This is topic Has anyone here been sued by RIAA??(or know anything about copyright law?) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
A friend is being sued by RIAA for downloading music. Backstory: her daughter downloaded things, found out she could get in trouble for it, then stopped. However, the fil stayed open or something, they tracked her computer, and are demanding 3500 dollars.
I say, bring it on. They have done this to others, and people get frightened and pay, or spend money on lawyers. But they can never lose more than the 3500, right? (I mean, they cannot sue them for more) So, if the situation goes to court, doesn't that mean it is on RIAA to find proof?
Does anyone have experience/advice/links I can tell her about?
[ December 27, 2005, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
[ December 26, 2005, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
What does Raia have to do with this? I thought she was just a nice college girl in the midwest. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't think settlement offers restrict what they can sue your friend for. They can probably sue for more. Doesn't mean they'll get it--and that doesn't mean the judge wouldn't reward them more or less if they win.
That's what I gather from TV and stuff, anyway.
What the RIAA is doing is horrible. Your friend has my sympathies.
I wonder if they have proof that she uploaded the files to anyone (AKA if someone downloaded them FROM her). I think that's the part that's illegal. I THINK downloading is technically legal--either that, or they just concentrate on the uploaders.
Sounds like the RIAA is going after everyone.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
It does, Katarian, but no one is daring to fight back. I am sure they are making more on these suits than they are ever losing on the downloading. Or, at least, i suspect that is the case. Because. like my friend, many people immediately cower when confronted like this. If she says, "I did not do it," don;t they have to do all the work to say that she did?
When hiring a lawyer to defend costs $24thousand, a $35hundred settlement can seem awfully attractive.
The really BIG problem is that... ...the plaintiff in these type of cases usually can win their court costs fairly easily... ...while the defendant usually has to prove legal malice on the part of the plaintiff. So even if the defendant wins, s/he still loses at least ~$20thousand more than if s/he had accepted the settlement.
Considering that a $35hundred settlement is equivalent to legally downloading more than 35hundred songs, the music industry crooks are really making money by the bucketload on this legalized blackmail.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
But aspectre. What cost does the defendant incur? If you do not have a lawyer, can't you just go in and represent yourself? What do yu have to pay? I really need to know this!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
This is very vague. How do you know? Are there precedents for people defending themselves for small suits? What fines? why would they be fined?Why would you be required to pay the RIAA's court cost, if they take you to court?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: What the RIAA is doing is horrible.
Not really.
Also, I sincerely doubt they're earning back all the sales losses that they attribute to piracy. Whether or not declining sales are actually due to piracy is another matter altogether. For one thing, music is a luxury good.
One can technically be fined up to $150,000 for each count of willful copyright infringement. But I think that only applies to people who are proven to have been infringing for personal financial gain. Either way.
quote: Penalties for copyright infringement differ in civil and criminal cases. Civil remedies are generally available for any act of infringement without regard to the intention or knowledge of the defendant, or harm to the copyright owner. Criminal penalties are available for intentional acts undertaken for purposes of "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain." "Private financial gain" includes the possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder as well as traditional "gain" by the defendant.
Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.
The uploading is probably the part that got her. Or having the files available for upload, even if others weren't downloading. They're definitely going after the uploaders.
-pH
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
pH, Look at that lawyer's blog that Elizabeth linked to. The RIAA isn't getting actual evidence, no time or date when the infractions occurred or if they even occurred at all. In some cases, they have a screenshot of files in the shared files directory. No evidence of what is actually IN the files, no evidence of uploading.
Also, it is pointed out that with dynamic IPs, the ISPs are having difficulty offering valid names for the IPs they are given.
And that's what I gleaned just from skimming the posts.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
My cousin was sued. I'm not quite sure how t was handled, but I'll be sure to ask for any advice.
[ December 26, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Little_Doctor ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Then find out what evidence they have.
I just don't think the RIAA are the demons that everyone makes them out to be.
-pH
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thank you, Little_Doctor.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
No way. Elizabeth, the mom fighting without a lawyer -- SHE'S your friend? She was just featured on /.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
No! She is not my friend, but I saw the article, and told my friend about it. As a result, I think I have convinced her to at least wait until August and see what happens with that case.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Hm. Personally, I'd say these cases are impossible to prove without illegally obtaining evidence. How exactly do they plan to support this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Unfortunately, the record companies have authority to subpoena ISP records pretty much at will. It's legal.
But it still sucks.
She should get a lawyer, at least to start. She could check in with the EFF to see if help is available.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'm not a lawyer, though I have been following these cases.
If I was your friend I would settle. The RIAA is offering to settle the case for 3500, but if she fights them and looses she will get hit with a much bigger fee. The 3500 is not what your friend is being sued for, that is just how much the RIAA is willing to take as a settlement (at least that is how it has worked in all the cases I have seen). Make sure she reads the paperwork more carefully. Also, your friend would end up paying much more than 3500 for a lawyer.
Also, unlike the person in the linked story, in my opinion your friend would have no chance of winning (even the woman in the story will have a tough time). In your friends case, according to you, her daughter DID download the music, and clearly shared it as well. The fact that she stopped will not matter.
As for dynamic IPs, they are not really relevant, since ISPs log who is assigned an IP at what time. All the RIAA has to do is subpoena the records, and they know who was sharing the files.
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer myself, so I can't give actual legal advice. I can only say what I would do in that situation. She should do some research, and talk to a lawyer before she makes her decision.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
As a music student, I had to learn something about what you can and cannot do with recordings or music in terms of copies.
Technically, it should be legal to own ONE copy of any piece of music that you already own. (So if you own a copy of The Beatles White Album you can have one copy of it.) This is for archival puposes. You can use it personally, but you can't give it to someone else, and that's where the law gets people. It's perfectly legal to download a song that you already own but not to provide it to someone who doesn't already own it and with p2p programs like Kazaa (one of the more popular systems right now) there is no way to tell if the person that is downloading something from you already owns a copy or not.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't really advise you of what to do but I'd say that it's important to at least talk to a lawyer before deciding anything. Depending on how many songs your friends daugter was sharing (whether knowingly or not) she could be on the hook for a lot more than $3500 if RIAA can prove their case and as stated above if she loses they could not only be awarded more but RIAA could also be awarded court costs and your friend would have to pay her own lawyer as well. Assuming the judge doesn't award RIAA a structured settlement that means that she could have to come up with a lot of cash fairly quickly once the case has been heard. If she does get a structured settlement it could take her years to pay it off.
Personally, I'd take the $3500 and have done with it. RIAA will probably even set up a payment plan so that she doesn't have to pay it out all at once but even if she does, it's probably the better deal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It's perfectly legal to download a song that you already own but not to provide it to someone who doesn't already own it
This is not at all decided by the courts, and the leanings have been going the other way.
Furthermore, you're perfectly able to own far more than one copy of music you've purchased -- its incredibly legal to put a song on your computer, and your iPod, and several mix CDs, and even more places.
The only one copy notion relates to media you do not purchase, but possess temporarily through a non-sale format, such as television. In those cases, fair use only extends to fairly limited copying.
I don't know if you'd manage to win this one. Venue and your lawyers would matter hugely. I'd suggest not fighting unless you can get pro bono legal aide.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If she says, "I did not do it," don;t they have to do all the work to say that she did?
Um, wouldn't that require your friend to ask her daughter to lie about downloading the music? Or, at the very least, set the example that lying is ok?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Um, that is one way to look at it, I suppose. Here is another:
"This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices." http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Also, Beren, as for the moral high road, my friend did NOT download the music. EVER. And she is being sued.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I suspect a halfway competent plaintiff's attorney would ask your friend: "Did you or someone in your household download the music in question?"
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Eeek, and here is a fact which disturbs me greatly: "The RIAA has filed close to 17,000 lawsuits against broadband p2p file traders, and not one has seen a trial or been found guilty in a court of law" http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/70009
I do believe that when people start to fight back, RIAA will back down.
And I am quite sure they are making a profit on this, and that when they stop making a profit($59,500,000 is what 17,000 uncontested settlements would bring in)they will stop making these suits.
Has Kazaa ever been sued?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sure, but in that case, they should sue the person who actually did it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That's what the plaintiffs did in Priority v. Chan.
When the plaintiffs found out that it was the defendant's daughter who owned the email account registered at the p2p service, they moved to dismiss the case against the mother and eventually started a new case against a 13-year-old defendant.
Elizabeth, I'm not defending the RIAA's actions here. I'm merely stating that if your friend denies knowledge of the music sharing, it might set a bad example for her kids.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: If she says, "I did not do it," don;t they have to do all the work to say that she did?
I'm assuming your friend is having a civil suit filed against her? So they'll still have to prove her guilty, but there's no "reasonable doubt" aspect here. The RIAA just has to show that she is more likely guilty than not.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
So, if she doesn;t settle, could they go for more than the 35oo dollars?
The thing is, she is going to pay it, I know she is. And no, Beren, she is not going to ask her daughter to lie. In fact, her daughter is trying to get them to take the suit away from her mother and sue her. So I really am not worried about their moral structure here. I am worried about her having to pay out 3500 bucks she does not have for music she never knew she was uploading. And, whether these people are legally in the wrong or not, I still believe it is a huge scam, and that with more people caving in, it will continue.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, they could go for considerably more than $3500, depending on the number of instances of infringement and the like.
Now, for the longest time, many judges were very impatient with plaintiffs that didn't settle small-time copyright infringement suits for stopping the practice and giving up the gains of the practice, but nobody knows if that still holds true.
The theoretical statutory damages, which the RIAA would likely go for, could easily be more than $500 per song infringed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and if she can't get a pro-bono lawyer, her legal costs will be considerably more than $3500. If money's the issue, she should likely settle. Even with a pro-bono lawyer, and even if she wins, the time and hassle out of the incident will cost her far more.
Though she shouldn't hesitate to counter-offer. Tell them she can afford to pay some much small amount, but not $3500. Maybe $1500 or something. If she can, she should send the check for this amount in her letter, and write that if they accept it as settlement, to cash the check, and to destroy it otherwise. And of course keep record of the letter (perhaps notarized record).
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I like that, Fugu. Thanks.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
You can see from the title it is a resource for people who have been sued. There are examples of legal papers and stories of what people went through after beeing sued by the RIAA.
quote: When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
I was just reading an article the other day that was fascinating, but I forgot to bookmark it--and I can not find it.
The contention was that the RIAA is targetting legitimate consumers, because they want to take away the option of "ownership." The paper tracked the affiliates of the RIAA and showed how their legislation is taking away the rights of consumers to own music/movies.
Pirates will continue to find new media, but it is the law abiding comsumer who will not be able to make copies, own music, and be forced to pay subscription fees for the priviledge to listen/watch content.
Darn, I can't paraphrase well. I will continue to look for more information.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I think you explained that very well, lem, thank you. That is a great link to show my friend.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm getting really sick of people claiming that the RIAA is evil because "Oh no, they're suing ordinary, everyday people! How dare they!"
The music industry does INDEED have a right to make money off its product. Its business model is flawed, but that doesn't remove the fact that they have a right to be paid for what they put up for sale. Period.
-pH
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
That is fine, if you think their motivation is to make money off their product, ph. But what if you found out that they are still making quite a bit of money on their product, and now figured out a way to make even more money by suing people who are ordinary, without the means to defend themselves? That is how you see it, that is how I see it. It is not that I do not feel they have a right to make money on their product. I never, ever said that. I do, indeed, feel that this is a scam.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think they're suing people for the money, although they wouldn't turn it down.
I think they're suing people to discourage file-sharing. This is why they focus on people who leave their files where they can be uploaded.
Some of their methods may be suspect, but the lawsuits are justifiable. Their product is being duplicated and distributed in violation of the licensing agreement tacitly agreed to by the person who purchased the product. They should shrug and let it go?
(Note this does not address my thoughts on the RIAA's tactics or their business practices regarding their clients, nor does it bring up my thoughts on copyright law and media distribution and how they're going to have to change.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Chris has got it, pretty much.
It's not as though they're suing every illegal downloader in the country. And it's not as though they're receiving the damages the courts could find them to be owed, in most cases, since they're settling.
Again, they honestly believe that illegal downloading has contributed heavily to the steady decline in album sales. They're doing what they can to protect themselves.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Chris: its important to understand that there is no "licensing agreement" for music purchases (well, physical music purchases). The rights you have to do what you are allowed to do with the music do not derive from any license, or even purely from fair use of the music's copyrights (which would restrict them more absent this condition), but the doctrine of first sale.
I think the movement towards (incredibly restrictive, likely unenforcable in many parts) licensing agreements or attempts at licensing agreements for content previously distributed under first sale is a very wrong thing.
Even with the comparatively little legal opposition the RIAA has faced, they've more than once had approaches found to be illegal.
The damages sought only exist in as large amounts as they do because the RIAA lobbied Congress -- and talked about using those damages against big, evil mass copyright infringers.
What would in the past have been a relatively mild case of civil infringement, involving a little shame and perhaps paying for the price of all the music infringed on, is now easily potentially tens of thousands of dollars for an infringer. This is because of the law, but the main instigator of those laws were the RIAA and MPAA and their members.
The reason the RIAA can find out so much info on people possibly using its content is again because of laws they worked to get passed. This privilege has been repeatedly abused against those distributing such things as similarly named unrelated files, legally distributable concert recordings (many bands give such permission), and fair use snippets.
The potential size of those damages due to these situations the RIAA has helped create is now being used as a bludgeon to force settlements from people, and they're only able to find so many people to bludgeon because they pushed through laws giving them great powers to requisition ISP records, often over objections in those companies' privacy policies. Not to mention that initially the RIAA tried going even beyond those laws (luckily the ISPs fought that imposition).
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: It's perfectly legal to download a song that you already own but not to provide it to someone who doesn't already own it and with p2p programs like Kazaa (one of the more popular systems right now) there is no way to tell if the person that is downloading something from you already owns a copy or not.
Even if that were true, the bigger issue is that the person you are downloading from probably does not have the rights to distribute the song.
For example, I may own a CD of Napoleon Dynamite Sings the Blues, and want to have the songs on my MP3 player. I can legally rip the media to my MP3 player from the CD, but if I use Kazaa (or another less spyware ridden P2P application) to download a copy, the person I am downloading it from probably has no right to distribute the song, regardless of whether I own the CD or not.
Also, the media have really been getting the story wrong on most of these lawsuits when they talk about people getting sued for downloading music. Most of the lawsuits have been brought againt people for providing the music to others.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Sadly, this is the situation with my friend's daughter, who stopped downloading, but did not stop the uploading because she didn't get that part.
I know that ignorance is not an excuse, so I don;t need that moral message, I just think that someone who was trying to do the right thing is losing a lot of money to a group who makes bajillions of dollars, and it irks me to no end.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
fugu - fair enough. But even (as you point out) copyright infringement would justify the lawsuits.
I think their means are draconian and I think the RIAA is desperately fighting a battle it can't win and should really be looking ahead to see how to turn this technology to their advantage, but I think they have the right, as the laws stand now, to seek redress for infringement on their material.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Sadly, this is the situation with my friend's daughter, who stopped downloading, but did not stop the uploading because she didn't get that part.
What program was she using? Many p2p programs terminate once you shut off the computer. Maybe things aren't as bad as they think it is.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So if a group makes a lot of money, they're not allowed to protect their property?
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, if a group makes a lot of money, they shouldn't get to use their influence to punish beyond their just deserts people infringing on a limited privilege granted to instigate creativity for the benefit of society as a whole.
edit: and particularly when the Congress turns a blind eye at that group's continual antitrust, anticompetitive cartel actions.
[ December 28, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You've got quite a few different arguments going.
-- Are current copyright laws adequate to the needs of society? -- Are current copyright laws adequate to the needs of the copyright holder? -- Should conglomerates be permitted to contribute to political parties/politicians to receive benficial legislation? -- Is a totally free market good for society? -- If not, what level of restriction is appropriate? -- Is file-sharing justified under any circumstances? Which ones? -- Does file-sharing help or hurt society? -- What changes should be made to allow free distribution of media while still providing for artist compensation and/or work integrity?
Any one of those would make a very long post indeed. Your statements have been jumping around them and it makes it hard for me to respond.
I think that what the RIAA is doing is legal and justifiable from their end. I do not think it's right, or even their best course of action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do protest giving the RIAA special access to third-party private information to investigate violations.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand:
quote:Sadly, this is the situation with my friend's daughter, who stopped downloading, but did not stop the uploading because she didn't get that part.
What program was she using? Many p2p programs terminate once you shut off the computer. Maybe things aren't as bad as they think it is.
When I was downloading, I was doing so with very little idea of how it worked. After I stopped downloading, I didn't delete the program I used to do so from my computer, because deleting programs is a little too complicated for me. I never turn off my computer. Unless it needs to restart or I'm installing software, so my computer can easily be on for weeks at a time.
I was using kazaa and I was uploading. I don't remember now if it was because you had to do something special to shut off uploading, or because I didn't know what uploading was. However, I certainly didn't know what uploading was, and I was uploading files for over a year after I stopped downloading because I didn't have the faintest clue it was going on. Just to be clear, that meant I was uploading 24/7 for a year. I'm really lucky I didn't get sued, and I didn't know I was doing anything wrong.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
blacwolve, I am not sure how lucky you are! This is exactly what happened to them. This was a while ago, and they just got the notice a few weeks ago. I can find out exactly when, if you want. I really hope it does not happen to you, too!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
um... don't you have to have kazaa and other p2p software RUNNING for it to be uploading? I can understand not uninstalling the program, but I can't imagine leaving the program running if I'm not even using it.
Does it run in the background or something? Didn't you notice a slow connection to the internet?? Doesn't anybody ever check their taskbar??
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Most computer users aren't literate enough to understand what the tasbar is about, let alone know to check it for processes running in the background.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I guess it would have to be running in the background and automatically start when you turn on your computer...otherwise, after you stopped using the p2p software, you'd have to leave the program running and your computer on forever.
I'm thinking that computer users should make a point of knowing how their computers work. Ignorance is no excuse when you know how prevalent viruses and identify theft are. Know Your Computer!!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, it has to be running to upload. You have to activate the program for it to upload to other users.
I know it most clients don't automatically restart until you click the icon again, although it is possible to have an upload running AFTER you activate the program for something else and still be downloading the first item unaware.
But it clearly lists what your active uploads and downloads are within the program itself.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I just don't think the RIAA are the demons that everyone makes them out to be.
Maybe they're that evil after all.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
But it clearly lists what your active uploads and downloads are within the program itself.
It did. If I were running the program now, I would have no problem figuring out what was going on. But I was fifteen and couldn't figure out how to download programs, much less read a display and tell that I was uploading songs. Mostly because, as I've stated before, I didn't have the faintest clue what uploading was. I labored under the impression that the songs I was downloading came from some fuzzy internet space; not from other people much like me who were putting them out onto the internet. All of the information in the world can be present and easily accessable, but if you're not capable of reading it, it's not going to do you much good.
The only thing I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible for there to be hundreds of 13 year old girls out there downloading songs without the faintest clue what they're doing is illegal, or that they're uploading as well.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And my experience with fixing computers loaded down with virii, trojans, adware, spyware, toolbars, and all sorts of programs running in the background resulting in a sluggishly operating computer tells me that it's not just 13 year old girls who don't have the faintest idea what's going on with their computers. I know plenty of adults who've been using them for 5 or 10+ years who don't have a clue either.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I've never understood the argument that there are people that don't know what they are doing is illegal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that getting music for free is not on the up and up. The music industry is not a nonprofit organization.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:The music industry is not a nonprofit organization.
Exactly. Although many, many people think that "true artists" shouldn't want to make money off their work.
Yeah, because working at Publix during the day while you're trying to plan a tour around your days off, that's the American dream, right there.
I say, let artists make money off their work. Let the labels who put up money for the artists make money off the albums that recoup. Perhaps I'm evil, but I have no problem making money off music, be in mine or that of someone I manage, promote, or otherwise represent.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: I've never understood the argument that there are people that don't know what they are doing is illegal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that getting music for free is not on the up and up. The music industry is not a nonprofit organization.
I get books for free at the library. I never thought the publishing industry was a nonprofit organization either.
And no, I wouldn't accept that argument from an adult. but it's perfectly possible for a preteen or early teenager to just not know anything about the RIAA or copyright laws and think that kazaa or whatever the current downloading program is now is just a cool program that a friend showed them. This is why, amoung other things, we don't charge kids that age as adults when they commit crimes.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most of the teens I know know where the music comes from, and knows they can't get in true trouble about it because they are teens...their parents can, but they can't, really.
Most of the teens I know also know a LOT more about computers and networks than the adults I know do.
I am not say this was the case with you, but I doubt it usually is like that....and even in your case it still isn't a valid excuse.
The program tells you what it is doing...it is your responsibility to find out what it is saying, and what that involves.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also..libraries PAY for the books, and you don;t get to keep a photocopy of them....and you don't get to keep them forever.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
High horses are so difficult for me to ride.
My friend is in trouble, and I was asking for advice to help her out.
Thanks to those of you who gave me information I could pass on to her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Liz, even if she settles, she needs a lawyer to make sure there's no possibility of future liability for anything that's happened prior to settlement.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Egads, I definitely wouldn;t have thought of that. How can they do that?
And I apologize to all for the snarky comment above. I know how Hatrack threads work, and staying on the topic the thread-starter envisioned is not usually one of those ways.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
It's not a valid legal excuse. If I get busted, I'll be pissed off, because I haven't downloaded anything for 5 years and I know people with 20 gigs of pirated music on their computers, but I'll pay the fine.
I was responding, way back in the beginning, to the disbelief that someone could be uploading and not know that they were.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Canada's biggest record label, publisher and management company is helping out a family sued by the Recording Industry Ass. Of America for copyright infringement.
The privately-owned Nettwerk Music Group is intervening, it says, because the songs downloaded and identified by the RIAA by the Gruebel family include Avril Lavigne, a Nettwerk management client. Nettwerk will fund the Gruebel's defense.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can only say what I would do in that situation. She should do some research, and talk to a lawyer before she makes her decision.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)