12 Year Old Girl sued by RIAA

Originally posted by Jason
its already settled, nothing more to handle.

Yes, if the public just quietly lets it go, then there's nothing else. But we're all too lethargic to actually make a stink about how rediculous the situation is...
 
However rock-solid their legal footing, suing a 12-year old is disastrous PR. I cannot help but think the net effect will be to lose a great deal more than the $2000 settlement they got.

I cannot help but think that the RIAA would be a lot better off if they FIRST worked to develop an appetizing legal alternative to illegal downloads (like Apple Music Store, but with a wider selection, with all RIAA studios included). In my mind (and this is only me) the 'free' aspect is not the biggest motivator. What I like is:

A) nearly limitless selection, including the latest hits all the way to 70s cartoon theme songs and commercial jingles
B) swift electronic searching, instead of endless hunting through racks.
C) ability to buy only the specific songs you want
D) immediate electronic delivery

As the success of the Apple Music Store demonstrates, many people ARE willing to pay for these conveniences. In short, what people are ACTUALLY stealing, the RIAA is not offering at any price. I predict that *never again* will sales of physical pre-recorded media be the dominant way that music is distributed -- and that is precisely the distribution method the RIAA is fighting desperately to protect.

I do not deny that they are well within their legal rights to go after music pirates - I only question the effectiveness of their present strategy.
 
Originally posted by adambyte
Every time a song is played on a radio station, the station takes note of it, and pays the proper royalty fees to the RIAA, which in turn goes to the publisher, and the artist. Music is not "Free" anywhere.

True. But at least in Italy the radio stations have been too famous for not being able to pay the RIAA fees. There are / were tens of thousands of small, private radio stations in the country, and I'm afraid only a small percentage has eough money to pay anything to even people running them.

But the fee for YOU is different. Buying a cd has a cost. P2p isn't morally right. But listening to a radio is your free right, you don't have to pay the royalties to do that. Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps, why to even bother if you can listen to the same music free on your radio?
 
On the subject of radio listening -

The only reason the RIAA has radio stations play the songs is to help promote sales of CDs. If *everyone* turned to the radio as their only source of music - not buying any CDs - they'd be in worse trouble than they are now. Any fees they collect from radio stations are a drop in the bucket.
 
Yes. Besides - If nobody knows who is Ricky Martin or Christina Aquilera, nobody buys their music either. With classical and specific genre (undergrounds) musics it's easier to spread the music (knowing artists etc) than with the chart music. My dad has never bought an LP, a cassette, a cd, a dvd .. how much money has RIAA "lost" for his habit of listening to radio?
 
Originally posted by Giaguara
But listening to a radio is your free right, you don't have to pay the royalties to do that. Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps, why to even bother if you can listen to the same music free on your radio?

In theory, you do pay for it in the end - you listen to advertisements and in turn purchase products.

If nothing else, you potentially pay for your radio listening time in time wasted listening to advertisements (and to the "RADIO WOW, All WOW all the time!" messages they have to insert between every single song...)

This is how the "free commercial radio" business model works, so in the end some of us consumers are paying for it...
 
Originally posted by Giaguara
Besides, as many of the readio stations play mainly the chart music, and that seems to be the most downloaded thing on p2ps

...Which actually tells us that the RIAA's "play NOTHING but top 20" campaign works, and that kids seem to be too stupid to know any better (I'm mid-20s, so I guess I still fit that demographic).
 
I have never downloaded music. Period. So I'm OK. :D
Not to advocate the RIAA or anything, but if any one of you started recording would you like the idea of having your music downloaded free when you could be making $20 off them?

Of course most of the downloads are of music made by multi-millionaires, so I doubt it really hurts them. I imagine it would be a problem for little-time artists who haven't 'made it big yet' though.
 
RIAA/Universal
NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

BOO-HOO! Maybe because she posted 1000 songs that weren't her property on Kazaa. Guess mom will be paying a lawyer's fee now. HA!
 
old man :( - why I'll come there and show you old you young wipper snapper. Send air fair and a wheel chair please.
 
Tree, you are heartless. If you were 12 and had a bunch of lollipops sitting in front of you and everyone else was taking them and no one said anything about it being wrong wouldn't you take some too?
 
Hey, that 12 year old knew what she was doing. Don't be stupid. Look at you guys here, the younger ones, you know more about computers than us old farts.
 
Funnily enough, the tendency of the RIAA & A$$ociates to broadcast, sell, promote etc. only new hot Top 20 fake music has driven me into the arms of second-hand records, radio and filesharing. 75% of the music I downloaded was more or less '60 - '70 "abandonware" (like the complete Uriah Heep discography :D and lots of cartoon tunes :D ). Yes, it is illegal, but ... I did actually own already and later buy more LP records of my .mp3. Ripping vinyl to .mp3 has never been my favourite pass-time anyway ... moreover with scratched records the chances of failure and loss of quality are quite high.
 
Now what I never got is why the RIAA isnt comming after the stream ripper programs and the internet raido stations. Do you know how easy it is to rip music from an internet raido stream?? (hint: INSANLY!!!!!)
 
Originally posted by bobw
old man :( - why I'll come there and show you old you young wipper snapper. Send air fair and a wheel chair please.

by snail mail? get with the times, man! ;)

back to subject, i dont agree with this ignorance deal really... my cousin, who is 11 knows what kazaa is for etc... the RIAA sucks, but she was committing illegal acts ::alien::
 
How did the RIAA come to be the end-all, be-all for music distribution, anyway? I don't see an Auto Industry Association of America controlling all car production worldwide, specifying what we can buy and for how much, at outlandish prices.

The problem is that there's no one to compete with the RIAA, and if a group started, they'd probably get sued into the ground for some issue or another. If someone could successfully start the MAA (Music Association of America) or something, and treat consumers & artists like people instead of ATM's, I bet they could get the RIAA shaking in their blue-suede boots & diamond-lined fur coats.
 
the problem is that cds are too expensive to buy :)

if music was cheaper i wouldnt support p2p apps:)

but the way things are going DVDs will be cheaper than music cds in a few years. its pathetic :)

teenagers love listenin to music ... if they cant afford it >>>> kazaa :)
 
Back
Top