12 year old girl getting sued

[ALASKAN AVIATOR]

It is unfortunate, because most of these folks are trying to simply make a living.

Don't give me that guilt trip crap. I WILL NOT buy a product that had been marked up 1000% just so the greedy execs take home millions.

 

[Foobar]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

I don't think the Girl was seeking a commercial advantage and as such it will be a tuff case. There is an argument that hers was simply an archive. Now if she was selling the music (Napster was making money and as such was seeking a commercial advantage) it would be a different argument.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The case against the girl settled for $2,000.

Now if I were Counsel, I would stipulate the settlement be taken pro rata from her lunch money, or allowance, and paid at a quarter a week.

Yes, the Recording Industry is correct to enfore their property rights. But, the Recording Industry is not exactly the most law abiding citizen in the world of property law. For example they settled a anti trust case in the billions last year (I got a $20 settlement check) for conspiring with their industry peers to raise and set CD prices.

Not only are a lot of customers alienated and angry, many, like me now want to see the recording industry be turned on its ear for their lunacy. Suing 12 year olds is not justice.

Why not be smart and sell us the music we want at reasonable prices online ? I would pay $1.00 a song to get better quality and the selection of wierd stuff I like to listen to. Often I do not want a song list that was decided on to fill an album. I do like the convenience of downloading from the internet and the music industry could profit from adopting current technology to provide an efficient distribution system.

I don't spend much time in shopping malls - I would rather pay for broadband than pay to air condition a shopping mall.

~~~^~~~

 

[~~~^~~~]

Re: BigD

Now, I rarely by CDs, and when I do, it is usually Mozart or Bethoveen stuff for the SUV. Lots cheaper than living artists. (Bethoven doesn't get much of a royalty now that he's dead!)

Actually he does! Well Disney and other media companies do. Much of Disney's early work was a reformat of European stories and music in the public domain. Children's fables like Cinderella are now "Disney Property." Never mind that Disney did not create the character, they now own it.

 

[Styles]

Morning all!

It looks like the RIAA has rushed to settle with 12-year-old Brianna LaHara, after serving her with a lawsuit on Monday. It looks like her single mother will be paying a $2,000 fine to the RIAA for her daughter's song-swapping, which they had thought was legal. Said Brianna: 'I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love.' What a relief this must be for the Rolling Stones.

Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.

It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?

Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.

 

[Dizel8]

The Disney post is quite interesting and I always did wonder how Disney got away with it. Most of the early stories were indeed european fables and they are now presented as being Disney.

As far as Cinderella is concerned, does Disney actually have intellectual rights to the story or just the way they depicted it, ie the "look" of Cinderella.

 

[SammyG]

Morning all!




Disgusting. Totally and completely disgusting.

It would be one thing if the RIAA were to settle, such that $2,000 were donated to a charity. Even that would be a pretty low blow. But actually adding the cash from this girl and her mother to their corporate coffers?

Repeat after me, everyone: I will never buy another CD from the RIAA again.

I also make this pledge.

Friggin' morons...

 

[wingnutt]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

I don't think the Girl was seeking a commercial advantage and as such it will be a tuff case. There is an argument that hers was simply an archive. Now if she was selling the music (Napster was making money and as such was seeking a commercial advantage) it would be a different argument.

so...how do all you hardliners interpret the above information?!? after reading that, it looks to me pretty legal. now, ive never done it (not that my dialup would alllow it anyways) but, according to the above, does that not shatter the "12 year old deserves to get sued" argument?!?

id also like to see the reference that the RIAA is using in order to sue, if anyone has that link.

...just curious

 

[Dizel8]

Well, just playing devils advocate here, but not sure you can consider her a Library or Archive, certainly not in the regular use of the word.

While I think RIAA sucks, defending the actions of this girl is akin to defending the fat people sueing McD. While downloading music is petty crime at worst, it is illegal and I think most will agree. One would however imagine, that RIAA could get better publicity.

Perhaps the real problem is not file sharing, but piracy, which is rampant in Asia, however, being outside the US, it is a uphill battle to win.

Oh well, apparently this case has been settled.

 

[cherokee]

I think you miss a huge point in the section you cite, namely the part that says "Reproduction by Libraries and Archives." You cannot seriously think that a 12 year old girl (or anyone else named in the suit) are libraries or archives. Lets get our terms straight here, just because the file may be considered an 'archive' does not mean that the girl is considered an archive. The section you cite says only libraries and archives apply. An archive is an organization that stores items of significant hisorical value. That is different from an archive in the computer sense. Nice try, please continue to try to rationalize your thievery...