|
Industry sues 5 in state for music file-sharing
By Kim Peterson and Tricia Duryee
Seattle Times technology reporters
Thursday, December 04, 2003, 07:24 A.M. Pacific
This is the local news coverage from the Seattle Times about several individuals who were sued.
:-:~ PhantomGhost ~:-: a.k.a. Andrew
The suits were part of a new round of legal action by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has filed 341 lawsuits since it launched a crackdown against individuals in September. The association filed 41 new lawsuits this week and sent 90 lawsuit-notification letters to those targeted for legal action.
The RIAA said the Washington residents being sued were allegedly sharing thousands of songs online illegally, including such tunes as "You May Be Right" by Billy Joel, "Hey Ladies" by Destiny's Child and "Human Nature" by Michael Jackson.
The court documents include little information about the defendants except their names.
One of those from Washington state named in a suit was Lonette Dominguez. A Kent woman by that name said she received an e-mail last spring from Comcast, her Internet-service provider, saying that it was going to release some of her information to the RIAA because she had downloaded music.
She also remembers receiving a letter in the mail about the issue, but doesn't remember who it was from. Dominguez said yesterday evening that she had not been served with a lawsuit or received word that she was being sued.
"It's my computer, but my daughter and son were the ones doing it. I had no idea," the social worker said. Her children, both teenagers, were using the popular file-sharing software KaZaA, she added.
Her daughter said in an interview yesterday that she mainly buys compact discs, but had downloaded about five songs. She stopped after her mother told her to do so.
"I usually have all the CDs," she said. "I just wanted some songs on the computer."
Dominguez said she thinks the recording industry is to blame for some of the mess.
"These are my kids that are downloading music and they thought it was free," she said. "They don't understand the ramifications of the business aspect in the recording business. They are on the opposite side of that."
The RIAA has been targeting people who make their music files available to others over the Internet, rather than those who download music illegally. But because some file-sharing programs share downloaded music by default, some people might not realize they may be at risk of being sued.
It is unclear whether the RIAA's legal tactics are actually persuading people to stop trading music illegally. The association released a survey yesterday showing that 64 percent of about 800 Americans polled last month understand that it's illegal to share music online that others can download free. That's up from 37 percent a year ago.
But statistics show that about 60 million Americans are still sharing music files online, said Jason Schulz, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group defending those who are being mistakenly sued by the RIAA.
"I think the 60 million number speaks far more to what Americans still believe," he said. Schulz called the RIAA's actions an "intimidation campaign" to try to scare people from file sharing.
"In our mind that's no way to treat potentially their best customers," he said.
Most of the RIAA's lawsuits have targeted people in Los Angeles or New York, but the suits filed this week span the country.
It isn't the first time that a Washington resident has been sued over this issue, however. Ridgefield, Clark County, resident Ernest Brenot, 79, was sued recently even though he doesn't even own a computer, said his wife, Dorothy.
Brenot lives with his son-in-law, daughter and grandson, who share a computer, and they signed up for high-speed Internet access through Brenot's Comcast cable account, said Dorothy Brenot.
Ernest Brenot sent handwritten letters explaining the situation to a clerk of the court in Tacoma and to the RIAA's lawyers in Seattle, only to receive more court papers filed against them, Dorothy Brenot said.
"I guess you could say I'm disturbed," she said. "I had no idea what was going on with this music to start with. Not owning a computer, I wasn't interested in it."
The RIAA doesn't know anything about the people it sues aside from their name, address and the songs being allegedly shared illegally on their computers, according to a spokesman. The ones who are sued are generally those whose names are on the household's Internet-service account.
End article. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001806899_record040.html
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 2:55 PM
"The RIAA doesn't know anything about the people it sues aside from their name, address and the songs being allegedly shared illegally on their computers, according to a spokesman. The ones who are sued are generally those whose names are on the household's Internet-service account."
This statement at the end really bothers me if this was a statement by the author of the article. Number one, how does he/she know what the "RIAA" knows (the RIAA is a trade organization, and as an organization, it is a created legal entity that knows nothing,members of the RIAA may know things however)...and number two..."The ones who are sued are generally those who names are on the household's Internet-service account..."
Was Brianna LaHara's name the name on the account...she's 12 years old,
and can't legally contract to do business except for necessitites of life like food and shelter. Are they saying they are now suing people whose name DOES NOT appear on the internet service account??????
~Code |
|
PhantomGhost
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 3:07 PM
Brianna LaHara's name was not on the account, but somehow, she was named in the lawsuit, Code.
The RIAA can't even manage their own freaking systems. They're so corrupted that they're blindly, blatantly suing people who aren't even adults or don't own computers.
Specificially, they seem to be targeting people who are "supernodes" or "ultrapeers". These computers are the major support tiers of the network, and they're the easiest targets.
If you are downloading illegal music, and want to avoid being sued, you should turn off your Uploading, get PeerGuardian, and make sure you're not a supernode/ultrapeer. Usually, you can turn these off in your P2P software settings.
If you're downloading legally, ignore the above paragraph, but do make sure you have PeerGuardian.
:-:~ PhantomGhost ~:-:
|
|
woodhead
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 3:08 PM
Are they saying they are now suing people whose name DOES NOT appear on the internet service account?
That is a good question Code, and one that is probably coming. And with no one simply telling the RIAA to prove they have the mp3 and settiling, they prob feel they have nothing to lose by doing so.
|
|
SuperDude43
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 3:10 PM
"It is unclear whether the RIAA's legal tactics are actually persuading people to stop trading music illegally. The association released a survey yesterday showing that 64 percent of about 800 Americans polled last month understand that it's illegal to share music online that others can download free. That's up from 37 percent a year ago. "
This doesnt mean shit except that now people are aware that they need to download things more safeley. there are other "riaa-safe" alternatives to p2p that thousands of people use. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 3:26 PM
Here's what REALLY bugs me. People have been infringing on copyrights, knowingly or unknowingly, since the mimeograph, and later, Xerox machine, came into use (and in fact, as long as there has been copyright laws in the United States, there has been copyright infringement daily across the United States). If they want to play technical with the DMCA, since every web pages is copyrighted (using the point of creation model established in the 1976 Law) and since people who visit websites (especially for the first time) are making unauthorized digital copies of copyrighted materials every time they load a new page...or load most pages, then there are literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of violations being committed by the government, by the MPAA employees, by RIAA employees, etc..
But, the RIAA acts like these alleged copyright infringements they are suing about, are somehow unique and especially terrible and damaging to their industry. This is BS, and I hope Sherman, Bainwol, Glazer, and
Weiss see my comment. I am saying straight up, you're filling the media with BS about the alleged damages from these cases of alleged copyright infringement.
PROVE the level of damages you assert are being sustained by your industry.
Either prove it or shut the hell up!
~Code |
|
darkened03
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 3:31 PM
i just realized that a large number of my schools computers in the science labs are unprotected an i think i am going to be installing kazaa lite on all of them and set force super node. btw i goto penn state, i gotta get some revenge for their robbery and soul selling to napsteriaa |
|
mroop77
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:02 PM
"Brianna LaHara's name was not on the account, but somehow, she was named in the lawsuit, Code."
Her name was on the account. Which begs the question: why did her mother put her name on the account?
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:10 PM
Yeah, I thought her name was on the account, which is problematic since normally, minors cannot enter into contracts for anything but the necessties of life such as food and shelter, unless they are emancipated. |
|
fossil
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:27 PM
Code, I believe Brianna's case is probably no different than any other household where a parent will, say, sign up for AOL/Time/Warner, for example,and then set up sub accounts (as encouraged) for each member of the household. Ibelieve you are entitled to somehting like 5 subaccounts for other members of the household. So, it may be that Brianna's mother set up a subaccount on a main ISP account and then Brianna as a sub account so that she could have her own e-mail, sign in priviledges, Chat privs, etc.
In fact, this may be what has been happening in all of these cases --- |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:29 PM
mroop...this is OT, but something that frustrates me in the judicial system, and with state bars, they can be presented with clear and present evidence of wrongdoing by an atty, and they whitewash it...
and also, I've seen judges ignore technical matters in which a person is completely right about a technical matter and they do not get affirmed on it...there seems to be a dichotomy between the way laws are written, and they are really enforced...it certainly leaves one with a sense of utter contempt for the law as it is practiced..no disrespect toward you or leflaw... |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:31 PM
i think that the RIAA alleges they go after the main name on the BILLING information....surely Brianna's mom was not putting her name as the person financially responsible for paying for that account, since that might be fraudulent in and of itself. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:32 PM
by "her name" I meant Brianna...
Darn that Pesky RIAA! |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:35 PM
I'd LOVE to be able to audit the boxes (i.e. computers) at the offices of the RIAA and check the cache to see how many copyrighted material from websites reside on their hard drive, material which was copied without authorization in violation of the DMCA !!!
And, I am considering the material fixed at the point it was posted on a server and remained there 24/7 as far as the original copyighted webpages. |
|
JamesD2
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:37 PM
No if I remember correctly in another article when she was being sued, the mother claimed that she didnt download but her daughter did and the RIAA spokesperson said they didnt care whose name was on the lawsuit, that if the mother wanted Brianna's name on it than it would be. I may be wrong but I think that is what I remember reading.
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 4:43 PM
you're exactly right JamesD2 |
|
DeadMan2003
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 5:07 PM
darkened03 that sounds really dumb |
|
darkened03
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 5:17 PM
whys that? am i to be at fault if the super nodes are used to search for copyrighted materials? theres plenty of artists that support thier music being on p2p and its just another tactic to fight the RIAA as no files will be on the computers themselves there is nothing they can do about it and it will just be spit in their face from negotiating a contract to spend millions of dollars that our IT dept should spend on needed upgrades (faster computers, multiple-T3, etc) on worthless drm infested RIAA music.
Boycott RIAA, Support Indie |
|
PhantomGhost
|
Date: December 4, 2003 @ 7:14 PM
Fossil, I agree. Brianna's name was not on the account. She couldn't have possibly signed up for it on her own. She needs a credit card or some other kind of financial means to get an ISP signed up. However, she may have used a screen name or subaccount with her name on it. Also, if her mom didn't input her own name on the ISP's services, the ISP would identify Brianna, because they have nothing else.
My uncle works for Pacific Bell. He explained that ISPs have to be careful about legalese these days. He also said that the error was probably not Brianna's name being on an account.
:-:~ Phantom |
|
mroop
|
Date: December 5, 2003 @ 1:04 AM
"mroop...this is OT, but something that frustrates me in the judicial system, and with state bars, they can be presented with clear and present evidence of wrongdoing by an atty, and they whitewash it..."
Well, I'm not sure what you are referring to, but what might seem like "clear and present evidence" to a lay person might not really be so in the eyes of the law. This stuff can get very complicated. For example, defense attorneys never ask their client if they "did it" because this would hamper their ability to provide a defense. And even if your client says they "did it" does this really mean they did it? No, it doesn't.
"I've seen judges ignore technical matters in which a person is completely right about a technical matter and they do not get affirmed on it"
Judges can be wrong too, I'm sure they are wrong a lot. :) Justice and fairness are not the same. It's all a game and the goal is to win.
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 5, 2003 @ 9:24 AM
I was referring to the ugly tendency of State Bars to ignore obvious violations of law and ethics by attorneys, in a method generally referred to as "whitewash"..sorry if that was not clear.
Also, I was referring to the fact that there seems to be a divergence from the way law is practiced, and the way it is meant to be practiced if one just looks at the laws on the books. I am a very technical person and believe the law should be practiced that way. The law SEEMS to be practiced in a relative "good old boy" network, where there is a nod and a wink to following exact legal definitions of terms, and legal procedures as defined.
This post really isn't meant to ask for an answer, just to clarify what must have been a muddled question earlier since I guess it was not understood, and apologies for all for getting off topic.
Judges not only CAN be wrong, but are wrong a lot...that is not speculative.
And, mroop, you hit on my point obliquely when you said :
"It's all a game and the goal is to win."
The law is being practiced as a game, and I vehemently object to the
rule bending by the coaches and referees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~Code |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: December 5, 2003 @ 9:36 AM
Interesting links about judicial wrongdoing
http://www.caught.net/caught/judlstp.htm
http://www.wbflegalreform.com
http://proliberty.com/observer/20030716.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/wbflegal/ussupremespage14.html
http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/ pension/cst-nws-pension08.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/05/starr.conflict/
http://www.alacourt.org/Publications/qualification.htm
and on and on and on....
"so it goes..." Kurt Vonnegut |
|
|
Navigation
