By Eric Flack

(LOUISVILLE, June 15th, 2004, 6 p.m.) -- A local teen is in serious legal trouble with some of the biggest names in music. The record industry is suing her for illegally downloading music, and her family now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if they don't settle the case. WAVE 3's Eric Flack reports.

A 17-year-old graduate of Sacred Heart Academy in Louisville is now facing the wrath of the Recording Industry Association of America. The group has been cracking down on people across the country who swap tunes on the Internet.

RIAA spokesman Johnathan Lamy spoke with us by phone. "It is very clear under the law that downloading or uploading a copyrighted song is against the law. Some people will not stop the activity until they recognize there are consequences, that there is a chance of actually getting caught."

The teen is part of the latest round of lawsuits filed by the RIAA for allegedly illegally downloading music off the Internet. "These are not casual downloaders," Lamy says. "The average number of songs on these individuals' hard drives that they are making available or downloading for free is around 800."

The Louisville teen told us she downloaded more than a thousand songs from a website called www.gropster.com. Now, the RIAA says if her family doesn't settle the suit, it will press forward with litigation.

The family could face fines of $750 per song -- $750,000 in all.

With fines that steep, the RIAA spokesman says "We think the majority of people will be interested in settling," Lamy says.

Even those who believe they've done nothing wrong says copyright attorney Scot Duvall. "For a young person heading off to college, the last thing they want is this hanging over their head. And for most families, I imagine the legal cost would be astounding, and would really prevent them from fully litigating the issue. And the recording industry realizes that."

The RIAA maintains the lawsuits aren't about money. "The idea here is not to win lawsuits is not to make money," Lamy says. "It's to send a message that there are consequences to this activity."

Based on past cases, the 17-year-old's family could end up settling with the record industry for about $4,000.

The RIAA has collected around $1.5 million in settlement money since it started filing lawsuits last fall.

The spokesman said the RIAA had to start suing people because CD sales were down 20 percent thanks to online music sharing.

The teen's family didn't want to talk to us because they hadn't yet consulted an attorney.

$750-$750,000 is not a fine. It's extortion.

"The RIAA maintains the lawsuits aren't about money."

They're about money. They said they're doing it because piracy costs them money. They shut down Napster because it cost them money. They want people to stop downloading so that they'll buy instead - with money. How is it not about money? It's about money in every way/shape/form and they say it all the time. Even settling for $4,000 is about money. What happens if they don't settle and rape these people in court instead? Public outrage - that's what. Then they lose money. It's 100% about money.

"A local teen is in serious legal trouble with some of the biggest names in music."

Not really. I'm predicting he'll probably settle for $2-4,000. He graduated from Sacred Heart Academy. That's probably one year's tuition, maybe less. Serious trouble my ass. The RIAA's business model is in serious trouble.

Suing random people for intimidation doesn't work if the ordinary downloaders cant associate. Just going after those with terabyte hard drives and the office T3 line doesn't work. They have to target ordinary people, espicially teens.

RIAA is nothing but organized criminals extorting money from people, the same way as thugs extort local shop owners to pay for protection. RIAA, you're going to get yours one day. What goes around, comes around!!!

If this doesn't qualify as confiscatory, I don't know what does. This is PROOF POSITIVE that the RIAAcists are engaging in thinly-veiled (if at all) class warfare against the poor and working people -- and also, the weak, vulnerable and defenseless portions of our society. Because Bainwol, Sherman et al., obviously believe all that money is THEIRS and that they're entitled to EVERYTHING.

Moreover . . . if this kid rolls over and plays dead and allows himself and his family to be essentially cleaned out of their entire life savings, we're in even more serious trouble as a society. Remember, as Mohamed Atta said when he hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 to crash it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport. . . . Nobody move. Everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." And those poor souls remained quiet -- FOR ETERNITY.

Based on that, it seems the RIAA's systematic theft against the working poor starts off with orders that, with different specifics, sounds almost like that ("If you dare to fight us, you'll endanger yourself and your family and you will have no future whatsoever . . . ").

And besides . . . preying on such poor souls as this teen who graduated from Sacred Heart Academy is, shall we say, more 'politically correct' than busting an illegal counterfeiting ring that might be run by certain ethnic or minority groups living in this country who are VERY well-funded and -organized . . .

And another thing: This is yet another example of how the RIAA is adherent to the ideology of collective guilt. Meaning, if a kid downloads, or uploads, or sidewaysloads (or whateverloads) music, then as they see it it's THE ENTIRE FAMILY's fault -- even on down to the distant relatives living either in another state or out of the country.

As I said before, I'm surprized the RIAA doesn't start a reverse class-action lawsuit against every single computer owner with interenet access. I'm sure they could find some judge in their back pocket. Everybody has to pay a $50 fine and they wind up with 3 trillion or so. I would think those board room greedheads would be salivating over the prospect.

If they come after me, they'll be in for a big surprise. I have almost 4,400 songs on my computer, and there is no way in Hell that I am giving them up for a bunch of fucking suits.

HEY RIAA, FUCK YOU AND DIE!!!!

TheSherminator is so right about what the RIAA is all about. I can't believe that Johnathon Lamy really believes that this isn't about MONEY. What a moronic dumb ass!! He knows its about money. It's also about how much money his ass can make working for the RIAA!!

"RIAA spokesman Johnathan Lamy spoke with us by phone. "It is very clear under the law that downloading or uploading a copyrighted song is against the law. "

It is NOT very clear under the law that downloading OR uploading is against the law. Let me repeat that for those morons out there that think otherwise. IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO DOWNLOAD. It still hasn't been fully decided in a court of law whether or not uploadiing is illegal either. The presonal use exemption of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act permits recording for personal use only. Funny how none of the RIAA lawyers will talk about that!

House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971
H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:

Home Recording

"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."

"It is very clear under the law that downloading or uploading a copyrighted song is against the law...."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the RIAA come out and state that they were only going after uploaders? To me, this is the first step in getting people acclimated to being afraid to share or download any files. The old boling frog in the water analogy applies well.

INeedALover, I'm glad you cite the AHRA. I've obtained a copy of that bill and agree with you. It does apply to personal use. I'd love to see someone use this a a defense against the facist-like RIAA and the artists who support it (That's you Sheryl Crow, Disie Chicks, etc.)

Come get ME you motherfuckers.
I just won the lottery and will fry your sorry asses in court. Discovery can be a bitch.
Bring it on.

ooh, the lottery! congrats

I can't WAIT for them to come after me.
I have nothing to take, therefore nothing to lose.

So did they sue him for downloading or is it another wrong article?

Now here is a VERY interesting thing. I just clicked on that gropster site from here to see what it was all about...10 minutes later I've received an email from the same site (no, I sure as heck didn't give it to them)....which leads me to believe that this particular site is an riaa trap! What kind of program does it take for them to trace email address's that fast?

If you have any cookies, there's a good chance that they just got it from there. That's interesting though.

We need to contact these people, we need a family to stand up to the bastards in court with support of the Eff, possibly Leflaw, this cause I would gladly donate money to, the RIAA's illegal eco-terrism must be stopped, some one has to fight!!!

So here's my good advice for the day, make sure if you are gong to download music from the net make sure you are getting it from a good legitimate illegal sight

Is there anyway to transfer liability of copyright infringement to someone else?

The RIAA I have heard state that they are going after both downloaders and uploaders a few times before. But they also have stated that they are going after the ones who distribute large volumes of songs on P2P. However, I believe when articles have said that the RIAA is going after downloaders, it has been a combination of misconceptions between the terms download, upload, and sharing, or the RIAA has intentionally lied about it to try and scare the hell out of everybody. But in reality, I believe they are only going after the sharers/uploaders.

Keep in mind that many people who download music are completely unaware that their downloaded MP3s are saved in a shared folder publicly accessible to everyone else by default on a lot if not most P2P programs. I think the RIAA uses this to their advantage to try and put fright into the public that they are going after both downloaders and uploaders. I suppose you could arguably say that someone who downloads music and it is saved to a publicly shared folder by defualt is a downloader. And it's very possible that nobody ever downloaded any files from their public shared folder, but the songs are still publicly shared for anyone to come in and see or download from them. I suppose in that case, you could arguably say that person is a downloader. But they were caught because their files they downloaded were shared by default to the public.

Once again many people are completely unaware of the fact that there downloads are shared by default. Once again, I believe the RIAA uses this to their advantage to make it look like they are going after both downloaders and uploaders. But in reality, the downloaders they say they go after had their downloads in a publicly shared folder by default, thus they were easily tracked and sued.

I think it is important to know the difference between downloading and uplaoding, only downloading and not sharing, and/or downloading. When it is said that someone was sued for music downloading, who's to say those songs they downloaded weren't being shared either?? That part is likely left out in many articles as part of a terrorizing tactic by the RIAA which they can much more easily suit to their advantage as a result from many people not knwoing that the songs they downloaded were in a public shared folder by default. Unless an article actually says that someone was sued for only downloading and not sharing at alll, I'm not at all convinced that anybone has ever been sued for only downloading and not sharing. Keep in mind that how would the RIAA really be able to track someone who only downloads and doesn't share with the technical and legal difficulties that could be involved. They would have to illegally hack into your PC to see what you have in private folders which is very against the law, or eaves drop on your Internet connection which is also agains the law and difficult to do, set up a fake song that's a spyware trojan for you to download that would track and send information back to them on what you download which I would think is also illegal, and/or they would have to let you download from them, but in that case, how could they let you download from them and sue you for you taking something that they offered you??? If they don't want people to have it, they shouldn't have given it to you to take in the first place. That's indian giving. The RIAA I'm sure dran well knows this, so that's why them FASCISTS use the things people are unaware of I just mentioned to their advantage to try and put terror into the minds of people. but in reality I believe people are only caught because they were uploading or their songs they downloaded were in a publicly shared folder for anyone else to come and download from.

However, this article does seem to lead me to believe more fright that this could possibly somehow shockingly be someone sued for only downloading and not sharing because it is a website and not P2P. Does this website have share and download capabilities on it? Or is it only a site with music available for you to download and you can't upload or share music with anyone else on it?? What do you think?

I'm not going in there to find out, but I'm curious why a site like Gropster is still out there stating very clearly that it is 100% LEGAL to download their stuff. So, who here has tried that site? What were your experiences there?

"The RIAA maintains the lawsuits aren't about money. "The idea here is not to win lawsuits is not to make money," Lamy says. "It's to send a message that there are consequences to this activity.""

Yeah... peoplemight find something other than YOUR stuff...you don't want to compete with free and legal as much as free and illegal...

"It is very clear under the law that Downloading or uploading a copyrighted song is against the law."

ummmmmm NO!!!

I wonder how many of them sweet Riaa people have accounts here on dmusic ?

Let's play "Beat The RIAA at Their Own Game"!

Cost of 250 CD's @ $18 per: $4500
Number of songs at 13 per CD: 3,250

Cost of downloading 3,250 songs: $0
Cost of settling if you get caught (fat chance): ~$2,000-4000.

Being sued for downloading results in a GRAND TOTAL SAVINGS OF: $500 to $2500!

The moral? Easy! If you download one song, you may have to settle for a disproportionately large sum of cash. If you download 4,000, you settle for a disproportionately small sum of cash! The more you download the more you save!

Good job RIAA. You overlooked the fact that it's only you morons who can't do math.

he is right when he states its not about the money its about the control.. they want you to listen when they say you can listen and buy it the way they want you to buy... they hate all the choices people have today...

Hammer of Justice KICKS ASS!!!!

How can they say it's not about money? How is this idiot? It about nothing but money - on both sides of the fence. People are tired of spending over $20 for an album that ends up with only one good song on it. And the RIAA is upset that people won't give them the $20 for one song.
Notice the people who they have gone after? Obviously specially selected people who would most likely settle and not go to court. I wonder what the RIAA would do if someone said "Sue me - I'll file bankrupcy and you'll get nothing from me and look at all the money those attorneys cost you."

Pepe512000,

Nice post. And I couldn't agree more. Support your local leeching site! Our sites love leechers. In fact, we get disappointed if the servers aren't busy.

So, if you'd like to download some high quality mp3 (riaa material), just shoot me an email. I don't know how to make this any simpler. I hate the riaa,won't you join me in my little disobedience?

raidslam@nospam.yahoo.com

"Let's play "Beat The RIAA at Their Own Game"!..."

You know, it's funny TheSherminator should write this post...

When my uncle asked me what I would do should I find myself being sued by the RIAA for the ridiculously small number of songs I have downloaded in the past, I laughed and said "I'll keep downloading until I get my money's worth. And by the time I agree to settle, I'll have every song I could never afford in the first place."

I guess economically, it would just make more sense. It's really kinda sad.

RaidHHI i thought this was Boycott_RIAA not promote RIAA site... if thats the way it is i will go buy that new Slipnot that want real bad..

I cant win for losing ... lets see you want artist to stay independent but you wont share thier files cause they are not RIAA.... FUCK the best thing to do is get label deal so people will start listening to our music.. there is no hope in being independent exspecially with this type of mindset... if you want people to recognize then make some no name the top downloaded artist on web and people might start to believe in your theory's...

FUCKING SHEEP!!!! BAAAAA

One of these days they will sue a family who knows they have no way of paying, and since judgements can't be discharged by bankruptcy, simply decides to take out the CEOs and other high level executives of a few record labels. After all, if you are going to be a slave to them for the rest of your life because there is no way in hell you can pay off the fines, why not kill? Remember, most terrorists are people who feel they have nothing to lose for one reason or another. Putting more people in the position of having nothing to lose with these lawsuits only invites violent retaliation including assasinations and even suicide bombings.

"Let's play "Beat The RIAA at Their Own Game"!

Cost of 250 CD's @ $18 per: $4500
Number of songs at 13 per CD: 3,250

Cost of downloading 3,250 songs: $0
Cost of settling if you get caught (fat chance): ~$2,000-4000.

Being sued for downloading results in a GRAND TOTAL SAVINGS OF: $500 to $2500!

The moral? Easy! If you download one song, you may have to settle for a disproportionately large sum of cash. If you download 4,000, you settle for a disproportionately small sum of cash! The more you download the more you save!

Good job RIAA. You overlooked the fact that it's only you morons who can't do math."

Sherm, this is "PRICELESS!"

why can we not turn this sueing process around, let,s put our data in the shared file on our computers make sure it,s copywrighted,if it,s close to the same size file as what they are looking for , i assume the file will have to be downloaded to see what it is and if the right people do this, let,s sue.

Share someone else's copyrighted material under the guise of being an RIAA song, then when they download it, contact that person and tell him and hope he doesn't sue you too : p

anyone know what happened to the counter-argument that for the RIAA to know what someone was offering, they had to download it, thus breaking the law themselves? I heard that one bantered about for a while, then it disappeared. I think it's a good thing to look at, because it would be VERY comparable to entrapment.
I have to say that it's a very good point independentmusician brings up. Hell, I'd pay the 4K if they said I could download up to that amount. Of course, if I was downloading riaacrap, I'd already have that amount and a LOT more.
ttmmm

That was SHERM'S point, not mine, I was just applauding him.

Date: June 20, 2004 @ 1:50 AM
Share someone else's copyrighted material under the guise of being an RIAA song, then when they download it, contact that person and tell him and hope he doesn't sue you too : p
Do it legal like, you data, your copywright,you sue, they loose,little overhead and the chance to hit the jackpot, and return all their favors!