RIAA Backs Down when Grandmother's files counter claims.

[JMS]

"Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got the RIAA to drop its monetary claims against her after she filed counterclaims against the record companies for using an investigator, MediaSentry, which is not licensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas. The RIAA elected to drop its claims rather than wait for the Judge to decide the validity of Ms. Crain's charges (PDF) that the plaintiff record companies were 'aware that the... private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign.' Similar questions about MediaSentry's unlicensed investigations were raised recently by the State Attorney General of Oregon in Arista v. Does 1-17"

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/16/2033207.shtml

[GibbsFactor]

Nice! Go Granny!

[headexplode]

This is great news. I think the RIAA has far overstepped its bounds in these types of litigations and their comeuppance is far past due. They've been stealing from artists and the public that supports them for years, and when they start to get a taste of their own medicine they try to frighten everyone into submission by suing twelve year old girls and grandmothers. **** the RIAA. If they stopped trying to feed us mediocrity and soulless corporate music and gave us something worth buying, maybe we'd be less inclined to steal.

[Jeeb]

they tend to run away with their tails between their legs when a defendant hires a competent attorney.

[NoCalMike]

Way to go Grandma.....you are an inspiration to us all!!!

[StillUnknown]

grandma got some gangsta in her

[DjTj]

Not that grandma doesn't deserve some props, but

they tend to run away with their tails between their legs when a defendant hires a competent attorney.

credit should probably go to her lawyer at Lone Star Legal Aid, which looks like a great non-profit organization that helps the low-income community with a variety of issues.

[Dictator]

If they stopped trying to feed us mediocrity and soulless corporate music and gave us something worth buying, maybe we'd be less inclined to steal.

So you steal music because the RIAA “feeds” you mediocrity? Maybe if you spent money to support artists you like instead of stealing, the RIAA and record companies might push money towards those artists…but then they’d be sellouts and you wouldn’t like them any more right?

[JMS]

So you steal music because the RIAA “feeds” you mediocrity? Maybe if you spent money to support artists you like instead of stealing, the RIAA and record companies might push money towards those artists…but then they’d be sellouts and you wouldn’t like them any more right?

:doh: dude, you do know that the RIAA is now saying if you purchase CD's legally you are not allowed to rip the CD's into MP3 files. They're saying if you change the format or transfer the music onto a different media you violate the purchasing agreement on the album....

So you say granny stole a song, but if she recorded it from the radio she would be within her rights?:doh: What's the difference? The age of the technology is all.

[Enter Apotheosis]

:doh: dude, you do know that the RIAA is now saying if you purchase CD's legally you are not allowed to rip the CD's into MP3 files. They're saying if you change the format or transfer the music onto a different media you violate the purchasing agreement on the album....

I believe the case you're referring to wasn't about just converting the music but converting it and putting it into a shared folder. :2cents:

[Dictator]

:doh: dude, you do know that the RIAA is now saying if you purchase CD's legally you are not allowed to rip the CD's into MP3 files. They're saying if you change the format or transfer the music onto a different media you violate the purchasing agreement on the album....

So you say granny stole a song, but if she recorded it from the radio she would be within her rights?:doh: What's the difference? The age of the technology is all.

Wow. Did the topic suddenly change? The thread about Cd's you've already purchased is a seperate issue entirely.

It's funny how people attempt to justify their desire to break laws.

"It's ok to steal music from the RIAA because a majority of the music they put out isn't worth buying."

That's basically what Headexplode is saying. He's blaming his desire to steal music on others. Like he didn't have a choice in the matter. If the music under the jurisdiction is so horrible to begin with, why does he bother stealing it in the first place?

[headexplode]

So you steal music because the RIAA “feeds” you mediocrity? Maybe if you spent money to support artists you like instead of stealing, the RIAA and record companies might push money towards those artists…but then they’d be sellouts and you wouldn’t like them any more right?

Actually, I have supported artists I enjoy over the years, both by buying their albums and going to their live shows. In fact, I've spent so many thousands of dollars I couldn't even begin to try to count it up. I've also spent a lot of money on bull**** albums with maybe one or two good songs.

The RIAA has been feeding us mediocrity for years. I know this because I remember a time when mainstream music was actually worth listening to, and since a certain point in time (oh, about 1996 when the telecommunications act was passed) the quality of radio and popular music has steadily declined. The RIAA and the companies that make up the organization have been screwing artists since before the invention of copyright laws (and continue to do so). Artists rarely see the compensation they deserve, and the small number of "artists" that receive the vast majority of the money and the marketing effort (the Britney Spears, the Aguileras, the Backstreet Boys, the Metallicas) are not artists at all, but adept businesspeople who perform music that is essentially written by corporate executives in order to maximize their profit margins. As I've stated before, they are knowlingly pushing inferior products and making them popular by virtue of their intense media saturation.

The internet gave the consumers the power to reclaim some of the hard-earned money they've spent over the years (hoping that money would go to farily compensate the artists) on mediocre, uninspiring products, as well as hopefully sending a message to the corporate shysters that profit off substandard goods. Many simply will not buy their products anymore. In the rare case there is an artist or band that one is interested in, they can have an internet friend share it with them. They can, in turn, share their music with them. Of course, the RIAA (as most connected, powerful entities do) claim victimhood. This is utter bull****. They don't care about art, they don't care about the public commons, they care about making the most amount of money they can for the least amount of effort. They get no sympathy from me.

And just for the record, I have several albums on my list to LEGALLY PURCHASE at my next available opportunity. In fact, most people who share media over the internet do legally purchase a great deal of art. I support the artists that have given me edification over the years. That's more than I can say for the RIAA.

But I also support the efforts of the people to stand up to corporate bullies who run this country, by whatever peaceful means are available, and demand more. Remember, they need us as much as we need them.

Oh, and it's headexplode, not Headexplode. Show me enough respect to get it right.

[headexplode]

Wow. Did the topic suddenly change? The thread about Cd's you've already purchased is a seperate issue entirely.

It's funny how people attempt to justify their desire to break laws.

"It's ok to steal music from the RIAA because a majority of the music they put out isn't worth buying."

That's basically what Headexplode is saying. He's blaming his desire to steal music on others. Like he didn't have a choice in the matter. If the music under the jurisdiction is so horrible to begin with, why does he bother stealing it in the first place?

Sorry, but many artists are on my side on this issue. Radiohead is a major example. Harvey Danger is another. Many other artists are offering their work for free online and give the option to donate. They understand the importance of art, and, specifically music, to the world.

The "artists" that are on the side of the RIAA: Metallica, Britney Spears, Justin Timerlake, et. al.

And if Fugazi was still playing, you could see them for five bucks or less (and buy a CD for ten. And every ****ing song would be good.)

[JMS]

Wow. Did the topic suddenly change? The thread about Cd's you've already purchased is a seperate issue entirely.

It's funny how people attempt to justify their desire to break laws.

You are saying that the old lady downloading music is steeling. I was stating that

That's true only because RIAA has changed the laws with regard to the new technology.. Nobody ever said copying records to tape was stealing, why is copying CD's to MP3 stealing. Why is downloading MP3's stealing? Basically because the RIAA can afford better lawyers is why. And now their saying you can't create MP3's even if you own the CD's.

They are subverting the law. The reason they threw out the old ladies lawsuit is because they served thousands of people with lawsuits each for 10's of thousands of dollars or more and they simple can't litigate against all of them so they let those with lawyers go.

Great legal system.

[Dictator]

A Bunch of Stuff.

Nobody is forcing you to spend your money on Britney Spears/Metallica or any other crappy music.

Everything else in your post is just you trying to rationalize your decisions to share music on the internet.

Your excuses are like me going to wal-mart for 15 years, spending $14 every week, then shoplifting from them because they sold me inferior products that I didn’t have to purchase in the first place.

Record companies are not a charity. They are in the business of making money just like every other company not classified as a non-profit.

If they are underpaying artists, that’s a fight the artists need to take on with the recording industry.

[Dictator]

The reason they threw out the old ladies lawsuit is because they served thousands of people with lawsuits each for 10's of thousands of dollars or more and they simple can't litigate against all of them so they let those with lawyers go.

Just as long as you understand the RIAA didn't drop the lawsuits because the RIAA was wrong.

Sorry, but many artists are on my side on this issue. Radiohead is a major example. Harvey Danger is another. Many other artists are offering their work for free online and give the option to donate. They understand the importance of art, and, specifically music, to the world.

The "artists" that are on the side of the RIAA: Metallica, Britney Spears, Justin Timerlake, et. al.

And if Fugazi was still playing, you could see them for five bucks or less (and buy a CD for ten. And every ****ing song would be good.)

If the artists want to share their music, they shouldn't have allowed someone else to copywrite their work.

[Rumrunner6900]

This is great news. I think the RIAA has far overstepped its bounds in these types of litigations and their comeuppance is far past due. They've been stealing from artists and the public that supports them for years, and when they start to get a taste of their own medicine they try to frighten everyone into submission by suing twelve year old girls and grandmothers. **** the RIAA. If they stopped trying to feed us mediocrity and soulless corporate music and gave us something worth buying, maybe we'd be less inclined to steal.

Actually, I have supported artists I enjoy over the years, both by buying their albums and going to their live shows. In fact, I've spent so many thousands of dollars I couldn't even begin to try to count it up. I've also spent a lot of money on bull**** albums with maybe one or two good songs.

The RIAA has been feeding us mediocrity for years. I know this because I remember a time when mainstream music was actually worth listening to, and since a certain point in time (oh, about 1996 when the telecommunications act was passed) the quality of radio and popular music has steadily declined. The RIAA and the companies that make up the organization have been screwing artists since before the invention of copyright laws (and continue to do so). Artists rarely see the compensation they deserve, and the small number of "artists" that receive the vast majority of the money and the marketing effort (the Britney Spears, the Aguileras, the Backstreet Boys, the Metallicas) are not artists at all, but adept businesspeople who perform music that is essentially written by corporate executives in order to maximize their profit margins. As I've stated before, they are knowlingly pushing inferior products and making them popular by virtue of their intense media saturation.

The internet gave the consumers the power to reclaim some of the hard-earned money they've spent over the years (hoping that money would go to farily compensate the artists) on mediocre, uninspiring products, as well as hopefully sending a message to the corporate shysters that profit off substandard goods. Many simply will not buy their products anymore. In the rare case there is an artist or band that one is interested in, they can have an internet friend share it with them. They can, in turn, share their music with them. Of course, the RIAA (as most connected, powerful entities do) claim victimhood. This is utter bull****. They don't care about art, they don't care about the public commons, they care about making the most amount of money they can for the least amount of effort. They get no sympathy from me.

And just for the record, I have several albums on my list to LEGALLY PURCHASE at my next available opportunity. In fact, most people who share media over the internet do legally purchase a great deal of art. I support the artists that have given me edification over the years. That's more than I can say for the RIAA.

But I also support the efforts of the people to stand up to corporate bullies who run this country, by whatever peaceful means are available, and demand more. Remember, they need us as much as we need them.

Oh, and it's headexplode, not Headexplode. Show me enough respect to get it right.

You are one crazy mofo sometimes, and I rarely agree with you, but you are exactly right...headexplode

[SkinInsite]

The RIAA is forcing me to buy subpar music!

Help me Superman!!!!

[Larry]

The RIAA and the companies that make up the organization have been screwing artists since before the invention of copyright laws (and continue to do so).

Uh, you do realize that, in the US, copyright was established in the Constitution?

That was way back in the days of 78's, wasn't it?

. . . and the small number of "artists" that receive the vast majority of the money and the marketing effort (the Britney Spears, the Aguileras, the Backstreet Boys, the Metallicas) are not artists at all, but adept businesspeople who perform music that is essentially written by corporate executives in order to maximize their profit margins.

Right. Paul McCartney was just a corporate executive.

[Larry]

That's true only because RIAA has changed the laws with regard to the new technology.. Nobody ever said copying records to tape was stealing, why is copying CD's to MP3 stealing.

Actually yes, they did. And yes, it was. Copyright forbids copying. The only exception is "fair use", which has been ruled to mean that it's legal to copy small portions of a work, for purposes of a review. (As I understand it, Sony v. Betamax also ruled that using a VCR for "time shifting": recording a broadcast for purposes of later viewing, was allowed.

Why is downloading MP3's stealing?

Because the client is making a copy of the server's copy.

(And, since fair use only allows copying small selections of a work, for purposes of a review, the copy on the server's an illegal copy, too. You have the right to make copies for yourself, not for other people.)

And now their saying you can't create MP3's even if you own the CD's.

No they aren't. As several people pointed out when you tried to make that claim in your other thread. And as people have pointed out, a second time, here.

(And, no doubt, as people will point out the next time you decide that your opinion is more important than reality.)

They are subverting the law.

You wouldn't mind pointing out exactly which law, would you?

The reason they threw out the old ladies lawsuit is because they served thousands of people with lawsuits each for 10's of thousands of dollars or more and they simple can't litigate against all of them so they let those with lawyers go.

Great legal system.

Guess what? The owner of something which has been stolen has the right to decide who they will and won't prosecute. (That's one of the nice things about owning something.)

[Dictator]

Larry,

Stop making sense. It'll make it harder for people to justify breaking the law.

[Romo the Great]

Stealing is OK as long as you don't steal from the needy.

[Blackest Eyes]

The RIAA is crap. All out to get money. If they were truly for musicians, they would have more musicians affiliated with them.

[JMS]

Just as long as you understand the RIAA didn't drop the lawsuits because the RIAA was wrong.

Why do you think they dropped the lawsuit? Cause they're a bunch of sweet hearts takeing pitty on an indigent grandmother woman? Scum bags likely scared her half way to death.

RIAA is about setting a precident here. And yes I do think they dropped the lawsuite because they were wrong. They're just hopeing they can scare most folks into a settlement and keep their precident alive.

Fact is their precident is doomed, cause what they are trying to do is not well thought out. How can you claim formate MP3 is illegal when radio stations are broadcasting free music over the airwaves hundreds of thousands of time a second. Today you can make that case because of quality. Tommorrow that won't be clear cut at all.

If the artists want to share their music, they shouldn't have allowed someone else to copywrite their work.

Copy rights have been expanded in this country since the 1970's to an unreasonable leval. Copyrights were always supposed to be incentive in order to promote inovation. Today they only serve to styfle inovation and profit third party corporations, rather than the artists, scientists, and authors.

[JMS]

Actually yes, they did. And yes, it was. Copyright forbids copying. The only exception is "fair use", which has been ruled to mean that it's legal to copy small portions of a work, for purposes of a review. (As I understand it, Sony v. Betamax also ruled that using a VCR for "time shifting": recording a broadcast for purposes of later viewing, was allowed.

RIAA is currently trying to suggest that people who purchase their CD's/Records/Tapes don't have the rights to convert those recordings they own into the MP3 formate without violating their rights to hear the music.

We aren't talking about established law here we're talking about a consortium of companies trying to set legal precident and roll back consumer rights.

Because the client is making a copy of the server's copy.

If you record music from the radio on your sterio tape drive, it's not stealing. If you listen to music on a radio, that's not stealing. If you download music on the internet that is stealing? What is steeling and what isn't steeling is not very well thought out. Technology for radios and recording devices are going to settle this before the law catches up.

(And, since fair use only allows copying small selections of a work, for purposes of a review, the copy on the server's an illegal copy, too. You have the right to make copies for yourself, not for other people.)

Not according to RIAA. They are saying when you create the MP3 version of the music you are compressing the data stream and ultimately creating a corrupted copy of their property. They are claiming purchasing the CD does not give you this right. Again they are ahead of the law on this one and are trying to sue poor folks in order to set the precident.

No they aren't. As several people pointed out when you tried to make that claim in your other thread. And as people have pointed out, a second time, here.

Larry I posted the legal brief.... where the RIAA was equating MP3 formate with unauthorized and the fact the defendent owned the CD's RIAA claims now is irrelivent.

Page 15..

Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

(And, no doubt, as people will point out the next time you decide that your opinion is more important than reality.)

Just reading the words man.. just reading the words.

You wouldn't mind pointing out exactly which law, would you?

Fact is the supreme court has fifty years of precident saying it's against the law to outlaw equipment used to listen to broadcasts or recordings. It has to do with freedom of assemble and freedom of speach. Communist nations used to ban short wave recording equipment as well as banning some radio bans. These laws are the laws that the electronics industry are useing to fight RIAA who wants to take the electronics industry back to the pre micro circuit days. That's why RIAA is choosing to sue folks who can't afford lawyers and fold when those folks do get lawyers.

Guess what? The owner of something which has been stolen has the right to decide who they will and won't prosecute. (That's one of the nice things about owning something.)

Guess what. Owning ideas is a realatively new concept. Owning ideas for decades is even newer than that. The reason we have copy right laws at all isn't so large corporations can milk monopolies to the detriment of the consumer. The reason we have copyright laws is to give incentive to artists, scientists, and authors to innovate. We've gotten away from that.

Fact is consumer rights which should be the #1 issue here is irrelivent. What is relivent is RIAA is attacking the bread and butter of the electronics industry here and the Electronics industry is going to smash them like a baby seal; You think MP3's are the end of it. The technolgy coming out in the next few years are replacing radio's and TV's. That's not going away.

One last point here. The Movie industry faced this same problem back in the 1970's when VCR's, Beta max's and Movie channels on cable TV came out. At the time the US movie industry was a shaddow of what it is today. They wondered who would ever want to go to a movie theatre when you could just watch movies on a vcr at home. Fact is the VCR and Cable TV was the best thing that ever happenned to the movie industry. It gave movie producers new streams of revenue they never considered and caused a revitalization of theatres.

The same thing is going to happen to the Music industry. The technology isn't going backwards and all the ludites in the world can't make it so.