Statement of Lorriane Sullivan
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
"Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry"
September, 30 2003

My name is Lorraine Sullivan. On September 9, 2003 I was named in a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America. This is the written testimony of my account.

In August 2001 my fiancé signed up for the Kazaa under the account name Kissiffer4. It was a couple of months later that I began using Kazaa myself for downloading music.

In the first week of August 2003 I was sent a letter by my cable provider Time Warner alerting me to the fact that they had been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America for my personal information. The letter stated that I was being accused of copyright infringement and Time Warner was being forced to release my information to the RIAA. I immediately called the phone numbers listed for the RIAA and lawyer’s representing the RIAA on the copy of the subpoena and was unable to reach anyone at the RIAA. Next I phoned Time Warner customer service and was essentially told that by customer service not to worry about the matter.

I got rid of Kazaa and all the songs on my hard drive as soon as I got off the phone. I thought by doing so I had nothing left to worry about. However, that turned out not to be the case.

On September 9, 2003 I came home to four messages from reporters asking me for statements in response to being sued by the RIAA.

I immediately contacted the RIAA once again. This time I actually reached a person who forwarded my call to Stan Pierre-Louis. After giving him my information he said he would look up my information and get back to me. When Stan called back he explained the case against me. He told me I was being sued for copy right infringement. He advised me to look at a website called “www.musicunited.org” and further advised that if I were still downloading and sharing files I stop immediately. I willingly told him I had gotten rid of Kazaa and all my files as soon as I contacted Time Warner about the letter of subpoena. I asked him why I was being targeted when Kazaa did not have any disclaimer on their website informing me of the logistics of copy right infringement and not only defaulted to sharing files automatically but also was booted up any time my computer was on because I had a cable modem hooked up. He said he could not discuss that with me since the RIAA were considering or already had entered into litigation with Kazaa. I said that I had read reports that I would be held accountable for $150,000 per song in my “shared folder”. He said the charges could range between $750 per song and $150,000. I was pretty emotional by this point and he told me that the goal of the RIAA was “Not to ruin your life and make you bankrupt”. I replied that actually it felt like that. I told him it was pretty stressful to hear the news from reporters on my answering machine. He then explained reporters had gotten my personal information from waiting around at the courthouse and looking up the names on file. Next he told me that I would be “served” by hand. When I asked what exactly I was being “served” he explained that it was the summons which I took to mean the documents to be used as the case against me. He detailed that there would be a letter with the summons that would explain how I could settle the case out of court if I wished to do so. I asked what that meant and what it involved. He told me that it would include a settlement in the “low thousands” and that it would probably be worth it to “put it all behind” me and get on with my life. I agreed that dealing with the pressure and stress was scary because a probable million plus debt hanging over my head was pretty horrific. He referred me to Pat Benson and said she was handling the settlements. He mentioned that she was not my attorney and that I should not ask her for advice since she was not working for me.

Next I phoned Pat Benson. I left a message that evening and received a call back from her the next afternoon. She too said that if I were still downloading music I should put a stop to it. I explained to her that I had stopped as soon as I received the Time Warner letter. She further explained that I was being sued for copy right infringement. I asked what a settlement consisted of. She asked if I was interested in settling and I said I was interested in knowing how it worked. She told me that would get papers to sign basically admitting to guilt. Then there would be a mutually agreed upon monetary settlement. I asked what the exact number would be. She told me between three and four thousand. She then said I had probably heard about the 12-year-old who had settled for $2,000 and informed me that that particular case had been a “special case” since Brianna’s mother was on public assistance. This particularly upset me because I thought, “Since I worked hard for so many years and waited until my mid-twenties to go to school and am not on public assistance my case is different?” I couldn’t understand that implication that our cases were so different and was even more emotionally upset at this point. I then asked if the settlement had to be paid in one lump sum. Pat said yes, it did and that they had considered accepting it incrementally but with so many cases it wouldn’t be feasible. I cried at this point and told her that all I had was $1500 in my savings account. I explained that I was a full-time student with a part time job that usually paid less that $150 per week. I also explained that I had taken out student loans but that they had almost all gone to my tuition and school expenses. She asked me if I could ask my parents for money to which I replied no. I said my mother struggles herself financially and I never speak to my father. She asked if there was any one else I could get to help me and I said no. She asked if I had any credit cards and I told her that although I did they were pretty close to their limits but I could inquire about a cash advances. I was crying and saying that this was all pretty stressful and she sympathetically said “Nobody likes having to be the heavy”. She said she would go to her clients and see if they would be willing to accept less than $3,500 from me.

Two days later we spoke again and Pat said her clients had agreed to accept $2,500 from me. I thanked her for pleading my financial case to them. I told her that I had come up with $2,100 so far and had some ideas about coming up with the rest. She told me that the paperwork would be sent out and I would have a couple of days to look it over and send it back with a certified check. I asked how many more days I would have to get the rest of the settlement money together. She said I should sign the papers and return them within the week. I asked if there was any way I could be sued again after I signed the papers. She told me that she couldn’t advise me as I was not her client. Then she answered that theoretically I could be sued but from a practical standpoint I probably would not be. She said she understood that I had a lot of school work that I wasn’t doing because of the worry this case had inflicted. She told me not to worry and just to concentrate on school. She also said not to freak out if I got served with the summons in the interim because she would file an injunction and even if I did receive them I had 15 days to reply to them in court. I agreed that when I got the papers I would sign them and send them back as soon as I gathered the full $2500. Pat said to call her if I had any further questions.

I then created a website and ask for help from others who might have found themselves in my situation. I got the idea from doing research about four college students who had run search engines and been sued by the RIAA. On my site I explained that I had no idea I was sharing files and that I was not personally responsible for all the songs downloaded. My sister, her boyfriend and my husband among others have used it also. This website helped me raise a $600 in donations for my settlement.

I did not actually receive the summons until September 18th when they were hand delivered to me at my home address.

I feel that I have been misled as a consumer of music. I do not burn CDs and yet when I go to the store I see Sony sells “writable” discs. I wondered what I was supposed to put on these discs since downloading is supposedly akin to shoplifting music. Also as equaling misleading is the advertising that Sony has on television for their mini-discs. In the commercial you see a blue-headed alien encouraging a couple hundred friends to copy the play list he has created. Is it any wonder why other consumers such as me found, and still continue to find, it all so confusing?

I mistakenly imagined that since Kazaa was still up and running while Napster had been forced to close down that the downloading I was personally responsible for was okay. I certainly never saw any sort of disclaimer on the original Kazaa website. I compared it to recording songs from the radio. I never willingly shared files with other users. I was not even fully aware of all the songs in “my” Kazaa file until I looked at it after receiving the Time Warner subpoena letter. As far as I was concerned the music I downloaded was for home, personal use. I made a play list of favorites and listened to it when I cleaned house or did homework. Part of the reason I downloaded songs I already owned on CD was because I didn’t want to mix them manually and found it more convenient to have on my computer. I don’t know how to “upload” songs on the computer either. I in no way financially benefited from nor intended to make a profit from the music I listened to. As far as I was concerned copyright infringement was what he people in Chinatown hawking bootlegged and fake CDs on the street corner were doing. Since being named in the lawsuit I have educated myself pretty quickly. I have taken responsibility for my part in all of this. I realize “I didn’t know what I was doing” is not a valid defense.

Still, I am angry with the RIAA for their unfairness in handling these lawsuits. I resent being unfairly targeted and having to choose between paying a settlement I can barely afford or to deal with the worry and stress of litigation with the possible outcome of being held personally responsible for a couple of hundred thousand or millions of dollars in damages. The RIAA’s manner of investigating is severely lacking. They do not seem to care how responsible the person listed for the ISP address actually is for the “crime” they’re accused of. I find that the most upsetting, that they go through all the trouble make statements to the press about going after the most “egregious” users and then do not follow up on actually researching how egregious each specific user that they are suing is!

I have heard, though I never actually read one that the RIAA sent out instant messages of warnings to people, such as me, who were on Kazaa. That makes no sense, if I’m not the one who is using Kazaa at the time they how can they be sure it got to me at all? With all the people who have come and stayed in my apartment, sub-letters or roommates I’ve had it would be nearly impossible to monitor everything they have done or seen when they borrowed my computer for use. I wonder why the RIAA didn’t send a letter in my name to my address to make me, personally, aware of their intentions. I would have ceased and desisted on the spot and I would have made sure other members of my household did the same. The RIAA never gave me that chance.

Unfortunately I was the person whose name was put on the cable bill when the household bills were divvied up amongst roommates and so I get to be held responsible for the several hundred songs listed on the summons while I am only personally responsible for one hundred and eight songs. Sixty-three songs of those one hundred and eight I already owned on CD and out of those sixty-three there were six which I downloaded and then went to the store and bought the artist’s CD. I have been a music fan all my life and until recently had still bought CDs of the artists I love because I want to support them. I won’t be buying any more and I know many other consumers feel the same.

The financial punishment and personal stress I’ve suffered seem a heavy price to pay to far what I’ve been accused of. I’ve settled my lawsuit, gained a whole education of what is really at stake here and my main concern now is that this stop happening to other people. It’s not fair to others like me who weren’t duly warned nor had any idea what others were doing on their computers. We need to change this system without creating any new victims. I hope that change starts here.

Very well thought out, very nice.

I think one of the best analogy's she left out though, about the betamax copying movies, or expanding on copying music from radio.

After all, if I copy a song from the radio (or other source) how is that different from walking into the Louvre and taking a polaroid of the Mona Lisa?

Yes, I think she did a nice job too. And I like your question about taking a picture of a picture!

You know, this makes me want to go out and buy some RIAa member CD's and maybe download a song or two off of I-tunes or Musicmatch......NOT!!!!

Good job Lorraine. I hope you can now get on with you life. Best wishes for the future. Glad to see you are boycotting! RIAA, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!!

Mitch Bainwol doesn't even know how to work a microphone, and he's supposed to be the Chairman & CEO
of the Recording Industry Association of America? What an idiot.

If Jack Valanti and such billionairs are working with the very scientisits creating the "Internet II", look out.
Our freedom is seriously in danger.

If you watched this, you have eyewitnessed what happens when millionairs fight billionairs for the sole pupose
of more money. Right now the RIAA has billions, the people like Sharmen Networks and Altnet have millions.
The millionairs want to cash in on the billions. The billionairs don't want the millionairs to cash in on their
business, althewhile innocent American hundredairs like Lorriane Sullivan are caught in the middle.

This is an excellent example of the corruption that is running ramped through our businesses at the expense
of the masses of hundredairs that are the very people that make this country run.

After watching these hearings, I came across three major opinions. People like LL notso Cool Jay are a joke.
Lorriane Sullivan is my newly found hero. Chuck D instantly became my favorite artist.

Altnet and Sharmen Networks are not working for the hundredairs, they are working for the millionairs. If we the
people of this great nation allow these businesses to commercialize our freedom, our freedom will be lost. Don't
be fooled by their notions that DRM will give us, the artists and consumers, more freedom. It will not. It will
ultimately restrict our freedom to use our computers the way we wish to use our computers. Eventually if DRM is
implemented, the REAL musicians will never be heard and the artists that produce material that is not in best
interests of the millionairs, will never be heard or read or watched by the consumers, which is exactly the same
system set up by the RIAA and MPAA we have today.

~goingnova

Lorraine's testimony brings out two very valid points: (1) penalties for copyright infringement are so astronomically high that folks are very reluctant to fight the RIAA in court even if the RIAA's case is weak. (2) The RIAA is allowed to supoeana AND file lawsuits without sending out any cease & desist warning letters. This second point is especiall critical when one considers that (a) many do not realize that they are even sharing files when they download and use a P2P application, and (b) most file sharers do not know which songs may be OK to share and which are not.

Again, this all boils down to screwed up copyright law (in this case, the DMCA). To win over the public, we have to attack the copyright laws themselves and point out how crazy and unfair they are. We need copyright laws that are fair and just.

Why is it that the RIAA is only suing the people that buy their shit, it only turns them aganst not wanting to buy anything else.

"Sixty-three songs of those one hundred and eight I already owned on CD and out of those sixty-three there were six which I downloaded and then went to the store and bought the artist’s CD. I have been a music fan all my life and until recently had still bought CDs of the artists I love because I want to support them. I won’t be buying any more and I know many other consumers feel the same. "

Lorraine's statement that she bought music from those artists she liked, 6 downloads that resulted in sales, & now she won't be purchasing CDs.

Great job RIAA. Driving customers AWAY from buying your member's product is the most moronic business plan I've ever heard of.

Folks, the more the news of the RIAA persecuting the little guy, the more sales will drop, ESPECIALLY since we have a big holiday season coming up. I wonder how farther down sales can go before the record labels realize the RIAA isn't doing them an favors?

I agree, Mitch Bainwol is an idiot. I just love the part in his testimony that attempts to blame ISPs for "piracy", and that they benefitted from it. He actually thinks that ISPs should "educate" their customers on the evils of file sharing. Sorry, my ISP doesn't have the right to tell me how to use my internet service. ISPs do use faster downloads of music in advertisements. But the argument could made be made that these advertisements pertained to "legal" download sites. After all, Mr. Bainwol was quick to list these numerous legal sites in his testimony.

Anyone notice who her ISP is? the one who had no chocie but to answer the seapoena and give out her information. the ISP whom Bainwol said contributed to the piracy? TIME WARNER!!

This whole debate showed that the American public DO NOT WANT CD's, of which they still want to make.
It also showed how GREEDY the RIAA and MPAA are.
One of my favorite lines came from valenti, he discussed that there are very repulsive stuff on kazaa, meaning teen porn, BUT PLEASE GO TO THE MOVIES OR VISIT YOUR LOCAL VIDEO STORE, AND TELL ME THE MPAA DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX OR REPLUSIVE MOVIES!
Also, the RIAA is lieing when it say it is using its LAST resort, i don't believe anybody really believed that, not coleman atleast. The guy from kazaa did well, except for that stuff about blocking files, of which i could of helped him out with that one. Sure you can block the name, but do u really block the file, it is impossible to block the right files, the names are not sufficent.
Kazaa and other P2P do give people opportunities the RIAA and MPAA would not give you, of which i enjoyed chuckd.
Also, the RIAA and MPAA are dragging there feet, they see people downloading music for free, and they still won't come out with a service like kazaa or distribute music on P2P networks, they only want to do it on websites and what not, ADAPT TO TECHNOLOGY is also what i was thinking of most of the time when i was listening to the RIAA and MPAA, they don't offer the ppl what they want, so they steal music. Plain and simple, give the ppl what they want and they will pay. So, all in all, the RIAA will be a 10 billion dollar industry soon and continue to drop, there control is dwindling, there CD format is obsolete, though they still mass produce it and act like its 1990 and the CD is really hot. They really need to get over themselves, the RIAA and MPAA.
All in all, the guy from sherman networks said it right, Its all about CONTROL! Also, the guy at the end said American Greedy businesses, of which i totally agree that the RIAA and MPAA are just that.

I think Hack ..Jack Valenti's lapse into wanting to quote old generals or colonels or whatever was telling that his mental faculties are not what they should be. Also, he said the VCR was to movies, was what the Boston Strangler was to a single woman alone. So, there goes any credibility he may have had.
-bulkeraser

And another thing...

So anyone here going to wish Barbara Boxer another term? She's just one more I saw that needs to go. With the right pair of eyes, you can see just how bought and sold she is.


~goingnova

I think that what they did to Lorranie is extortion, which I believe is a Federal criminal offense.

Who wants to file criminal charges aginast the RIAA's ass?

this was a sad read to say the least....hopefully she can recover and get on with things...."no likes to play the heavy" huh? i think they revel in it.... and can they prove even the $2500 and $5000 settlements are actually losses? i doubt it....i want to sue them for insulting my intelligence

....and wouldnt that be a infringement of my intellectual beliefs? i feel a subpoena coming on

Q.E.D.

Does anyone know this woman's website address?

www.suedbytheriaa.com

she is almost to 1000 dollars raised, she will probably have it paid off this month or by november some time.

..."he told me that the goal of the RIAA was “Not to ruin your life and make you bankrupt”.

the goal of the riaa is to totally rape you and destroy your ability to live then take your money and demand that you pledge all future income for the next 8 generation to them (plus interest). See, they aren't so bad after all.

Good luck to Lorraine. Just finished watching a recording of the hearing. She was incredible and deserves as much support as possible.

Thank you, leflaw, for posting this!! And keem 'em coming!. I want her bravery and the rest of the testimony for the world to see.

Folks.. what is our part of this, besides posting? Howzabout continuing the BOYCOTT. A list of affiliated labels of the riaa is located on www.boycott-riaa.com .. go there and vow NOT to download or purchase any new riaa product. It is musical "crack." Use it and some suit in the future will seek your imprisonmnent. Buy used, buy indie, and download from the sites already posted on dmusic. So, too all you new posters, welcome! and to us all.. KEEP YOU EYE ON THE PRIZE! Secondly.. by nature of these hearings, it is all political, folks.. register, if you haven't already. And get ready to take that middle finger and VOTE THE SUCKERS OUT!!

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Jazzmary, you're right on the money. Anyone who buys a RIAA-labelled product, by default, aids and abets these activities. Instead of buying RIAA-labelled tripe, I have made several donations to this site and only purchased music at secondspin.com-nobody will die if they don't have the newest "American Idol" release or the latest Madonna flotsam.

I sympathize with her but i don't buy her "I didn't know what I was doing was wrong" arguement.

The RIAA seems to be targeting poor folks on purpose, probably because they know someone with money would fight them and possibly win.

It would be nice if someone started a nation-wide legal defence fund to fight this BS

Don't remember her offering it for sale... I know alot of people out there alot more naive then that!!

sorry but I do buy her argument. I work with the public as a computer technician daily and you'd be suprised on the amount of people who have a hard time turning on the computer let alone know how the settings on a software program are changed

I'm convinced she didn't know she was sharing or doing anything illegal. After all I could fill a cabnet with VCR tapes I've done off the TV and I don't think that's wrong. why is doing the same thing online

Is it just me or does every topic have the same responses?

I think this is the ABSOLUTE most revealing quote from the hearing:
It occurs just around 1 hour:34 min:40+ seconds into the proceedings...
Sen. Coleman: "Public floggings would get people's attention but we don't do that..."
Mitch Bainwol: "Public flogging is not part of law, the 150 is..."

JESUS CHRIST!! Is the CEO of the RIAA suggesting that if public flogging were legal, they would flog people for sharing files?!!!

It just goes to show how they feel about all this.
Screw them - on with the boycott.

No one in California should vote for Senator Barbara Boxer , (D-CA). She is clearly on the side of the RIAA.

No on in California should vote for Senator Barbara Boxer , (D-CA). She (after watching the talks) is clearly on th RIAA's side, repating everything from all the jobs lost from P2P to the hyocritical argumnt of porn on P2P...

Register to Vote!

No on in California should vote for Senator Barbara Boxer , (D-CA). She is clearly on th RIAA's side.

I hope Madonna loses like she always does.

well i can tell you all this the only reson i started going back to seeing movies whas becose i watched the screener and liked it so i went and seen it on the big screen the mpaa has just lost one custermer o well o yea and if thay are worried abo9ut me D/L the screener and neaver buying the DVD i would neaver buy a DVD any way whats the point of paying 14$ on a movie i will only watch once once on the big screen and once on my TV

Someone should tell Moby to give his record company the finger and release his albums on his own.

COMING SOON TO A WEBPAGE NEAR YOU!!!

BOYCOTT-MPAA.com !!!!

I can see it already.

So when does Boycott-MPAA.com come out?

Could someone provide a non Real Audio audio or video recording of this when the debate happens; and give an EDK2 link or something?

Sorry, I hate the way the RA player tries to take over, and "phones home" the name of the files you play.

Why are all my posts to other stories ending up on just this page?

Lorraine is my hero. And Chuck D is now my favorite artist even though I've never heard his music.

Don't be fooled by what the guys of Sharmen Networks and Altnet were saying. They want to take the place of the RIAA. If they were given all the control, we would be in the same spot we're in now with the RIAA and MPAA. All they wan't is to ca$h in on the billions of dollars. They don't care about artists or consumers, they care only about the $$$$$$. We need to keep P2P free from advertising, and free from corporatism, only then will we have a business model that works for artists and consumers.

~goingnova

viscix, you make it sound like I am condoning all of microsofts business practises. And I'm not. I specifically stated that they need to be punished where their actions hurt the public and the industry as a whole. Because of the quality of their product I see no reason to boycott or bash them without reason. I've run high end programs and tweaked my systems as well and the only problems that I have found with microsoft OS' is due to my errors. My mistakes does not constitute a bad microsoft product.

To stand here and say "I hate Microsoft" without any cause is just plain ignorance. I have absolutely no reasons to hate them. That does not mean that others do not. You wish to force your hatred of their software on me. I am not going to hate them simply because you do. I am simply giving you my reason for using their products.

Raven7 wrote: The difference is in how they put their profits to use. If they used it for anti-competitive measures, it's wrong. Anti competition is very subjective. If MS is only a small company, their ie vs netscape adventure wouldn't be call anti-competition. But because they are a monopoly, it can be easily view that any competitive edge is an Anti-competition.

I happen to agree with this. At this point anything that Microsoft does will be construed as anticompetitive. They already hold the market so any software company that does not instantly gain a large market share will immediately scream that Microsoft is stifling their business. When something comes out that people like it is only natural that they would like it included in their new system. Microsoft listened to their consumers and added these new functions to XP and were immediately accused of stealing. All because they listened to their consumers and added what they requested. That's frequently known as good business. Unless you're Microsoft.

Microsoft has done thing that need to be punished and I'm all for dealing with that. But they are nothing compared to what RIAA members have done. I don't feel the need to boycott one while I do the others. They are not the same thing and they have not done the same thing to their respective industries. One deserves to be eliminated completely for the irreparable harm they have done, the other needs to change some of their business practices and continue to produce their product.

Don't worrie everyone There is a way around this 5 copy crap. Once you burn your first copy its not protected anymore its an original cd that has no limits then you just take that cd and use it as you would the older ones and make as many copies as you want and make what ever files you want and just sell the original or through the crap away for that matter! There Is always away around it.I have did this before with a protected wma file it alowed me to burn to cd 3 times but once i burned it to the cd once i just used that burnt cd to copy it to my computer in mp3 format and there you go FREE Again!!

lol, a little passionate, sorry

Dear Directive,

You made perfect sense to us boycotters. No need to defend your statements...just another troll amongst us. Don't be discouraged! You deserve a pat on the back! Good for you.

Leflaw,

Sadly right now it's mostly a product of my overactive imagination, created to help illustrate a point about the goals of the RIAA. However what I envision would be setting up a recording facility where a band or artists could book time to record and pay by the hour to use the equipment, more or less depending on how much of their own gear they use. Other services could be made available at a negotiated price if the band requested them (not forced down a bands throat as per Big Studio practice) When they are done the band pays their tab and leaves with their master recordings on cd-rom or portable harddrive or whatever other digital medium they choose in any commonly available file format. A back up copy could be archived at the studio or on a server (reasonable storage fee could apply). The band would then be responsible only for paying a set fee for services provided, they would hold all rights to there work and would be entirely responsible for the success or failure of their own product, and entitled to 100% of the net profits. Actually I think putting this idea in public domain is a good thing. I don't currently have time to put it in effect (nor the venture capital) and a lot of competition would keep prices down for the customer (artist).

I think it's unfair to have to deal with these monsters without proper legal advice. I don't think it's wise to say or admit anything without proper advice. I hope all p2p apps have turned off viewing the shared folder by default. This feature made it much too easy for the monsters to gather evidence.

"The real problem is that the entertainment industry is trying to artificially prop up the status quo in the face of a changing economic landscape that is making it obsolete.

"I believe solving this problem will require a way of thinking that allows the industry to protect its rights"

The industry is not trying to protect its rights but rather it is trying to hold on to a monoply (granted for a specific reason) that has lost its reason for being.

Congress will not help us. It is up to us to fight back."

Amen raoulduke1

The RIAA had five or six years to get with the program since they helped take down napster, who shawn fanning is a pioneer who was a college kid he wrote the program pretty much by himself you mean to tell me because some big corps. couldn't get their heads out of their A*s's much less see whats in front of them. whew I think we wouldn't be here they had a quit awhile to start up something or let small start ups have a go at it nope they fight everyone an everything and now they are crying wolf.

well this will be how it gose friest only the labels will be getting the money since the artest do not own the copywrights on the music after singing a contract with the label and thats the way it is

How come my post didnt post Hmmmmm.

Leflaw,

Sadly right now this all digital recording studio is just an idea I've been kicking around. The idea is to set up a space, with a variety of recording equipment that artists could book time to record at and pay by the hour for using. A reasonable rate would cover wear and tear on the equipment, utilities and your lease provided you could keep it booked two third of the time you were open. When the band is done they pay their tab and take their master copy with them. The band is then responsible for the marketing and success or failure of their product, and entitled to 100% of their net profits.

The problem is with our political system. It encourages corruption by letting lawmakers write their own rules of conduct. They can write into law how much they make per year, how much people can contribute to them, how bills come up, etc.

I love democracy, but when the people we elect no longer listen to those who vote them in, but whoever has the most money to offer them, we essentially loose that democracy. The reason these people win year after year is because if you have enough money and are good enough at doing the double-talk then you get reelected.

Even the means of getting projects that bring the money into a district require these people collaberate. A maverick doesn't survive too well in Washington. If you don't play by their rules, then your constituants get nothing in the spending bills and you are out inthe next election.

Unfortunately, the fox is in charge of the hen house and the overall rules will not change unless we can rally our friends and neighbors all over America to vote out more than 50% of the rascals.

Look at how hard the last campaign finance reform bill took to get through. It took millions of polls and constituants to say they wanted it before it squeeked by. Politicians tried procedure after procedure to kill it. Chances are, the politically appointed Supreme Court will find some way to say this violates free speech. With all we have to to, keep this in mind: It only takes a single check for $50,000 to a campaign to normally get a congressman's attention.

To get Congress to listen to us on this single issue, we are going to have to have a BIG and I mean BIG public outrage that our elected officials cannot ignore.

I will be looking for candidates in my district in next year's elections that believe in responsible file-sharing. I hope that we can maybe post a list of "endorsed candidates" for Congress here on BRYAA that we can pass around to our friends and family all over the country that will support our cause.

--steps off off of his soapbox--

Ok I've tried to post a couple of responses to leflaw's question, neither have worked

this raises a big question in my mind about just how far he is willing to go with this. has he been doing this just for the possible votes of 60 million or does he really side with us. have we been played?

Folks, at this point I feel it must be said.

None of the majors had any problem with the introduction of the cd. Here was a format to replace the record. It was felt that Joe Q. Public would never be able to record these at home the way they did cassettes, from the get go. Now they see $, they feel should be theirs, missing from their pockets and the best way is to blame the cd.

None have considered that they contributed to the consumers attitude and disregard for the callous way they have treated both the artist and the consumer. Well, that attitude backfired in their faces. They have no one to blame but themselves.

All this stuff about the cd is about one thing. It is time to change the market again and bring out a new format so that the consumer can buy it over again. However the consumer doesn't feel that way. They are getting a lot of flack over this idea.

I say Hurray for Lorraine and the way she told it. She stood up, said I paid for my mistaken ideas, now let me tell you what is wrong and why. No pretense of what she didn't know, no airs, and didn't try to make things up. At the same time she told it the way it was from her veiwpoint. Kudoos to her!

The majors are under the mistaken idea that we will buy mp3's because folks are using mp3 format. Well, for a long time, copywrite infringement was for an exact copy. In the past the RIAA argued that mp3 was a poor mans cousin to the factor cd. That didn't work so they paid to change the law. Now that it is changed they expect you to pay as much for far less.

I still ain't buying mp3's for full format price. The RIAA and company are living in a fools paradise...

geeze. My post got lost...

Well, there goes my respect for LL Cool J... Honestly, his comparison to stealing a diamond necklace from Tiffanies and file sharing was such a disgusting display of ignorance...

Stevebugge:

what is unique about a digital recording studio vs. what ever you can do in a recording studio now?

go moby

test

You can always tell where some one actually stands as they will initially address the con of what they stand for in the opening statements.

I tell you people that by the initial address it is not for us. This is beat the drum for the RIAA.

The reason people are not buying is because of cost, the economy, and DMCA technology. People have always purchased what they wanted with no questions asked. But they are asking questions and refusing to part with the hard earned money for something they don't see as worth it. No matter how this DMCA is shoved down our throats, no matter the sugar coating, people don't want this.

It is very gingerly step around in the mentioning of the suject. You can be sure that out of the light of day that there will be more on it in the backrooms where the public will not hear of it until it is a done deal.

I see the format of the board has changed and this causes overwork in the directional keys to see all the messages...

Can't wait to see what she has to say. "You can't sue me, I'm Madonna!"
Btw, off subject, but im a new member, and ive been coming here for months. First post for me! woohoo!

Whats next? "You cant sue me, Im madonna!" Anyway, off topic, but im a new member, though definitely not new to the site

ddd

838 + what was it 261 sued a total of 1099, out of 60 million that leaves 59998901 if my subtraction is corret?? LOL they've really put a hurting on the whole world haven't they? AHAHAHAHAHA Now that's funny.

test2

how is it their property stupid if i bought it stupid. ll cool j has no sort of education in this stuff. but reading all this the stupid morons cant see the picture. get rid of some theaters and make new movies available online make alot a shit available online thats where it is heading dont they see that their trying to protect? the middleman no more middleman thats what it comes down to.i can do everything on my computer even my own music and movies i dont need them but they want me to want them sorry assholes another couple of years will now know how to be a laborer

man.. i watched this thing... wow Jack Valenti is getting old

why do posts not show up?

did you guys hear what chuck d said... wow man that blew ll cool j's speach out of the fu***** water.
big up to chuck d always speaking the truth.

I hope that the ACLU can successfully CHALLENGE the constitutionality of the SEVERELY LOP-SIDED DMCA!!

I want the DMCA OFF THE BOOKS!!

It's TIME that we all STAND UP AND OPPOSE this FASCIST law!!

DeanSB2000

I'm amazed by what went on for Lorraine. Hopefully someone called for an ambulance. Question? Does the recording industry of america get any money from the sale of blank cds. You know, the ones labeled cdr for audio (music) recording. Even if it is just pennies per cd, do they get any money? If they do, and I don't know if they do, but if they do then how could they contend copyright infringement when they would be involved in the downloading.

I went to Lorraine's site, ( http://www.suedbytheriaa.com ), but the name on the subpoena listed on the site is COMPLETELY different from Lorraine's name. Is this site legit???

Oh okay.. I'm a ditz. The subpoena appears to be addressed to someone at her ISP.

The one thing I wonder about is did Lorraine at any time consult with an attorney to find out what her rights in this matter were(are)?

I believe from the statements made by the RIAA in previous interviews, is that the file-sharers in questions would not be insulated by Musicians or Music Companies that the RIAA represents from going after the "offenders" in the suits that the RIAA is bringing about.

Potentially, because of her admission of guilt, the Musicians and/or the Music Companies that the RIAA had accused Lorraine of copyright infringement, could go after her for even more money, or even try to have crimminal charges brought against her because of her admission of guilt in the civil suit.

The one flaw I see in people settling is that they (the defendants) have the potential of opening themselves up to a larger crimmal case due to admission of guilt.

Lorraine, if you read the posts on here, I hope that you have retained an attorney and had the attorney read the settlement documents so that you are not targeted in the future by law-enforcement or by the Musician(s) and Music Company(ies) for the crimminal act of copyright infringement, which could lead not only to more fines, but to a felony conviction based upon your admission of guilt.

I wish Code were still around, I'd like to hear his side on what I have just proposed as a possibility