"Now, hundreds of downloads later, the music industry is suing her for thousands of dollars. Her lawyer's bill is $1,000 and climbing, and 20-year-old Foley, the area's first accused music pirate, is wondering how she's going to pay for it all.

"I really don't have any idea how. My parents won't help me. My mom says it's all my fault because she warned me about downloading a year ago," said Foley, a 2003 Portage Central graduate now attending Michigan State University.
"I didn't really take it seriously, because, like, what are the chances ... that I'm going to get nailed for this?" she said.

In the 15 months since the Recording Industry Association of America declared legal warfare against downloaders, some 7,000 people have been targeted. Among them are Foley and two other local residents who have been identified and sued.

Kasey Perkins, 30, of Kalamazoo, and Courtney Helvey, a 21-year-old Western Michigan University student, also face federal lawsuits.

"This is a campaign that is steadily expanding to new jurisdictions every day," said Jonathan Lamy, spokesman for the RIAA, the trade group that represents the major U.S. record labels.

Perkins, sued on Oct. 28, is accused of downloading and distributing music from various artists, including Outkast, Alicia Keys, Ice Cube and Mobb Deep. She lives in an apartment complex near the WMU campus. She has not yet answered the complaint in the court file and did not respond to numerous requests for interviews.

Helvey, named in a Nov. 18 suit, is accused of downloading and distributing songs by Usher, Brooks and Dunn, Paula Abdul and Third Eye Blind, among others. She lives off Drake Road on the west side of campus. She has not yet answered the complaint, and attempts to reach her were unsuccessful.

Foley is charged with downloading songs by Kenny Chesney, Linkin Park, Green Day, Incubus and others, according to a lawsuit filed Aug. 25. She acknowledged in a recent telephone interview that she used the file-sharing platform Kazaa to download an estimated 600 songs over the past year, but to be sued for that is "outrageous," Foley said.

"I just think that this situation is outrageous, choosing a couple students to use as an example," she said. "I just think it's stupid and pointless and it's mean." "

Please read the rest of the article at
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-12/110373241487160.xml
======================SNIP==============================
"I just think it's stupid and pointless and it's mean."

I believe that pretty much summarizes the RIAA AND their "sue 'em all"
activities for the past year.

Has something changed, or is the story written wrong. Are they sued for DOWNLOADING, or offering files for sharing/upload?

Yet another convert that won't be buying anymore of the music majors products. Heck of a way to get members for the cause though.

Appearently the majors think there is an unending source of buying public and that the faucet will never turn off. When the public works that the buying public represents finally gets up a head of steam it will be interesting to see what claim they can make that accounts for who to blame for the lack of sales then. It will be at that time that corporate majors won't know who the RIAA and MPAA are. RIGHT....

Use Kazaa, get burned. When will people learn?
Okay not that she's flying in the RIAA's pan, what can she do? Have we established anything she can use in her defense?

not=now. flying=frying (sigh! Typos)

To: Outkast, Alicia Keys, Ice Cube, Mobb Deep, Usher, Brooks and Dunn, Paula Abdul, Third Eye Blind, Kenny Chesney, Linkin Park, Green Day, Incubus (and others)...

No soup for you!

I wonder how many artists really stand behind the RIAA and record labels? Sue jobs = wage earnings for the RIAA.

"Has something changed, or is the story written wrong. Are they sued for DOWNLOADING, or offering files for sharing/upload?"

I wonder, too. I'm guessing it's both, that she downloaded and didn't take the songs out of the default sharing mode.
Detection is easiest when songs are in the status of being offered for uploading.

Diogenes2 detection is at its highest when you are taking other people's property without their permission.

If I was sued I will neither settle ( I am unable to compromise on anything anyway and I am not affraid to be in toruble.)

I have informations that the RIAA is just droping cases that do not settle because they can not afford to take them to court. They might try to make few examples though. If they take me to court I will not pay a penny to any attorneys but I will go to any court convocations to defend my cause. In the worst case senario and if I lose in front of court corruption I just don't pay. What are they going to do about it? If things go to far or if I have some asset I hire an attorney and I declare banckruty under chapter 7 and all these RIAA lawers pigs have to get the hell out of my personal space! I don't want to mention the foolishness of these RIAA parasites believing that they can shield themselve behind the justice system.

Thess morons need to know that once they corrupt the justice system there is no justice and however is stronger win! We are stronger!

And there is those that instead of hiring a lawer will hire a hit man. How foolish and stupid can they be?

Someone said : If you want peace work for justice. I guess the RIAA want war and this is what they should get: WAR!

These are some ideas to attack:

Targets: RIAA the 4 majors (Time Warner, Sony/BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal), their law firms and the company they hire to spy on people

Actions:
Jamming their phone lines by having as many people as possible to constantly call them and making crank calls.

Making their fax machine useless by constantly and repeatitively bonbarding their machine with junk faxes.

Going regularly to the music store and making as many CD as possible unsalable.

Constantly having as many people as possible to RUN DDOS software against the "legual" download sites that carry RIAA stuff (yes this include Itune but of course does not include Dmusic!) To interfer with their operation.

Please add more ideas of what else can we do to destray them.

Darn you Lars for starting this whole thing. I hate mettalica.

DDoSing would just damage our reputation - we are supposed to be fighting for free speech and fair use, not just vandals.

Even if it would be fun.

"Diogenes2, detection is at its highest when you are taking other people's property without their permission."

You sound like someone spouting the RIAA company line.
Are you related to the original "codeworrier" who got banned on our forums?

Okay, explain this to me logistically.
The bots are monitoring individual downloading and uploading, going on continuously at the rate of milllions of transactions per day. Are you saying their programming mechanism favors logging records of these millions of individual downloading (and compiling future coordination of all that) rather than scanning to track large quantities of files being offered for sharing (as tied to a specific (easily trackable) computer ID number on the P2P system?
I have trouble believing the former; it isn't practical.
Where do you get your information?

It goes like this: A P2P user who downloads hundreds of copyrighted files AND then leaves them in default sharing status (such as these P2P systems are configured), either unwittingly or uncaringly, has them available for others to download and thus is, technically, multiplying his/her initial infringing indiscretions.
(The RIAA estimates each song open for downloading to be estimated at ten opportunities for chain-reaction violations.)
That's easily trackable; then, all the RIAA has to do is decide which computer ID numbers (having hundreds of copyright files available for downloading, for example) they think is to their tactical advantage to add to their subpoeana list of the month.

Codeworrier, who's being fooled in our disagreement here, you or me?
I hope you're not someone who underestimates the astute knowledge level of some of the folks around here (not including myself in that category), because, if you are, you're just wasting time (yours as well as ours).

Come on, forum friends reading this, help me out here.
(Thanks.)

she was probably a worthless republican anyway.

"DDoSing would just damage our reputation - we are supposed to be fighting for free speech and fair use, not just vandals."

I disagree. Our reputation is that we defend pirates. Because our reputation is whatever the RIAA says it is, because that's all anybody cares about.

It would be nice if people had the capacity to distinguish good from bad, but they don't. Anybody that defends downloading has already been demonized by the media. My mom has seen this website up on this computer and asked if "they can find out I was here and try to sue me." If you want to depend on people to recognize that we are good upstanding citizens with good intentions... good luck. It will never happen. So I wonder if the effort to make that impression is worth it.

I support anything that gets us closer to digital freedom.

"Perkins, sued on Oct. 28, is accused of downloading and distributing music from various artists, including Outkast, Alicia Keys, Ice Cube and Mobb Deep."

I'm thinking it's not that she's downloading or distributing, but that she's getting hit because she has piss poor taste in music. Oh well, another $3-5000 lines the pocket of the music industry.

"detection is at its highest when you are taking other people's property without their permission."

Like master recordings, copyrights, unpaid royalties...

Found Dolly Parton yet?

codeworrier0, i also am not one of the "astute" people here, this is why i'll say this....blow yourself pay attention to what's going on.

hey, mmnuc - neither am i


I guess nobody here would remember a post I made over a year ago about beating the RIAA at their own game. It basically boils down to: you'll get sued for 3-6 grand no matter what. So, if you download enough, you'll really end up getting your money's worth, even if you do get sued.

I forgot what numbers I came up with, but at one point being sued can cost you 20 bucks or more per song. But if you keep going and don't stop, you'll end up with thousands of dollars in savings. That's only if you dl riaa music though, which I do not.. but the ppl getting sued do.

oh, and ditto mmnuc.

codeworrior, you dick. If it was taking someone's property, then it they wouldn't have it anymore (hence, "taking"). P2P just results in EVEN MORE of their property existing.

"Darn you Lars for starting this whole thing. I hate mettalica."

Yeah... and they've experienced some backlash for it too... To bad people are stupid and continue to buy their crap at all anyways. A good way to show how you feel is to never buy anything Metallica does ever again. A better way is to never buy anything from an RIAA label again.

I have their old reighteous music on "metallica and justice for all"

I'm still waiting for a direct mail address so i can send their unbelievably hyppocritical music back to them.

"halls of justice painted green, money talking" --the OLD metallica (pre satanic-contract)

"I disagree. Our reputation is that we defend pirates. Because our reputation is whatever the RIAA says it is, because that's all anybody cares about."

Yup,
This is where we sit now.
"Legal" and "Moral" avenues prove fruitless
without anyone allowed to know about them.
We as p2p supporters have 1 of 2 reputations,
depending on the source of "permissable"
information.

1. Thieves ..
2. Defenders of thieves.

Good ideas have been offered them.
They turned 'em down.
It is readily apparent there is to be no compromise
or even an attempt at compromise for them.

This IS a war, you know.
One on a different type of front.
One without death, yet still, not bloodless,
by any means.
Ask those that have been forced to settle.

It IS time to fight back, less peacefully.
They use any means necessary.
Time for us to do the same.

BTW,
If someone a whole lt smarter than I REALLY
wants to keep to the high road, I DO have
a suggestion.

Track down the REAL sources of the Virii that
proliferate primarily through the "popular"
P2P networks, and expose those sources.

Dreddsnik,

We already know. Sony/BMG, Warner, Vivendi and EMI.

I think I know what YOU mean George, and I can't say I entirely disagree. Pop "Product" is essentially a virus, spreading more quickly than the Black Plague.
The Virii I mean are the actual computer virii planted on the popular P2P networks to discourage casual use through fear.
I have no doubt these also come from the same sources you cited. Problem is proof.
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
It would be great if someone could actually locate a source, and provide proof of THOSE illegal activities.

My apologies if you are talking about the same virii I am, and not the festering swill CC tries to force on us.

Actually, I am talking about the same thing as you are. Have been for more than a year.

---------------

At this point we're supposed to have forgotten that, at the very least, the RIAA was the one who began flooding the P2Ps with "spoof" files. Reports at the beginning of 2003 indicated the organization was working on viruses and trojan horses. Whether they were ever deployed or not is anyone's guess.

"People who turn to free services for songs, movies or software may get something else they haven't bargained for: viruses. Bruce Hughes, the director of malicious-code research at TruSecure, a computer security company, says that as much as 45 percent of the free software available on Kazaa may be infected with computer viruses. A Sharman spokesman said the company provides virus protection for downloads."

http://news.dmusic.com/article/9155

One way of legal defence that I have to wonder if it'd work... If caught with an illegal AC/DC mp3, see about getting Angus Young into the courtroom, caught with Tool, see about getting Maynard... I really wonder what the Artists have to say when the RIAA isnt putting words into thier mouths.
Im going to go download some Brittney and Hillary now... do they have videos at kazaa?

she can use in her defense

Prove it!

I was looking at the beginning of this article again.
Maybe the RIAA would be flattered to become known as the grinch that stole, er, got P2P outlawed?
With a grimace that would have made Felix Unger proud, the labels scowl at the unexpected and unfettered and unending options of material that file-sharing provides for the public . . . THEY CAN'T ALLOW SUCH THINGS (it diminishes their power over what they've had control over for so long).

The RIAA is the Grinch that stole Music!