Submission by Ein-Tier

The targets of the first lawsuits against music fans who share songs on the Internet include an elderly man in Texas who rarely uses his computer, a Yale University professor and an unemployed woman in New York who says she didn't know she was breaking the law.

Each faces potentially devastating civil penalties or settlements that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

The Recording Industry Association of America launched the next stage of its aggressive anti-piracy campaign Monday, filing 261 federal lawsuits across the country. The action was aimed at what the RIAA described as "major offenders" illegally distributing on average more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each, but lawyers warned they may ultimately file thousands of similar cases.

Durwood Pickle, 71, of Richardson, Texas, said his teenage grandchildren downloaded music onto his computer during their visits to his home, says Ted Bridis in an Associated Press story. He said his grown son had explained the situation in an earlier e-mail to the recording industry association.

"I didn't do it, and I don't feel like I'm responsible," Pickle said in an interview. "It's been stopped now, I guarantee you that."

Pickle, who was unaware he was being sued until contacted by The Associated Press, said he rarely uses the computer in his home.

"I'm not a computer-type person," Pickle said. "They come in and get on the computer. How do I get out of this?"

Yale University professor Timothy Davis said he will stop sharing music files immediately, Bridis says. He downloaded about 500 songs from others on the Internet before his Internet provider notified him about the music industry's interest in his activities.

"I've been pretending it was going to go away," said Davis, who teaches photography.

Another defendant, Lisa Schamis of New York, said her Internet provider warned her two months ago that record industry lawyers had asked for her name and address, but she said she had no idea she might be sued. She acknowledged downloading "lots" of music over file-sharing networks.

"This is ridiculous," said Schamis, 26. "I didn't understand it was illegal."

She said the music industry shouldn't have the right to sue.

"It's wrong on their part," she said.

And then, there's this one courtesy of The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32731.html

i feel bad for these folks thay had no idea and i bleave them no matter what the riaa sed saying thay got the word out file sharing is illeagal yea right i bleave thay may have got the word out to a few maybe if thay would have coverd are web site better and folks could have came hear for the real info all these folks may have not been sued thay could have just stoped useing,sharing,and buying RIAA music and supported the indapendent artests hahahahaha

a lot of fish caught are being caught in this (inter)net....they should be proud of themselves making small kids and grandparents cry....something so public for so long now being treated like a precious commodiity(sp)....what do they do for an encore sue the pope for unlicensed renditions of rosary prayers?

nice post punktiger....i guess they will want a portion of her lunch money to even out things

The back lash on this, especially with grandparents and kids will only make our mveement stronger, all the RIAA is doing is creating animosty towrd themselves, because they don't care what kind of bad press this gives them, they want your money and that is that. Did you see the interview with cary sue, he and the rest of the "big wigs" do not care what harm hey cause as long as we start buying their product. But in the long run this will seal their coffin and they will go the way of the dinosaur, extinct. The way I see, I feel sorry for the little guys who own record shops for the Boycott, but we are not the reason that they may go out of biz. The RIAA is at fault, and they are the ones to blame for the boycott. So if you own a small outlet you need to write your congress person and let them know that the way the RIAA has handled this situation, is diretly affecting you.

I whole heartedly believe these people when they claim ignorance. Representatives of the riaa have said it themselves. There is no warning to people on P2P's this is what they claim for child porn at least. I do not see how it could be any different for music. Not to mention that they have blaintently ignored the fact that some people do have the right to posses certain music. IE the have bought the album. How can the posibly get a warrent without prooving the person does not own the music. Well I know how. Money, and greedy judges.

You know what's funny? If they go after someone who's unemployed with no money then the RIAA is just wasting time and money. Lawyers even have a name for those kind of people. They're called "Judgement-Proof". This means that, even though the RIAA would sue and win, they still wouldnt be able to collect anything off them. It's like trying to beat up a dead corpse.

I read the washington post article today about the lawsuits, and here's a quote from Cary-Sue about those being taken to court:

"We expect to hear, 'Hey, it wasn't me, it was my kid.' If they prefer the lawsuit amended to name the kid, we'll do that."

This man should be publicly flogged for actually encouraging suing children, legal minors, who have little or no defense. This is the most shameful thing I have ever heard from anyone. This man brags about suing children.

For that reason, and countless others, the boycott rolls on...

"We expect to hear, 'Hey, it wasn't me, it was my kid.' If they prefer the lawsuit amended to name the kid, we'll do that."

It is all about money now, now artist rights, no consumer rights but plain old cash, that what this whole thing is all about. BOYCOTT THEM TO DEATH

This is outragous, THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW.

Check it out, please tell me if am way out of it here......

Copywright law is not applicable to partial portions of work, correct?

I mean you can sample and distribute and quote pieces of a work rgh?

Well if a record company says no single avail for an entire album and claims the album as a whole work than why is snatcing a single a complete infringment,..
ps. sorry for the spelling, at work must type fast......

What's next - suing a kindly old grandmother, a 12 year-old in a wheel chair, a young man dieing of AIDS? The PR fallout on this will be horrendous. This has got to be the worst PR move in history.

Well at least we can thank the RIAA for something. They are making examples of the poor, the elderly, and the influential, and also the young(first person sued). They are speeding up there destruction by doing so.

Here's an article on msnbc.com about some of the tactics used to identify the alleged file sharers in the first round of the lawsuits:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/963684.asp?0cv=CB20

You watch RIAA one day is gonna sue the wrong person and their gonna get their punk asses kicked literally and metaphorically

The thinking on this is a little off. If you are going to attack the problem do it the right way... and here is what I believe should be done.

1. Find (and list) all the countries in the world that allow free copying on the Internet while also having a zero tolerance attitude towards the RIAA and the corporate (Hollywood) behemoths.

2. List aquired, establish a database of all 'safe' websites in those countries.

3. Put out the word to all file sharers to only go to those websites where there are no legal repercussions.

This is the way to attack the problem but the word must be put out!!!

This is right up there with going 57 in a 55 for Gosh sakes!

PyroHazzard: I am that person. they sue me and it will be the wild bunch.

Don't read about local news from a website thats across the ATLANTIC.

http://nypost.com/ Hurry and check the site today before they remove the cover of the Post.
http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/5349.htm
Thats the article in case you miss todays Post.

Anyway ya don't sue 12 year old girls in my TOWN and get away with it. Go to hell you sons of bitches, this means war.

By the way, pick up a real copy of the NY post and ya can get a nice lil yankee magazine that comes in side. the newspaper is only a quarter.

woodhead, tasadar24 -- ye're completely and absolutely RIGHT!! As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "what doesn't kill us, empowers us". It means, that what attacks us, but doesn't do it ultimatively, only empowers us. It's what will happen here: RIAA will get no better opinion that president Johnson for the Vietnam war (and the war itself). They are the same sort of things. Or, comparing them to Polish public figuers, they aren't better than some of our politicians, who are alleged to be corrupt (with bribes as large as 17,5 mln PLN/ca. 4mln USD involved, and the cases as 'buying' the bills in the parliament; the special parliamentary commission (which imitates the US Senate commissions, and esp. the one which investigated the Watergate scandal) is now investigating the whole scandal (called "Rywingate" from the name of Lew Rywin, a man suspected of the corruptive proposal). Anyway, our govt's public support has fallen from ca. 40% to ca. 6% in few months ... I hope that RIAA will follow the path; esp. that their activity is *much more* wrong; while the Rywingate suspects were allegedly proposing to "buy" the legal acts, RIAAites simply tantalize the average, and even the poor people. And yes, we WILL use it against them. PUT THE RIAA BEHIND THE BARS!!

Cheerz,
Critto

besides, would we do ANYTHING to support those people? If not we, than maybe someone else? EFF? ACLU? subpoenadefense.org? Anybody?

If we let those poor folks ALONE, they will be EATEN by RIAAite sharks and cannibals, and other will be scared by their example (it's the typical totalitarian method: to victimize one, make an example of him/her, and scare everyone else to death). ARE WE GONNA TO ALLOW IT? I don't think so. So what are we planning to do about it? Any ideas? Maybe a money-gathering rally (on the streets, in the internet, nearby the the RIAA's headquarters, in the schools, at the victims' homes, etc)?

Cheerz,
Critto

OK..THIS IS THE MESSAGE TO ALL 12 YEAR OLDS...LISTEN UP KIDS...
"Listening to RIAA music is BAD...BAD~!
You MUST stay away from all music put out by RIAA labels. Don't buy ANY RIAA label music. Just say NO to the RIAA and all its music."

If you share lots of music files, here's a GREAT way to shield your music and your wealth from those RIAA creeps:

1. Make a back-up set of all your MP3-CDs and store them inside a hidden shoe box at one of your family relatives' houses.

2. Invest in gold bullion. Buy from a local coin dealer and always pay cash on it.

Then if the RIAA subpoenas you, threatens to confiscate your music collection, and tries to determine your net worth, you could hide your stash of gold in the remote closet shoebox as well and keep it a secret.

Gold is an asset that's *very* easy to hide. On the contrary, houses, cars, cash, stocks, bonds, and mutual funds aren't so easy to hide from prying eyes.

If the RIAA or government attorneys search through your bank statements and wonder what those regularly-occurring cash withdrawals were used for (which you used to purchase your gold), just tell them that you're a compulsive gambler and you regularly blew it all at a casino!

You could be worth several hundred thousand dollars and easily make it appear that you just have a few thousand.

At the end of the entire ordeal, you'd still have your beloved music and a large portion of your wealth intact. Amen, suckas!

That's it!
A "just say no to the RIAA" campaign. That should work. It worked for Nancy, why not us?, lol ; - )

~goingnova

thats not a bad idea DiscoProJoe