RIAA Legal Defense Fund

Just for the record, the RIAA is not a "for profit corporation" but rather a non-profit industry trade group, which does the bidding of it's 350+ member companies.

I don't know if there is a fund set up yet, but I know there was talk of setting one up on a recent slashdot post - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/10/0046257

I'm pretty pissed about the whole thing, too. It's one thing to target people who are collecting, selling, and distributing large amounts of music, and quite another to pull this on someone who is barely able to afford living expenses and believes they are legally downloading music for a set monthly price. I think this has already started to bite the RIAA in the ass; the settling for $2000 is a step down from the much worse suit they were supposedly bringing against the girl.

Yeah yeah whatever - I wanna chip in for the mother and daughter. Good one Todd

Someone remind me why I leave comments turned on.

Actually, she already settled for $2,000. Too late!

Jeez, even that evil beatch Hillary Rosen wasn't that despicable when she was running the RIAA.

Quick Google turned up the United File-Sharing Defense Fund — not sure if it's legit, but might be worth looking into.

With all due respect, y'all are missing the big picture. Suing a 12-year-old is brilliant. Throwing every blogger on the planet into a huff is exactly what the RIAA wants. More publicity and more spread to the "If we'll sue a 12-year-old girl we'll sue anybody!" message. The lawsuits are not about recouping monies, they're about sending the scariest possible message loudly and clearly. The more outrage, the more threads, the more bits exchanged on the topic the better they like it.

Amazingly those lawsuits do not fix anything. I know folks who have downloaded every single piece of software and music running on their machines... and for a fact they will not get the RIAA calling. This is not the way to fix or fight ellegal sharing.

Of course the stupidity of the whole thing is that "you are not anonymous when you participate in... file sharing", the RIAA says, and that you will get cought. How long before all the software makes it anonymous for everyone? Besides, the folks downloading real amounts of swapping are most likely anonymous anyway.

Is anyone else as sick of the concept of "we have to send a strong message" as I am. Man, people use it so often to justify anything it's like you could print it on the back of the US dollar as the National Motto.

Try: http://www.eff.org/

I found this. It was linked over at BoingBoing.

I have a question -- how in the world does RIAA track these people down? Are their ISPs giving up the info, or does Kazaa just make it really easy to discover personal info about people?

Er...am I missing something? Why should I pay the settlement of someone who stole music?

If you guys didn't see the little TV-blurb about the case (the channel escapes me, but probably TechTV), you wouldn't realize that the majority of the songs she downloaded were theme songs to sitcoms such as "Family Matters", "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air", and so on.

She also downloaded a recording of a children's choir singing a nursery rhyme.

THAT'S the reason that I'm pissed off, and why I would gladly (and will) give money to her and her family to compensate for this tyranny. This entire thing is bullshit, some of my roommates in college have over 200GB of music downloaded and shared 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Lets go after THOSE types of people, not the small-timers who thought they were doing the right thing by paying the Kazaa licensing fee.

Yah, sorry. As horrid as major label behavior (and music) may be, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for people who pirate software, fonts, music, movies, etc. As a creative professional I would have imagined that Todd would square with the rights of creators (and their chosen business partners) to set the terms of their compensation and use all means necessary to go after people who choose to ignore them.

Note: this is not a side-track about whether file-sharing in general is a good or bad idea or not (I believe it is, and should be used smartly by content owners), but I think this is simply a question of an owner's right to set terms and go after people who don't abide by them. Wouldn't everyone here want to go to court to get compensation if someone ripped them off? Perhaps it's worthwhile to note that the file-sharing networks forced the RIAA to sue individual users by going with the "Our technology isn't breaking the law, our users who use it in certain ways are," argument. According to the LA Times this morning Kazaa is generating about $300,000 a month worth of ad revenue. Aren't they taking even worse advantage of the artist than the evil major labels?

I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA secretly arranged to have the $2000 settlement paid for by a third party just so they could use this case for publicity.

I'm a musician and composer who makes part of my income via royalty payments for music I've recorded and/or written. But I think that the RIAA and the record companies (and the movie studios) are going about this in the wrong way.

Remember the big brouhaha over cassette tapes? If everyone started taping their friends' records, the whole industry would go down the drain.

Remember the same fuss over VHS machines? Everyone would start copying movies from TV and it would be the ruination of another industry.

What happened in reality? New revenue streams opened up and made them even more profits. If they would only look at alternative ways to benefit from the customers that file-sharing is bringing to them, they would reap profits beyond their current belief and reinvigorate their dying business, which by the way, are dying not because of file-sharing but because of their inablilty and refusal to nurture artists who actually deserve a recording contract.

As for the movie studios, a recent LA Times article said it all:

"Meaning of Life" is the only Python film made by a major studio. "We refused to give them a script because we said, how can you tell us how to write a Monty Python film," says Idle. "All we gave them was a 12-line poem and a budget, and they greenlit it on that. The only drawback is that it's still not in profit. It cost $9 million and it has taken in over $30 million, and it's still not in profit.

"It's the only film we don't own or have money from. I think Universal ought to wear no shoes for a week!"

The Pythons all agreed to become involved in the "Meaning of Life" DVD after a separate deal was struck. "This is a separate revenue stream," says Idle. "Otherwise we wouldn't do it. That's what we said to them."

Well, apparently the record companies aren't as much of victims as they say they are...read the October 2003 issue of WIRED, " Big Champagne is watching you." on page 138.

Yah, Big Champagne has been working angles and writing custom software for the majors for years. They like to play stupid, play the victim, etc. The reality is often a bit different.

I think these lawsuits are desperate and pathetic. While I don't believe that people should steal anything, I do feel that there has been a fundamental change in the distribution of media and this industry has been the slowest to react and least creative in dealing with it. Let's face it, the record industry has been steeped in the tradition of ripping off both artists and consumers since it began. From the predatory recording contracts of the 50's and 60's to the sub-standard product being shilled today. Combine that with the price gouging coinciding with the introduction of the CD and mabye we're just looking at an industry that is finally experiencing a long overdue consumer revolt. While I side with artists and their (our) rights, I feel that the pimping middlemen may no longer be needed in their former capacity. Get over over it, we've all lost jobs lately. Ditch the suit and learn to program. Wait, scratch that. Go work at Starbucks.

What's next? Will we get sued by the automotive industry for carpooling?

The legal defense fund is a good idea. I'm wondering when the real backlash is going to hit. Come on... suing 12 year old girls? A simple apology would suffice. Let her save her money for her education.

some sort of fund for her
http://funkbunny.com/datatype/archives/000076.html

Actually, I have just decided to avoid commercial music altogether. There are plenty of bands/groups/musicians on the internet offering their music (mp3) for free. I will just dedicate my time and effort to discovering the music I like... as opposed to the music that publishers want me to like.

I tell you what, why doesnt P Diddy put that girl and her mother up so she can pay the settlement. It must be really hard being worth millions and millions of dollars and loosing a few sales.

Look at Bill Gates. I dont think he can afford a Big Mac meal now people pirate his software.

Lets get real.

Yeah, this is classic. The RIAA only knows how to make more of an ass of itself with every move. Instead of losing lots of money on downloads (as they believe) and making some of it up by suing, why not give the people what they want: downloadable music at a much lower price than what's out there.

And don't say iTunes Music is the answer.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

While I'm basically with you, Todd, I have to wonder what good it would do to raise this family $2000. I agree they should have never been taken, but how is us paying them back going to stop further similar suit from going down? And will we just set up a fund for everyone that gets nailed?

I'm in total agreement that this case is bullshit -- going after small-timers like this girl who thought she was doing the right thing is absurd, and the record industry should be burned at the stake for it. Still, I don't think paying the girl back helps much...

Someone has answsered the call:

http://rss.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news

monkeyinabox-

I looked at your iTunes-related URL (http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/). While most of what it has to say is true, and interesting, it is really missing the point.

iTunes is not, can not, and will not be the end of the road. Apple did *what was possible at this time*, hoping that having a technology company involved will lead to a more open RIAA. It's absurd of this site to recommened totally illegal file-sharing services over iTunes. Sure, iTunes doesn't give back to the artists enough -- but it still gives a helluva lot more than Kazza. This thing recommends that people buy CDs off ebay and then send the artist a dollar. Riiight. Who's actually going to do that in the real world?

I'm all for a more open music world, but this site is expecting the RIAA to just drop everythign and let epople share for free. That's *not* going to happen.

iTunes is far from perfect, but it's also the best legal music distribution system to date. Baby steps, my friend.

Rob- heh, I actually do work at Starbucks. Great company, good benefits, and heck of a lot of free coffee!

Maybe if they put good music out they would sell more CDs.

A computer hardware enthusiast site has created a raffle at its sister site to raise money for the girl and her mother.

The raffle is for a kickass water-cooled computer system, including a P4 2.4GHz, Radeon 9700 Pro, and much more. Each raffle ticket is $5 (through PayPal) and a total of 400 tickets will be sold--and you can buy more than one if you'd like to increase your odds of winning the system. All the money will be donated to the girl and her mother.

yeah, so true about puffy.... in the hood huh? who's really in the hood? and whose SUING people in the hood? rich get richer, poor get poorer...

"May I use your style sheet?

Yes, but it is not a template intended for public consumption. You are welcome however to copy and modify the mechanics of the style sheet for your own needs, but you may not use the sheet outright. Lots of time has been put into the look, feel, and style of this site, so please be respectful."

Thank God for double standards, eh? And a fucking style sheet is nothing compared to a real work of art.

the hypocracy of designers saying 'screw the RIAA' but pissed at people ripping them off entertains.

umm, not a great comparison ( past two comments ) more like, "hey can I take a screenshot of your website which you made with stylesheets and use it as a background for my desktop"

answer: yeah sure!

It's not like kids are downloading MP3's and renameing the file as "my 8th grade rap band" or some shite like that.

okay, more accurate comparison: a web designer like todd charges money for his creative work. maybe he works through an agency called peachtree, Inc. one day some people who used to pay peachtree for todd's work figure out a way to just take his work without paying anything for it. peachtree tries to get them to stop but everyone just laughs. one of the people taking todd's work turns out to be a 12-year-old girl. go figure.

That *does* happen. Designers get low-balled all the time, by companies who think they can do it themselves. But designers work real hard to produce a quality product that, despite cheaper or free (everyone's got a "cousin who can do it.") alternatives, the companies still come back. That's all I am asking of the record companies. Put out a quality product, that despite alternatives will still be worth the money.

People can get pirated moives online, but DVD sales are unimaginably high because of the value of the product. The record companies need to do the same, or accept that they aren't making as much money.

You can debate the merits of file sharing all day long, but this situation has come up before in many contexts, many of which were already mentioned. The only way to solve it is produce a quality product.

I fail to see the correlation between the designer getting ripped and the music folks getting ripped. I don't think either is good, but they don't line up so well.

If you are going to try and make a comparison with designers and music, this case is more like WeSellRipoffs.com selling someone your design and then you suing the poor fellow who bought the site.

Stealing is bad. But if you catch a little kid stealing, you tell them what they did wrong and help them see the right way. You don't throw them in the slammer like they were an adult. That's just rediculous.

well david, to track your example, one would say the company did sue wesellripoffs.com, but they argued (successfully) "we're not ripping todd off, it's the people who choose to use us in a certain manner that are the criminals. you have to sue them." so here we are. as someone said earlier, i'm sure they're suing a little girl just to intentionally appear as harsh as possible.

Update: Lobbyist firm paying the $2000. News from the WashPost.

Remember: When you *buy* music you're helping lawyers sue 12 year old girls.

The scary tactics of the RIAA remind me of the Mafia, going after small fish to scare everybody else. How is it different from extortion? You can argue all you want about copyrighted amterial, but they are effectively suppresing work that hasn't seen the ight of day in 30, 40, 50 years, just because it hasn't been approved on a corporate level.
And it is of no benefit to 99.9% of the artists.

Couple of interesting things:

1. The money the RIAA gets from suing 12 year old girls and other evil downloading P2Pers DOES NOT go to the artists of the work, it goes to the RIAA's noble efforts to halt the plague of filesharing.

2. The RIAA are going after persons who are filesharing, not pure downloaders. It is the distribution of the P2P networks that the big 5 media monopolies are having a big cow over. Because they have no control over filesharing's distribution = they can't profit from it.

3. The RIAA is blaming filesharing for a 31 percent decline in compact disc music sales in the last three years.

But it seems the opposite is true, from Wired.com:

Notably, however, the decline in CD sales accelerated during the period of reduced peer-to-peer file trading. On June 15, the day the RIAA launched a subpoena campaign against file traders, CD sales were down 6.1 percent year to date. In the seven weeks since launching the subpoena campaign, the decline in CD sales has accelerated 54 percent.

4. Its been YEARS since the RIAA took out Napster, and only now has iTunes come along and provided a legal alternative for downloading music from the internet. And Apple had to kick some ass to get the big 5 to all agree on the same licensing terms.

5. The RIAA has been involved with price fixing CDs since 1995 and have jacked up the price of a CD to $19.

6. Starting Oct 1st Universal Music Group is cutting the suggested sale price on a majority of its CDs by $6 to $12.98.

Tim - your 6 points are accurate. That makes it okay to pirate? Or in the case of the lawsuit targets, pirate with intent to distribute?

JJ,

Err, no I wasn’t making the case that filesharing was okay or not okay to participate in.

I was making the case of how the RIAA has screwed up this situation and has become trapped in their line of action to make filesharing evil and wrong. And how they have indirectly encouraged filesharing due to a lack of legal alternatives and overpriced CDs.

They once had the opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade, but they've let the lemons rot and now the RIAA just stinks.

No Offense but some of you, sush as Tom Dolan (tdolan@polychrome.org) does not get it!

The copyright law before the DMCA allowed for fair use (and therefore yes! file sharing!) this allowed generation of music fan to record the radio and recording for nearly 30 years provided that no commercial gain were made.
But no the music industry managed to corrupt enought politicians by essentially contributing to their campaign fund so that they could get the DMCA law voted. One Problem with the DMCA: it is not constitutional because it conflict several time with the bill of right. The constitution is very clear about this: the DMCA is no law.

PLEASE READ THE FOLOWING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND WATCH OUT RIAA EXECUTIVES AS YOU MAY BE IN PERSONAL LEGAL TROUBLE SOON!

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller vs. u.s. 230 F 2d 486. 489. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislatures bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. ‘All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury vs. Madison. S US (2 Craneh) 137. 174, 176, (1803) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs. Arizona. 384 US 436 p. 491. ‘An unconstitutional law is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton vs. Shelby County. 118 US 425 p. 442. 18 USCC Section 241: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, treaten, or intimidate any Citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or Privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States..., they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term or for life. 18 USCC Section 242: Whoever, under colour of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any Inhabitant of any State.... to the deprivation of any Rights, Privileges or Immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the united States.. .shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term ...

Dylan once said " to live outside the law you must be honest" I don't think the RIAA bears close scrutiny, what with price fixing and so forth. I think people feel it's okay to " crook the crooks"

One week ago today our site Downhill Battle started the Peer-to-Peer Legal Defense Fund, to get financial support directly to those who've been targeted by the major labels' lawsuits. So far, we've raised over $1100. The fund works on a peer-to-peer model: your donations go directly to the PayPal accounts of people who've been sued. We have 10 people listed on our site right now. Software running on our site displays the person who's received the least amount of money so far on our main page, so donations distribute evenly over time. But you can also choose to contribute to an individual recipient--if, for example, you wanted your money to go to someone who was fighting the lawsuit.

We think that by supporting both those who are fighting and those forced to settle, we can make the RIAA's strategy of bullying families a total failure. Check it out: Defense -DB