RIAA sues computerless family for illegal music sharing
April 30, 2006 11:45 AM   Subscribe

RIAA sues family for illegal music file sharing. Wouldn't be new or noteworthy — if the family actually had a computer. Via.
posted by charmston (39 comments total)
 
Apologies for the one-link, newsfilter post. Seemed appropriately hilarious to warrant such a FPP.
posted by charmston at 11:46 AM on April 30, 2006


clue: if you feel obligated to immediately apologize for something you describe as a "one-link, newsfilter post," you probably shouldn't have posted it.
posted by keswick at 11:54 AM on April 30, 2006


Well, the family did own a computer for about two months, and family members admitted to downloading music. What the RIAA does is really awful, but they are not suing a family that never owned a computer as the fpp seems to imply... although it would not surprise me if that happened.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 11:59 AM on April 30, 2006


I'm curious about all the homes with unsecured wireless networks - someone leaches onto an unsecured network and downloads music, a few months later the owner of the unsecured network is sued by the RIAA. It seems bound to happen eventually, if it hasn't already.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 12:04 PM on April 30, 2006


Holy cow, you mean the RIAA uses (gasp) form documents?

THOSE BASTARDS.
posted by MrZero at 12:04 PM on April 30, 2006


For the benefit of those who don't actually read the article:
"During the short time the family had use of a computer, she did download some music from Internet sites"

Further reading of the article will reveal that they have atrocious musical taste.
posted by 2sheets at 12:14 PM on April 30, 2006


1. Go out and buy CD's of the albums/singles in question, pretend you had them all along and were legally downloading backups.

2. ???

3. Profit.
posted by fire&wings at 12:14 PM on April 30, 2006


To be fair, on both sides:
The family did once use a computer.
The RIAA letter says they continue to use an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings.
posted by Bugbread at 12:16 PM on April 30, 2006


The RIAA’s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: “Who Will Save Your Soul,” Jewel; “Far Behind,” Candlebox; “Still the Same,” Bob Seger; “I Won’t Forget You,” Poison; “Open Arms,” Journey; “Unpretty,” TLC; No Scrubs,” TLC; and “Saving All My Love for You,” Whitney Houston.

What, no Creed?
posted by brain cloud at 12:21 PM on April 30, 2006


Oh, so the form letter lawsuit does also accuse them of continuing to download/share music after they had gone back to being luddites. Right.

It still seems likely that the RIAA will be able to force them into one of those few thousand dollar settlements, especially since a family member admitted to downloading music
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 12:25 PM on April 30, 2006


I think they should be sued just for their shitty taste in music.
posted by Mikey-San at 12:30 PM on April 30, 2006


Oooh, there's a good strategy for making people not download music. Out them like "Johns" caught in brothel busts. Publicize the music they were downloading and shame them into paying for it.

This article is a non-issue with the possible complication of the girl really not knowing she was doing anything illegal. The fact that they don't have a computer anymore is more interesting than anything else. I'd like to ask them why they got rid of it.
posted by fenriq at 12:31 PM on April 30, 2006


fenriq : "This article is a non-issue with the possible complication of the girl really not knowing she was doing anything illegal."

Girl?
posted by Bugbread at 12:38 PM on April 30, 2006


I think they should be sued just for their shitty taste in music.

www.mp3shits.com
posted by rxrfrx at 12:51 PM on April 30, 2006


If you want to post shit about the RIAA's strongarm tactics, you should have linked to this story...

RIAA sues mother of 13-yr old who downloaded illegally. Mother refuses to settle and moves for dismissal, RIAA drops case, files lawsuit against now 14-yr old girl and asks for guardian ad litem to be appointed at the mother's expense. Guardidan ad litems tend to run abuot $30,000.

Dont want to settle? Their goal is to make it prohibitively expensive to fight them.

Also, the new DMCA bill in congress propses that jail time for copyright infringement be increased to 10 years, longer than cihild molesters get (7 yrs).
posted by SirOmega at 12:57 PM on April 30, 2006


Also, the new DMCA bill in congress propses that jail time for copyright infringement be increased to 10 years, longer than cihild molesters get (7 yrs).

Well eventually copyright infringment will have worse jail sentences than murder and it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters. =P
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:13 PM on April 30, 2006


it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters

That's not a bad idea, actually.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:35 PM on April 30, 2006


it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters

Count me in.
posted by mkhall at 1:43 PM on April 30, 2006


"The fact that they don't have a computer anymore is more interesting than anything else. I'd like to ask them why they got rid of it."

They probably couldn't afford the weekly rent-to-own payments. Those places make tons of money rerenting computers taken back after missing a payment or two.
posted by mischief at 1:46 PM on April 30, 2006


yet another RIAA sues 80yearold/12yearold/familywithnoPC/deadperson/billclinton/whatever

*yawn*

fire&wings: downloading a "backup" of a song from an album you own is still not in the clear
posted by lpctstr; at 1:52 PM on April 30, 2006


Their taste in music is absolutely fine so long as their combined age is 8.
posted by Sparx at 2:41 PM on April 30, 2006


it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters

Why, that just sounds crazy enough to work!
posted by kosher_jenny at 2:57 PM on April 30, 2006


Here's the link to make tax deductable donation to the EFF.
posted by pwb503 at 3:44 PM on April 30, 2006



it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters


Sorry, that's terrorism.

Whereas using teams of lawyers as bullies is just business.
posted by weston at 4:54 PM on April 30, 2006


bugbread, my bad, it was apparently the mother. I read it a little too quickly the first time and thought it was the daughter downloading the music.
posted by fenriq at 5:12 PM on April 30, 2006


Derive, I've been wondering the same thing. Aside from the fact that I don't want anyone leeching my broadband, that's the primary reason my wireless network is encrypted -- to ensure that no one is jumping on to it and engaging in illegal activity for which I could be liable.
posted by wildeepdotorg at 5:58 PM on April 30, 2006


Go out and buy CD's of the albums/singles in question, pretend you had them all along and were legally downloading backups.

Doesn't work. You can legally make backups of media you own (assuming you're not breaking any copy protection along the way...thanks, DMCA!), but you cannot "legally download backups". Nice try, though.
posted by milnak at 6:16 PM on April 30, 2006


fire&wings: downloading a "backup" of a song from an album you own is still not in the clear
posted by lpctstr; at 1:52 PM PST on April 30


Doesn't work. You can legally make backups of media you own (assuming you're not breaking any copy protection along the way...thanks, DMCA!), but you cannot "legally download backups". Nice try, though.
posted by milnak at 6:16 PM PST on April 30


Then the law is unjust and should be ignored.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:30 PM on April 30, 2006


Car-wappie post.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 11:58 PM on April 30, 2006


Optimus : Only the President gets to do that without being locked up and/or sued back to the stone-age :)
posted by kaemaril at 4:31 AM on May 1, 2006


fenriq : "I read it a little too quickly the first time and thought it was the daughter downloading the music."

No worries.
posted by Bugbread at 4:55 AM on May 1, 2006


what? Sued because of bad taste in music? Ha ha, never heard that one before!
posted by tomplus2 at 5:01 AM on May 1, 2006


Whereas using teams of lawyers as bullies is just business.

Maybe everyone who's downloaded music should sue the RIAA for... something. Sure, no one would actually win, and most of the cases would get thrown out in a second, but it would waste huge amounts of time.
posted by dagnyscott at 5:44 AM on May 1, 2006


it will just be easier for a bunch of people being sued to get together and go kill everybody at RIAA headquarters

Way overkill...that's sloppy mission definition. Just the key people should be enough, for whatever definition of "key."

/Googles aerial imagery of RIAA HQ, notes potential sniper vantages, begins putting together target folders...
posted by pax digita at 5:52 AM on May 1, 2006


You can legally make backups of media you own....

Yeah, that's what an RIAA lawer said in some court somewhere - a state supreme court I think, but I don't have time to confirm it right now or post a link.

After the case was decided the RIAA stated that doing this violated their boilerplate EULA.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:16 AM on May 1, 2006


Actually, even that is not new or noteworthy.
posted by thejoshu at 7:20 AM on May 1, 2006


The RIAA’s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: “Who Will Save Your Soul,” Jewel; “Far Behind,” Candlebox; “Still the Same,” Bob Seger; “I Won’t Forget You,” Poison; “Open Arms,” Journey; “Unpretty,” TLC; No Scrubs,” TLC; and “Saving All My Love for You,” Whitney Houston.

Damn, girl. Way to shoot your future at pitchforkmedia.com in the foot.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:41 AM on May 1, 2006


Then the law is unjust and should be ignored.

Who do you think you are, President Bush?
posted by Mick at 8:57 AM on May 1, 2006


Then the law is unjust and should be ignored.

Then the law is unjust and should be changed.

Fixed that for you.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:07 PM on May 1, 2006


« Older Rule of Law?   |   "I hate music / Sometimes I don't. . . . Tommy... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments