Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Woman sued over her music downloads.

From our local newspaper....

Quote:

---

PSL woman sued over her music downloads
Story Tools
Email this story | Print

By DEREK SIMMONSEN
derek.simmonsen@scripps.com
January 26, 2007
PORT ST. LUCIE — Tina Moreno's music collection has just landed her in federal court.
The Port St. Lucie woman is among seven Floridians sued this week by the Recording Industry Association of America on behalf of several major recording labels that claim they illegally shared copyrighted music on the Internet. Her name was subpoenaed from her Internet service provider.

It was part of a wave of lawsuits filed around the country that accused people of using peer-to-peer networks, such as LimeWire, to illegally make copyrighted songs available to other computer users. The RIAA does not disclose its "investigatory methods," and spokeswoman Amanda Hunter said there are no hard-and-fast rules as to who is targeted in the probes.
"If you engage in this behavior, you are subject to this type of lawsuit," she said.

Warner Bros., Virgin Records, Interscope and Arista Records are among the labels named as plaintiffs, and they are asking a judge to bar Moreno, who also goes by the name Tina Eichstadt, and others from further file sharing and to award damages for breaking copyright, according to the suit.

The court filings include a large list of songs allegedly made available via Moreno's screen name and highlight 11 specific examples of copyright infringement — including Enrique Iglesias' "Be With You," Bon Jovi's "Never Say Goodbye" and George Michael's "Cowboys and Angels."

Moreno could not be reached for comment Thursday.

"Songlifting takes a tremendous toll on songwriters, record store owners, studio musicians and scores of other industry professionals," said RIAA President Cary Sherman in a written statement. "It is our preference to target the businesses that encourage piracy, but it's also important to send a message to individuals that engaging in the theft of music is illegal and has consequences."

---

Who's next!

Certainly not me, it's something I have never done. I've made copies for my personel use but not to share via the computer.

I don't really want to get started on the extortionist monopolistic bastards that are the members of the RIAA. Suffice it to say that if the major labels died the deaths near-sighted greedy drivel-producing companies deserve the quality of mainstream music would improve immediately.

I agree, the recording/music industry has been "shooting themselves in the foot" for decades.
As for the rest....... sorry, stealing IS stealing.

"Tin earred, graph-paper brained accounts
Instead of music fans
Call all the shots at giant record companies now
The lowest common denominator rule.

Forget honesty, forget creativity
The dumbest by the mostest that's the name of the game
But sales are slumping
And no one will say why
Could it be they put out one too many lousy records?"
- MTV Get Off the Air (Dead Kennedys)

Now that that's out of the way, really, the woman was involved in theft of intellectual property. There are some grey areas for me in song sharing - mainly deletes, if I owned your 7" in 1986 and it was never released on CD (or 500 copies were pressed before it was deleted), I don't think your music should disappear. Case in point - Death Sentence. Someone finally bought out the rights to their albums, and there have been plans for about 5 years to rerelease on CD. And still nothing.

If the songs are readily available for purchase, and in her case - they are (without going into her taste in music... gah!) it's not so grey.

I'd much rather the RIAA go after those actually breaking the laws than piling all this DRM/rootkit stuff onto those of us who actually buy music and just want legal copies for our cars/garages.

That's my opinion on it.
Bren R.

What's being assumed here is that the suit is legit and has the right person. Frequently, these suits aren't and don't. They get settled out of court for $2000 (literally) and the RIAA makes your little problem go away.

"Nice computer you've got here. Be a shame if someone took the house around it..."

It's extortion, plain and simple.

No, no it's not. We have evidence (in other words, IPs that they acquired through slightly questionable methods that they traced back to you through questionable methods) that you are infringing copyright. We will make this problem go away if you give us $2000. That's extortion, if you know the person doesn't have the resources to fight you in court and you sue them for a ridiculous amount of money. Based on very flimsy evidence.

That's the basis of any kind of online criminal investigation, though. If it was prosecution of a disgusting form of pornography, everyone would be cheering about it. Without invoking a form of Godwin's Law, I'm not suggesting they're on the same level, I'm saying that one is very bad, one is less bad in the grand scheme of things. But public perception is that one is very bad and the other is a grand injustice being put upon this woman?!?

I'm not a big fan of how the cases may be "bought out" rather than settled, but I'm also not a big fan of how prevalent the law breaking is and how it's seen as "stickin' it to the man" like some modern Robin Hood.

There's a feeling of "aww... that poor woman" when, if the allegations are true, she's breaking copyright law.

Everyone's got that line drawn in the sand of when the decline of music started, it's best calculated by taking the year of your birth and add 18. This is the year "music started to suck." The fact that music sucks after this date doesn't mean that you should get the new Nickelback for free because it's nowhere near as good as "Houses of the Holy" was.

Good, bad or ugly... like anything, the RIAA will do whatever it can to survive - I'd just rather its targets were chosen a little more "submachine gun" (by targeting offenders) and a little less "granny's scattergun" (by saddling us all with draconian DRM and rootkits, and those awful DVD openers).

Easy for me to say, though, I've never used a P2P sharing app, so I am holier than thou.

Bren R.

it's not even about the extortion.

It's about the free publicity such as posts like this which will discourage additional people from engaging in the same behavior. It works. A certified letter threatening legal action or a payoff can modify peoples behavior, even the ones who dont recieve the letter. It's a page out of DirectTV's playbook.

IMHO laws need to be updated to give the consumer 'fair use', and to differentiate penalties between casual infractions of the law and profitable,criminal intent.


Randy

Bren, I think that might be the best post I've ever read on the topic.

(though it helps that I agree with your stance!)

IP rights notwithstanding, the RIAA IS extorting people. They sat over the shoulders of congressmen while the new laws were drafted then sue people based on IP addresses which they claim are proof of the activity. The legislation they basically wrote allows them to make usurous claims they know most people cannot afford to fight then settle for what they claim is a fair amount. EACH and EVERY time a case is actually about to be fought under the microscope of a court of law they promptly drop the case like it's plutionium because they do not want their tactics scrutinized and the fundamental legality of their beloved legislation questioned. And I won't even begin to get into the way they treat the artists who line their pockets. A newly signed artist can for better or worse have a hit album and win awards and all the rest and after all that be in debt to the @ssholes for 7 figures.There is NOTHING noble or good in the way they do business. If you think that their line about "protecting the artists" has any validity whatsoever you have truly drunk the Kool-Aid. They could care less. These are the same people who get 80 cents for each ITunes download and whine and complain and throw tantrums because it's JUST NOT ENOUGH! After 2 BILLION yes 2 FREAKING BILLION with a B downloads. Their response is that CD sales are down ! Ya think? When the equivalent of FOUR HUNDRED FREAKING MILLION ALBUMS HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATELY SOLD THROUGH ITUNES ALONE that CD sales might drop a little? And the downloads cost them NOTHING compared to producing and shipping physical media. THEIR PROFIT MARGINS ARE MUCH HIGHER! Plus the fact that for all their whining they have had record profits! Let's not get in to the part of my anatomy they can kiss.

LightninJoe, you make some good points, but lets look at the reason behind why iTunes has caused album sales to go down - new albums SUCK! Gone are the days when an entire album is worth listening to.

Back in the 50's & mid 60's all anyone bought was singles. And the record companies made tons of money. Most of the artists didn't even write their own stuff. Recording companies had teams of writers in small cubicles cranking out "teen" hits.

Then in the late 60's & most of the 70's, you had some amazing artists that were able to write an entire record for themselves.(most often with a theme or story to tell) And, they could play their own instruments! The record companies made even MORE money. And got greedy.

Then along came the 80's & MTV. Now the focus shifted to the visual appeal of the artist and away from their musical talent. Again, singles came back in the form of a cassette single. Not too many "great" albums that came out of the 80's. And the greed was huge. Remember Milli Vanili? The record company had these songs, but said you are too ugly to perform them. We are going to have these guys over here "sing" them because it will sell better.

90's - Grunge and everything anti-80's, anti-excess became popular. The singer/songwriter was back, and some good ALBUMS were produced. But still, the record companies were cranking out cookie cutter performers. The biggest song for all of the 90's? Yep - Hit Me Baby One More Time.

2000's - I have absolutely no idea what is going on now, so I won't even comment.

The point being - I have countless CD's that I paid $15 to $20 for, just for one song, and the rest SUCK.

Frankly, I love the iTune model. I am able to listen to a snippet and if I like it, download the single song for a dollar. I think to survive, CD stores will have to take on this model. You go in with either your MP3 player/iPod OR a flash card, and only buy the songs you want at a self serve pod.

Until artists and the RIAA stop producing "filler", the general public will keep trying to share/steal single songs.

[Sorry for spelling and grammar]

People will always find a way to justify stealing their entertainment. At work, a guy who burns movies says, "But I'm a college student, and I'm saving for a house. Plus, the movies aren't even that good. They're not worth what they charge." And yet not watching them doesn't seem to be an option. Stealing sends a less clear message to the creators. It says, "I want them, but I don't want to pay for them. Find ways to make me pay." If we want better content, let's show an actual lack of demand for what they're pushing.

My point isn't that it's ok to steal the stuff. My point is that the RIAA members have brought this on themselves. They push artists to release new material faster than they can write it therefore compromising quality then squeeze every last penny out of them before dumping them. Further, as soon as an artist that is "different" has some success they co-opt the look, the sound, the whole thing and package Joe P. McPrettyboy to sell the whole thing as if it were new, turning the whole thing into a homogenized, soulless mess. The movie industry is exactly the same.

As far as the RIAA lawsuits go, read what I said above. They WILL NOT GO TO COURT unless they are 100% positive of the outcome. Snoop around a little and you will see that they drop the cases immediately when there is even the smallest shadow of doubt. The only time they have pursued a case in court is when they had a chance to set a precedent. This is the case where they sued a woman who then said it was possible that her children might have downloaded the music. They Real Imbecils Assaulting Americans pursued that case so they could set the precedent that a parent is financially liable to them for their minor children's activity. That is the ONLY case they have pursued.

Believe you me, we are firmly in the technology age and Big Business is writing the legislation that will govern how YOU will do things in YOUR HOME with your legally purchased media. DMCA, Net Neutrality, media consolidation, these aren't just vague concepts or blurbs you hear in the media. These people want to control the channel from the artists lips all the way to your ears and eyes. Do you want NewsCorp dictating everything you see and hear, and the price you pay for it? TimeWarner? THAT is what this is about. Every time the RIAA or the MPAA gets a win in court, or in Congress, or a payout for some poor schmuck to broke and scared to fight them is a loss for all of our rights. Those are the stakes. HDMI is a horrible standard for video connections. Why was it picked? Well, they want all content going through a single cable (HDMI 2 will carry all content, including video, digital audio, SACD, etc) so they can put a content protection scheme on it (HDCP anyone?) making it impossible to play "illegal" content. HDMI was the only one around that fit the bill at the time, technical inferiority be damned.

So, if this continues, will will be watching crap movies and listening to crap music (even more so, I suppose) and crappier TV and we won't have much choice in the matter. They will deliver whatever message they want, make it impossible to FF past advertising, and filter anything they don't want you to see or hear. Sound good? Not to me. Luckily, the indie music and movie scene is strong as ever. I fear TV is lost forever with only a few exceptions. My adv ice to you is: Keep ahold of your last receiver and CD player. Don't toss your older DVD player. Someday those old CDs and DVDs won't play on your newfangled equipment because they have no DRM on them. And what's the value of that to the media giants? Make sure you have an old copy of Windows or MacOS with no DRM crap built in. Linux users will never have to worry. Until it is legislated out of existence, that is.

Well said!

Well said, indeed. I agree.