Comments on: RIAA sues computerless family for illegal music sharing

RIAA sues computerless family for illegal music sharing

charmston — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:45:58 -0800

for illegal music file sharing. Wouldn't be new or noteworthy — if the family actually had a computer. Via.

By: charmston

charmston — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:46:48 -0800

Apologies for the one-link, newsfilter post. Seemed appropriately hilarious to warrant such a FPP.

By: keswick

keswick — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:54:02 -0800

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.

By: Derive the Hamiltonian of...

Derive the Hamiltonian of... — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:59:12 -0800

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.

By: Derive the Hamiltonian of...

Derive the Hamiltonian of... — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:04:07 -0800

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.

By: MrZero

MrZero — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:04:36 -0800

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

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:14:02 -0800

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.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:14:14 -0800

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.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:16:05 -0800

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.

By: brain cloud

brain cloud — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:21:24 -0800

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?

By: Derive the Hamiltonian of...

Derive the Hamiltonian of... — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:25:42 -0800

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

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:30:58 -0800

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

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:31:29 -0800

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.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:38:49 -0800

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

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:51:22 -0800

I think they should be sued just for their shitty taste in music. www.mp3shits.com

By: SirOmega

SirOmega — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:57:04 -0800

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).

By: weretable and the undead chairs

weretable and the undead chairs — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:13:28 -0800

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

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:35:50 -0800

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.

By: mkhall

mkhall — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:43:55 -0800

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.

By: mischief

mischief — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:46:55 -0800

"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.

By: lpctstr;

lpctstr; — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:52:12 -0800

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

By: Sparx

Sparx — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:41:34 -0800

Their taste in music is absolutely fine so long as their combined age is 8.

By: kosher_jenny

kosher_jenny — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:57:57 -0800

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!

By: pwb503

pwb503 — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:44:04 -0800

Here's the link to make tax deductable donation to the EFF.

By: weston

weston — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:54:32 -0800

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.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:12:52 -0800

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.

By: wildeepdotorg

wildeepdotorg — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:58:24 -0800

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.

By: milnak

milnak — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:16:47 -0800

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.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:30:37 -0800

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.

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:58:42 -0800

Car-wappie post.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Mon, 01 May 2006 04:31:35 -0800

Optimus : Only the President gets to do that without being locked up and/or sued back to the stone-age :)

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 01 May 2006 04:55:49 -0800

fenriq : "I read it a little too quickly the first time and thought it was the daughter downloading the music." No worries.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Mon, 01 May 2006 05:01:52 -0800

what? Sued because of bad taste in music? Ha ha, never heard that one before!

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Mon, 01 May 2006 05:44:38 -0800

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.

By: pax digita

pax digita — Mon, 01 May 2006 05:52:07 -0800

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...

By: Kid Charlemagne

Kid Charlemagne — Mon, 01 May 2006 06:16:38 -0800

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.

By: thejoshu

thejoshu — Mon, 01 May 2006 07:20:49 -0800

Actually, even that is not new or noteworthy.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Mon, 01 May 2006 07:41:18 -0800

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 01 May 2006 08:57:20 -0800

Then the law is unjust and should be ignored. Who do you think you are, President Bush?

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Mon, 01 May 2006 17:07:21 -0800

Then the law is unjust and should be ignored. Then the law is unjust and should be changed. Fixed that for you.