Miss. woman to fight suit on music downloads
# Defendant says she didn't respond to $4,000 settlement offered by Recording Industry Association of America

By Billy Watkins
bwatkins@clarionledger.com

Ann Roberts of Corinth was offered the opportunity to settle out of court with The Recording Industry Association of America for downloading music free on the Internet.

"They wrote me a letter a few months ago and said I could pay them $4,000 for 500-and-something songs," says the 32-year-old Roberts. "I didn't even respond to them because I think they're full of (expletive)."

FAST FACTS

Since September 2003, The Recording Industry Association of America has filed more than 18,200 lawsuits against individuals nationwide. More than 4,700 cases have been settled, with others in various stages of litigations. No case has gone to trial. The average settlement is reported to range between $4,000 and $5,000

But the RIAA isn't backing down. Roberts was one of four Mississippians named as defendants Friday in lawsuits filed by the record company representative, seeking damages for allegedly downloading music illegally.

Also named as defendants: Eddie Dinkins and Cynthia Jordan, both of Jackson, and Theresa Huddleston of Kosciusko. Seventy-nine people from eight states were targeted in the RIAA's latest attempt to crack down on people downloading music for free.

Since September 2003, the RIAA has filed more than 18,200 lawsuits against individuals nationwide. More than 4,700 cases have been settled, with others in various stages of litigations. No case has gone to trial. The average settlement is reported to range between $4,000 and $5,000.

Jenni Engebretsen, director of communications for the RIAA, says downloading music for free continues to be a "huge problem" for the music industry.

Not only do the artists go unpaid but so do the songwriters.

"The thing is, there are so many sites now that are legal and affordable," Engebretsen says. "And downloading just one song, let alone hundreds, is illegal under U.S. copyright laws."

Roberts, who says she is disabled, says she will fight the lawsuit.

"I'll hire a lawyer and do whatever I have to do," she says. "First of all, yes, we downloaded songs off LimeWire, but it's listed on the Internet as a free site. If it's a free site, then why are they asking for money? Sites that require you to pay for things are listed as 'pay sites' and require a credit card. LimeWire didn't ask for anything."

On the LimeWire Web site, in the Frequently Asked Questions section, it states: "LimeWire BASIC is completely free to download and use."

"To me, I didn't do anything wrong," says Roberts, a country music fan. "If we were downloading songs, then trying to turn around and sell them, that's one thing. But I'm disabled, draw $600 a month, and they're going to sue me for downloading a song by some multimillionaire star? It's ridiculous."

Roberts says after the phone call from the RIAA, she disabled her computer so that it could no longer download or play music.

Huddleston, 45, says she also received a called from the RIAA.

"I told them the same thing I'm telling you now - I don't download music," she says.

Huddleston says a family member downloaded some songs a few months ago using her AOL account. She has since canceled the account. She says the family member downloaded music for listening pleasure, not to bootleg CDs.

Dinkins and Jordan could not be reached for comment.

Music stars of every genre have pleaded with fans to stop using Web sites that offer songs for free. Instead, they urge them to buy music at pay sites, such as iTunes or Napster, or at record stores.

"(The music industry) must take a very strong position against the stealing of our writing and music or else those writings and music will become as cheap as the garbage in the streets," the legendary Stevie Wonder is quoted on www.musicunited.org.

"Piracy is an insidious act performed in an almost offhanded way by people who would never consider stealing anything else," says Glen Ballard, one of Hollywood's top music producers and a native of Natchez, on musicunited.org.

Last month, a Jackson woman, Fredrica Brent, was sued in U.S. District Court in Jackson by the Motion Picture Association of America on behalf of Disney Enterprises Inc., for allegedly swapping movies online using peer-to-peer software. Brent denied the charge but added her three children and some neighbors had access to her computer.

The case is still pending.

Hey country music stars. They are suing one of your fans. Not that you'd give a rats ass anyways. You're not any different than any other RIAA artist, are you?

Buy music? Since when should we have to pay for crap?

There's crap in the toilet as well on the airwaves.

If you want me to pay for crap, I could either send you a couple rolls of toilet paper or a counterfeit $20 bill, because that's all it's worth to me.

Don't worry "Little" Stevie Wonder. I will steer clear of any of your songs. I don't need any more music by has-been artists. Plenty available by people who want me to listen.

They are trying to recondition the public to think that they need to pay for music, that music shouldn't be free. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

The irony here is that every time someone coughs up money to the RIAA (about $18 million collected so far), "not only do the artists go unpaid but so do the songwriters."

The artists and songwriters don't get a dime. They just lose fans.

Don't be too hard on Stevie Wonder. He hasn't ever seen the Internet.

yeah... I have one question though.

Why are they worried?

I mean they get enough money from contract deals and exclusive contracts from other companies why are they so worried that they would lose money off of a simple dinky song that sucks?

The fact is most of their songs suck... so I dont think they are losing any money off of the songs they download.

I dont think that may be entirely true... but it's just my opinion.

The RIAA is going after ordinary people with limited resources who really don't understand what they're up against. Ignore their subpoena? They'll win a default judgement against you that will probably be a larger amount then if you had settled. Don't pay? They'll go after your possessions or have your wages garnished. Want to fight them? It'll cost a fortune in legal fees. That's why most people just settle. Even if you had never downloaded music you'd probably be advised by a lawyer to settle. That's why it amounts to extortion by the RIAA. I also blame the lawmakers and the courts. They have exended copyrights and given far too much power to copyright holders.

The real goal of the RIAA is not to eliminate P2P. In fact, piracy and P2P have given the RIAA ammunition to convince lawmakers to get copyright laws changed in their favor, and to get the cooperation of the consumer electronics industry in implementing DRM. The goal of the intertainment industry, and the RIAA in particular, is to erase fair use rights, achieve a hardware lock-down of all content, and to suppress competition from indie artists. In other words, to use the law to maintain their antiquated business model in the digital age. Unless the laws are changed, or the consumer electronics industry challenges the DRM implementation the entertainment industry is seeking, they might succeed. This would chill innovation, limit creativity, and eliminate freedoms that our culture has previously enjoyed.

(great summary by IFeelFree)

IFeelFree -- You're dead on about the lawsuit scenario. Three years after the RIAA started suing, there has still not been one single trial?

Big Tobacco was pretty damn arrogant, too. Until they met their first jury. Same lawyers are working for the RIAA now.

As for P2P, that's in the hands of the public. While this is better than the RIAA running it, the public likes a lot of stuff that is pretty damn lame. The public also has the right NOT to buy into the next generation of electronics, wherein the Great Technology Downgrade accelerates.

But they will. And they'll like it that way because that's what all the cool kids are doing.

George, I wonder how much of the RIAA companies bottom line ( including Bainwol's and Sherman's salaries) have been funded by settlements and judgements.

I've read that the RIAA has made over $18 million from the lawsuits, so far.

I'm sure that the money actually goes into a coffer to fund further lawsuits. Perhaps a little of it gets paid to RIAA honcho's and staff as some sort of a bonus, but it would just be icing on the cake to them.

"(The music industry) must take a very strong position against the stealing of our writing and music or else those writings and music will become as cheap as the garbage in the streets,"

Talk about being pompous! The RIAA music is just that: garbage in the streets!

Baywool, Shitman, glueman!
This is what you are too! Garbage in the street! Do the world a favor:
Put yourselves into a trashcan and please close the lid. It's stinks. Thank you!


"And downloading just one song, let alone hundreds, is illegal under U.S. copyright laws."

Oh yeah? Next we will download your bobbing head and we will see what is illegal. You are illegal like Zarkawi!

leflaw -- Apparently all you can do is wonder. Good luck finding any kind of financial statements. Since they are not publicly traded, they don't have to make them available.

"I've read that the RIAA has made over $18 million from the lawsuits, so far."

They may have made $18million, but I bet their attorney fees to collect this money is about the same. Attorneys aren't cheap, especially when they actually have to defend themselves in a court of law.

"Attorneys aren't cheap, especially when they actually have to defend themselves in a court of law."

Of all those 18,200 cases, how many actually went to court? I've only heard of two. Maybe someone is aware of more.
BTW, one of them was Patricia Santangelo. Anyone know what the status is of her? I haven't heard anything in at least two months about her situation.

There are several ongoing attempts to make the RIAA prove, well, anything.

Not one case has been judged by a jury. Of course, if you're not old enough to be on a jury, getting a jury of one's peers would be an interesting legal twist.

I realize in 18 posts, this was overlooked...

"First of all, yes, we downloaded songs off LimeWire, but it's listed on the Internet as a free site. If it's a free site, then why are they asking for money? Sites that require you to pay for things are listed as 'pay sites' and require a credit card. LimeWire didn't ask for anything.""

overlooked most likely because it proves the riaa's case against this person. She is guilty as shit of downloading. Think she should take her chances in a courtroom still? I'd like to see it.

"Not one case has been judged by a jury. Of course, if you're not old enough to be on a jury, getting a jury of one's peers would be an interesting legal twist."

Who wants to be the first to lose with a jury of your peers is the real question. Don't assume a jury is nearly as niave as so many here seem to be.

You all seem to think a jury wouldn't nail anybody for pirating the riaa's things, but it's a huge huge gamble your suggesting people take.

downloading has never been the issue, only uploading (distribution). downloading can be defended under fair use in several scenarios, uploading cannot. perversly, downloading from an agent of the RIAA cannot infringe as they are authorized to distribute. copyright laws are totally fucked up and stacked against the consumer.

people need to be informed about jury nullification before they serve.

"downloading can be defended under fair use in several scenarios, uploading cannot."

How so?

Who care about the law once the law has been corrupted?

Who care about what the judges and lawers say? They can take their law book and fuck themsleves with it.

This is not my law. My law is the US constitution.

And By the way RaidHHI Summer 2006 is open season on RIAA and MPAA Agents.

If this will be a case of the copy-infringers vs. the copy-phobes,
the RIAA has most of the applicable laws that money can buy . . . so, I think there's little doubt of the outcome.

(that should have been written: copy-phobes vs. copy-infringers,
not the other way around)