RIAA Arrests Another File Sharer
A man from Arizona has been arrested for downloading songs such as "Sweet Child O' Mine" and "Money For Nothing." He has been ordered to pay $40,500 in damages with a 2.2 percent interest and $350 in costs. He is also in trouble for failing to find a lawyer and wiping his hard drive after the judge told him not to.
What's Next?
- Previous Article:
Nevermore Reveals DVD Details - Next Article:
Austrian Death Machine Posts New Video Online
21 Comments on "RIAA Arrests Another File Sharer"
Supporter
Member
6. writes:
FocusShift, unless I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say, you're wrong. And, with the way you worded your post, I'm not sure you even understand the basic premise of copyright law and American jurisprudence.
Simply put: file-sharing *software* is legal. Using it to upload or download copyright protected media -- music, videos, images, software -- without the copyright holder's consent is illegal because it is theft.
Take the cassette recorder, for example. You can record whatever you wanted with those things, like your own personal songs and compositions. But, you couldn't record another copy of an existing copyrighted tape, like your favorite [insert favorite artist's name here] tape because it was getting old or you wanted a spare. That's illegal, because it constitutes an illegal use of licensed and copyrighted material. That's also why many concerts you go to prohibit recording of any kind, audio or visual (as visual usually has sound attached, and therefore is an illegal copy of the music being played).
As for the constitutionality of the issue, it's not a constitutional matter. He's not exercising any rights by participating in illegal activity. Also, since a theft is involved, the authorities have a right to search his premises and property for evidence of the theft. In any case, no matter what the subject matter, if there is evidence that you have that is stored electronically on any device, copied in paper or other format, or retained in any other manner, and the court orders you not to destroy the evidence, you cannot do so. To do so would be, again, illegal.
I think spectacle the IRAA are trying to make is a little ridiculous, but the law is what it is. It's illegal to trade copyrighted, licensed, and/or trademarked material without the prior consent of the holder of said copyright/license/trademark, or without paying the appropriate fees associated with the use of said item.
File sharing is illegal, folks. Like it or not.
Member
7. writes:
File sharing in and of itself is not illegal. And unless the law has since been changed we have protection from information obtained illegally from our computers. It has been a while since I've seen the particular law that stated such but I know that such a law did at one point exist.
I understand the way copyright works, and I understand by file-sharing copyrighted material is illegal. What I'm saying is that there is no way for the RIAA to know what you're doing on your computer unless it is being electronically observed through illegal (usually spyware) means.
And its usually the record companies that pressure artists into not liking file sharing since lower record sales relate to less support from the label. But in all honesty file sharing helps a lot of bands, and I know of many lesser known acts who put their own disks up for torrenting and such.
8. writes:
Please define "Illegal use of copyrighted material" please.
Also there is a real moral issue in all of this. Who is really at fault in this scenario? For that matter, is anyone being negatively affected by this users actions? It seems to me that users here are being made victims, when in actual fact they are not the ones hosting or distributing the copyrighted material. They are simply indulging in what millions of other users ACROSS THE WORLD are indulging in. Listening to music is hedonism in essense, and they are denying the individual's right to enjoy life's simple pleasures available to them, and that is totalitarianism.
Technology has made this type of exposure possible, musicians can make their entire career now by simply posting something on the internet for free. It's been said countless times, big name bands like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have distributed entire albums online for free and promoted them profitably! Why aren't they charging the user who download their albums with theft? Their material is still copyrighted the exact same way as anything else, however there is one big difference... The band owns their publishing! Not the label, not the union of labels & corporations that, supposedly, run the Entertainment Industry, the band does. And guess what! Those bands still make a ton of money from those fans that download their music online! Most fans will download and buy the album, go to the show, buy the t shirt, the DVD, what have you, and there is plenty on revenue generated for the act to continue and be prosperous.
This person was singled out among millions of people to be made an example of by the RIAA. They are worried that they are losing money because of people like this? Who's to say someone will not purchase something that they enjoy after hearing it for free? They should use their business savvy to be able to make money in a changing Media & Entertainment industry environment. Engage customers in a new way, so you can use the music to marketing more products to them.
Just for sh**s, why don't we charge people for listening to the radio? They don't own the copyrights for any of those songs either so by your logic, why should they get away with listening to the radio or their 'downloaded' podcast? How about Radio DJ's who play leaked singles on the air prior to the release date? They get a slap on the wrist.
The RIAA is trying to save their own a$$ in all of this, it's become a real problem, their old business model has failed. They must evolve with the rest of the planet. But it's art folks. That's what music is, it's art. It's not a product or a piece of merchandise, it's art. Products can be made out of art, but not vice versa. To be quite frank, to make a piece of art with the intention of mass public distribution and then deny individual the right to indulge in this is completely backwards and egotistical in my opinion.
If you are truly and artist, the moment you complete your art you should let it go. It is no longer yours the moment that you share it with someone else. It is redefined by their interpretation and their perspective as an individual, and that reflection can turn out to be more beautiful than the art itself, when you consider the cultural impact of things like, for example; Bob Marley's Redemption Song or Jimi Hendrix's Voodoo Chile, or Beethoven's 5th!
Maybe they should arrest Google for distributing JPG copies of the Mona Lisa, and all the users for downloading it? ( ok bad example because of the public domain rule but you get my point) Oh yeah, I almost forgot you can search anything on Google and find the download, so I guess the RIAA is after Google next? For being a passive inhibitor of illegal file-sharing, not likely.
Hey RIAA, pick on someone your own size if you really wanna make a stink. That will challenge Net Neutrality, something we must never give up. Keep art and the internet free.
9. writes:
File sharing per se is not illegal in and of itself. Like I said, the technology itself is not illegal, it's how the technology is used that makes it illegal. File sharing is not illegal if the material is not copyrighted. It IS illegal if it's not copyrighted and you did not pay a licensing fee to use/share/download the copyrighted material. P2P audio file sharing is illegal because of the U.S. Copyright Law. Owners of a copyright are guaranteed six exclusive rights under the Copyright Law and two of those exclusive rights are the right to control copies and distribution of those copies. Since file sharing takes away that control, sharing copyrighted material is illegal.
Also, the inherent application of file sharing software allows anyone with a remote connection to access your files. That's what file sharing is. You're allowing people to access information stored on your computer, in this case music files. The RIAA and their monitoring companies are legally accessing the files YOU (I'm using this in the broad sense, not you personally, FocusShift) are leaving open for others to "share". So they are not using spyware at all.
Also, it's not the record companies that are putting the pressure on artists to not like file sharing. The RIAA is a trade group that represents the recording industry, and the labels are members of this group. The RIAA acts as a "liason" of sorts between the record companies and the public, and legislative, groups.
As for individual bands, big or not so big, streaming their own music or offering it for download, they are the copyright holders, so they can do what they want with it.
Personally, I agree with you that electronic distribution is a much better way for bands to get their name and sound out there. However, it has to just be done legally. I'm not advocating for RIAA's tactics at all.
Oh, and by way of note, this man wasn't just arrested recently, as the posts seems to indicate. He's been in and out of court since 2003. His verdict was just announced September 1, where he WAS acting as his own attorney. (Which is stupid, in my opinion.) The judgment of fines and restitution has to come after a hearing process, not after an arrest. After suit was brought against him, he was expressly forbidden from removing any files from his computer. Not only did he delete the songs he downloaded illegally, but also the file sharing software that allowed the transfers. He took that a step further and wiped out and reformatted his hard drive, then used a file wiping program to make sure there was nothing left on his computer. Kinda fishy, if he believes he did nothing illegal.
And, there is nothing stating that he was actually arrested. Another person was arrested on 8/27 for leaking several songs from the completed Chinese Democracy album by Guns N Roses. I think Metal Underground got two different stories bunched up into one.
10. writes:
I have a problem with the actual law in this case, I don't believe the user should be charged as a criminal at all. There was no malicious intent on his part, and whether or not the software is capable of seeding or not is irrelevant, you still have to actively share your content, otherwise the software restricts outside connections from accessing your content. I still have a hard time believing album sales are significantly impacted by file-sharing. There are plenty of users that still buy albums often. The GNR-FBI-Chinese Democracy fiasco is a whole different can of worms, personally I think Axl Rose is behind that whole thing, but the dude charged is an idiot. 1) Don't post a leaked album by a HUGE band on your personal website. 2) Don't admit to it. You idiot. lol
11. writes:
JoeBlow, to answer your questions:
1. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works. The "unauthorized use" is defined within those rights given to the copyright owners. Broadly, it is using copyrighted material in any way without the express consent of the copyright holder, unless specifically outlined otherwise.
2. It might not be harming anyone, but that's not the point. To bring up another lightning rod point: smoking pot in the comforts of your own home is not "hurting" anyone else (let's not get into second hand smoke, kids being exposed, etc.), but it's still illegal. Illegal is illegal. It has nothing to do with whether or not the act is moral or immoral. Also, the number of people doing the illegal activity has no bearing on whether or not something should or shouldn't be illegal. That's a lame argument.
3. I'm not sure how you think listening to music is hedonism.
4. NIN and Radiohead listeners are not being charged because they were given permission by the copyright holders (the bands) to download their music for free. Taking music from Guns N Roses, and other bands, without permission is not.
5. I agree with you that they are making an example out of the people they have gone after and will go after. But, legally, it is within their rights.
6. Listening to the radio is not illegal because radio stations pay a licensing fee for each song they play. The station pays this fee to distribute the music over the airwaves for you to listen to. You're not distributing the music because you cannot take the music you hear and "give" it to someone else. The licensing fees are paid by the radio stations through paid advertisements. It's how they get the money to pay the fees, plus through other means. And, online resources use the same licensing fees to pay for the fair use of music on their stations. (There is a whole different argument with the fee schedules between broadcast radio and internet radio. That's an argument for another day.)
While I feel the passion for what you are basically stating (and I agree with you, too) for the time being there is no way around what they are doing. Do you like a song? Download it through LEGAL means. It's that simple.
12. writes:
JoeBlow, I agree with you on your recent post. Dude was stupid to post it on his site then admit to it. But your first point, about malicious intent, is negated by the fact that he wilfully infringed upon a copyrighted product.
They are making an example out of him. Yes. I agree. But you said something key to the whole argument: You disagree with the LAW as it stands. Here is where we all start petitioning our representatives in Congress (ok, hold down the laughing...) to get rid of laws we don't agree with and worry about laws that we do agree with. That's the whole point of the democratic system. You do nothing to fight for your cause by engaging in criminal activity, even if you think the activity should be legalized. Make your point by pushing for legislative change.
Member
Senior News Correspondent
Member
15. writes:
I agree with Miyoshi a mate of mine got fined for it awhile back but i think the system here in New Zealands a little bit different as his case got thrown out as he made copys of all his cds so he kept the cds in good nick, so because he owned all the cds and actually got most of them imported the case got thrown so i guess that shows there are some exceptions
and p.s. DeathInEye yes someone should so boycott roadrunner those f***ing sell outs ! ever since they sold to warner there roster of artists suck !
Founder, owner & programmer
16. writes:
"What I'm saying is that there is no way for the RIAA to know what you're doing on your computer unless it is being electronically observed through illegal (usually spyware) means."
This isn't true. What the RIAA and MPAA and other orgs are doing now is creating honey pots essentially - posting files and torrents up so that they can harvest your IP address and find out who's pirating their stuff. If the IP address is not personally identifying, they send infringement noticed to your ISP, who will usually notify you to cover their own ass.
18. writes:
Bureaucracy is sad and frustrating isn't it?
Miyoshi - Everything you say is factual, but I believe petitioning congress in the United States is futile. They have bigger fish to fry.
Same thing with Marijuana, that's something else that could be totally legal and taxed for the benefit of the country... mmm Marijuana lol
Sorry to stark a stink, but I'm pretty passionate about this as you can see. I trust in people a bit too much to think that everyone will be noble enough to buy everything they like that they download, but it is true for a lot of people.
I maintain my stance, music should have an Online Digital Library or something of every recorded piece of music, that would be awesome. Someday I bet that will exist. But for now, labels and consumers will continue to live in fear.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's right to be illegal. People need to pry the wool away from their eyes.
And music and everything I enjoy is hedonism to me, from Wiki "Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is of ultimate importance, the most important pursuit."
Member
19. writes:
Yeah - thank George Bush for approving that Patriot act...it should actually be called UN-Patriotic act. The right to spy on anyone who the government believes is a threat to national security, or engaging in illegal activies..i.e. downloading mp3 files...that is crazy, in my opinion. Got to love BIG BROTHER
Ridiculous...and yes - the RIAA is out of control.
Member
20. writes:
I have a question, though, just how many illegally downloaded songs did he have on his hard drive. Someone who has at least 500 songs or more is really pushing their luck. I read that the RIAA will usually target downloaders who have massive amounts of songs on their hard drives. I sincerely doubt that he was fined for downloading just 2 songs from Guns N ROses.. I could be wrong, too.
IT is also true that the RIAA and other agencies essentially flood peer-to-peer programs with songs, that could be actual files or dummy files, but when someone downloads one of the RIAA files - his/her IP is then tracked by the RIAA.
Supporter
To minimize comment spam/abuse, you cannot post comments on articles over a month old.
1. joeblow writes:
How is this constitutional?