all the blame for poor CD sales on file-sharing is ridiculous. Not only are CDs are too expensive, but when radio stations limit their playlist to 15 songs, many people won't be exposed to anyone beyond those few artists. More variety on radio would lead to more CD sales.