Ohio couple sues Kazaa
p2pnet.net News:- Executives running the entertainment industry music cartel must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Sally and Jim Wilson, a mother and father involved in a class action suit against Sharman Networks’ notorious Kazaa p2p application, may inadvertently be adding a powerful new weapon to the anti-p2p arsenals of the very organizations that are victimizing them.
In February, the Wilsons learned they were being sued by Big Music cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), “because their two teenage daughters had downloaded 653 songs – and that they could be liable to pay $750 for each,” says the Cincinnati Enquirer.
They didn’t have almost half-a-million-dollars, or even the, “$5,000 recording-industry lawyers said they wanted to settle the copyright-infringement lawsuit filed in Virginia,” says the story, going on:
“The Cold Spring couple has agreed to settle for $3,000. Next week, the Wilsons plan to sue an Australian-based company, Sharman Networks Ltd., whose popular peer-to-peer Kazaa software the girls used.”
In entertainment industry cartel parlance, ‘settlement’ means forcing ordinary people with minimal financial or legal resources, to in effect buy their way out of possible civil law suits.
Whether they’re guilty or not of any wrong-doing is beside the point. The multi-billion-dollar industry’s aim is to create a picture in which it’s being ravaged by hoards of wicked mom-and-pop file-sharing criminals, and their children.
And the legal corner-stone of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ goes by the board.
The multi-billion-dollar industry claims it’s being devastated by file sharing, which it calls ‘thieving,’ despite the fact that file sharing isn’t a crime, that no money changes hands and that it’s never been shown that file sharing has meant the loss of even one sale.
Moreover, not one of the close to 10,000 people subpoenaed by Big Music has ever appeared in a court. They have to settle because they literally can’t afford to take the music industry, with its limitless financial resources and teams of highly skilled lawyers, on.
However, the fact an action has been started allows the industry to imply that file sharing is a crime, which it isn’t, and that thousands of people have been found guilty of it, which they haven’t.
‘I don’t like the idea of people suing me’
Now, lawyer Chris Macke, who represented the Wilsons, plans to file suit seeking to make it a class action, “so others who have paid settlements for downloading music can become parties,” says the Enquirer.
“The Recording Industry Association of America, which downloaders criticize for enforcing copyright laws, has no love for such services as Kazaa, which hurt music revenue,” says the story.
Kazaa is probably the most discredited of the commercial p2p applications, but it’s not the only one, which suggests other programs could also be similarly under threat.
The Enquirer which, like all too many mainstream media publications appears to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the RIAA’s disengenuous declarations, also has Sally Wilson saying she learned how to download music in classes Gateway Inc offered after she bought a computer.
Does this mean the Wilsons’ lawyer will soon be starting a class action against Gateway and other computer makers who provide buyers with instructions on how to download music?
Sally, Jim and Macke should instead be launching a class action against Warner, Sony BMG, UMG and EMI, the members of the music label cartel, for libel and slander in wrongfully characterizing them and their daughters as dangerous criminals and hard-core thieves.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Cincinnati Enquirer – Couple plans suit in Web music case, April 23, 2005
buy their way out – File sharing, p2p criminals, p2pnet, March 12, 2005
April 24th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
They shouldn’t be sueing kazaa! They should sue the RIAA!
WTF!! $750 per song???? O_o thats just fucking retarted… RIAA is going WAY to far!
April 24th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
I pity these people in the worst way, to be duped twice over and to become pawns of the industry twice over without evening knowing it. This is what the **AA’s prey upon, ignorance and fear….too bad.
TT
April 24th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
File sharing is one of those situtitions where no money passes hands. Not a dollar. How a song can be worth $750 bucks is beyond me. If anything the music majors should be paying the users of such software payments for the advertising of their works. The advertising is also free I might add.
These poor mans copies do nothing for the quality of the item, most being far inferior to the phyiscal item it attempts to repilicate. However, I suppose that it would hinder some business trying to pass off a mp3 as “near cd quality” and wanting the same price as the phyiscal item. Here we find nothing but price gouging as there is certainly no manufacturing or packaging costs in a digital file that would allow the price to remain the equal of a physical cd.
This lawsuit I predict will do nothing for the the couple that are attempting to recoup money to get them out of a bind. Unless there is some sort of deal here with the majors to cut a lower price if they will attempt the lawsuit. The ones being sued are the wrong target.
There is something definately odd in the way the majors are going about this infringement idea. Any that have not settled are evidently for now out in no-mans land as none to date have been taken to court and that leaves a backlog of thousands that nothing is happening to. How long does the legal system allow this to go on with such a backlog of cases unaddressed? You can bet when and if this starts to go to court that the overburdened judges and legal system will be snowed under with the additional load. There is something seriously wrong with the idea that infringement penalties should be more serious than secondary manslaughter. Our justice laws are certainly out of whack when it comes to looking at the results of the crime and what it means to people lives. Instead it seems we can point to our laws with pride and show it is the best legal system money can buy. No wonder the world looks at the US as such backward nation.
April 25th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Would anyone be surprised to learn that the RIAA put the Wilsons up to this? RIAA officials have been publicly suggesting for months now that THEIR lawsuit victims stat suing P2P companies. Why doesn’t the Wilsons’ lawyer use his retainer for something useful and counter-sue the RIAA instead for ENTRAPMENT and EXTORTION and RACKETEERING? The only reason the RIAA can get away with suing people for “unauthorized” trading of songs is that the RIAA witholds the authorization. Duhhhhhhhhh?
April 25th, 2005 at 1:08 am
Amazing!! I’m making an educated guess that all the replies thus far have been from “educated” folk that have also downloaded a song or two. What harm could that be? What song is worth $750? Besides, it isn’t illegal to “share a file”.
The “file” that is being “shared” is the end result of someones creative time and effort. It takes time and talent to come up with these “files”. I wonder if the folks sharing those “files” have ever tried to come up with a “file” of their own that is worthy of being “shared”. I would imagine yes, they’ve tried, and failed miserably.
Those “files” are quite likely someones bread and butter. They pay the rent, the car payment, the heating bill, their kids college education. Do we suppose that “Stairway to Heaven” wasn’t worth $750. Come on! get real here!
The fact is, people are downloading these “files” because they are willing to settle for a so-so copy as long as they can save their cash for a twelvepack on the weekend. It’s no different than settling for a high-end car stereo for 1/4 the price of a new one regardless of the fact the serial number has been filed off…or it’s beat up a bit from the removal process. Folks…..quite simply…it’s stealing…..and it’s illegal. Illegal to receive…..Illegal to distribute…..can’t make it much simpler.
And don’t give me the bull about how kids didn’t know it was illegal, or how the parents didn’t know what their kids were doing. Quit crying and grow up. Realize that ignorance of the law is no excuse…..never was and never will be (if they want you bad enough). Sure, people have made copies for years and the industry and the artists overlooked it. The fact is, twenty-five years ago there was no way someone could make a copy and put it out for worldwide “sharing” in a matter of minutes. Now it can be done and they’re going to cut their losses. You wanna gamble? Fine, but don’t sit at the table with more than you’re willing to lose. And when you do lose……don’t whine. Accept the responsibility for your own choices…..
By the way……ya might wanna make a swing up to the School of Music……see what effort and devotion goes into making these “files”….check on the price of the gear that makes these “files” so enjoyable….maybe buy yourself an instrument and take a few lessons….see what is really involved with these “files” that aren’t worth $750…….you guys make me wanna puke.
P.S. I’m not an anonymous coward as the post indicates……wouldn’t want you theives stealing my identity…actually I simply didn’t wanna take the time to log in. You know, like you guys don’t wanna take the time to go to Walmart and buy the CD …….. garrrg .. blurgghhmmff ….I feel better now.
April 25th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Interesting perspective, but the crime is Copyright Infringement, not stealing. You can’t use a p2p network to deprive people of property. The sharers are the only ones committing a crime. If you buy a bootleg off of a street vendor, you aren’t stealing, but the bootlegger is infringing on a copyright. This, however, doesn’t make it any more “okay”, morally or legally, to share files.
However, if you WERE to actually steal a CD, you know, go to Best Buy or Wal-mart and take it off the shelf and put it in your pocket, you would be subject to much less legal penalties than downloading one song from that album. It’s the extreme penalties inflicted by the RIAA that have everyone (including me) up in arms.
April 25th, 2005 at 4:56 am
Another paid shill for the industry it looks like.
We have heard over and over that the music would “die” if the music industry goes under. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has existed since history began with people. Actually the studios are in dire trouble also. The outragous costs to hire a studio for an hour to two is being replaced by home studios. For the cost of a part day you can have your own studio at far less cost. That is the reason the studios are going under.
This business of the stealing. You can’t steal an idea. Can’t be done. If you take it, it is still with the owner. Should you give it back a thousand times, he will be none the richer for it. That is why intellectal property doesn’t work. It simply isn’t property. You can’t take it nor can you give it back.
Bread and butter? lols, you ever read any of the artists and their comments on what that bread and butter means? Here’s one…
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/03/is_there_an_ups.html
April 25th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
P.S. I’m not an anonymous coward
*****************************************************
yes, you are and ANONYMOUS COWARD, hiding behind your right-wing moral facade of “morality”.
yes, you probably are being paid by the RIAA/MPAA or some other legal or religious fanatic group to spout your “high moral ground” position.
filesharing is nota crime and i defy you to prove that it is – anywhere.
yes, ANONYMOUS COWARD. stay in the shadow. hide. until you reveal who yOU are, with a screen name or rEal name, you are an ANONYMOUS COWARD.
April 25th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
what the artists need to realize is, they don’t need the lables anymore. How about producing and recording their own album, distributing it on a p2p network, on the same day as they release it in the store, and they won’t need the lables anymore, they get more of a share of the profits, plus they would keep the fans happy by not suing them. And with concert ticket still outrageous, no artists going to go hungry, or not be able to afford their bentley.
April 25th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
heh, I actually do create music (mostly DnB loops I post to several P2P netwroks) and am a graphic designer whose had my work plagiarized, however, I am unwilling to ascribe to any primitive and/or draconian enforcement tactics currently being employed by your masters…
TT
April 25th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
You can’t tell me exactly what these files are worth…and I’ll tell you why. It changes depending on the situation. “Stairway to Heaven” is worth $0.99 on Itunes, probably $0.35-$0.45 if I by a used copy of the LP, and maybe $1.20 if I buy a new CD in the store. Of course, the value skyrockets to $750 when the RIAA’s lawyers are trying to extract a settlement from a person who traded it online. Whatever you want to say about file sharing, that is ridiculous. And there’s something I’d like someone as morally unimpeachable as yourself to answer. If I’ve already bought the tape and the LP of “Led Zepplin IV”, why do I have to buy the CD, again? Why can’t I get an mp3 off the internet (the quality of which is lower than that of the LP track)? How the hell is that stealing?
I don’t doubt that the folks at the School of Music don’t put their heart and soul into the music they play. But if they’re any good they do not play music because they want to be rich (trust me). If you’re not an RIAA hack, you might consider directing a portion of your vitriol towards the RIAA as well as the file traders. You can’t possibly be dense enough to think that the RIAA gives a single solitary crap about music. The companies they represent have been screwing musicians and the people who buy music for years. I don’t use “screwing” in the vague sense; record companies got caught fixing the prices of CDs, and they have been caught cheating musicians out of royalties. I wont bother describing the onerous contracts that are the industry standard.
If it’s OK for the record companies to screw artists, why is it wrong for private citizens to do the same? I suppose the best answer is because the law says so. You should really feel better that the law is on your side. Well, not quite your side, but enough on your side to quench your moral outrage about people trading files and STEALING!!! your music. Let’s just hope you don’t have to sign away that same precious music in exchange for royalties you might not even see and advance that will be eaten up actually producing the CD that the label will sell at a tidy profit.. Now that would be a shame.
Frankly, I’m sick of musicians’ moral outrage over file sharing. The music industry has been a cesspool for years now, but all of the sudden, they have a strong moral compass about what belongs to whom. I guess the point at which the dishonest transfer of property becomes wrong is also the point at which they can no longer profit off of it. If people stealing music makes you want to puke, you’re in the wrong frigging business, pal. Suck it up.
-Chris
P.S. If you don’t want to take the trouble to log in, why not post your e-maill address, like this:
puppbot9@nycap.rr.com
Then you would be a little less of an anonymous coward.
April 26th, 2005 at 4:33 am
So how long have you been employed by the RIAA?
April 26th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
‘all the replies thus far have been from “educated” folk’
-ANONYMOUS RIGHT-WING NUTCASE COWARD
****************************************************
that’s correct. all of them – except yours.
here’s what we think of your current heroine “artist” paid by the RIAA –
http://p2pnet.net/story/4449
April 27th, 2005 at 6:00 am
Forgive me Jon but this link is highly pertinate to this discussion and shows that the above reply is correct in that our Anonymous Coward very likely hasn’t a leg to stand on in knowing what he is talking about. Certainly not with Sheryl Crow, who doesn’t have the brain power to string it together but rather depends on others to write her material to submit to public for news and testimony. Even her fan site states she is sort of bubble headed when it comes to this sort of stuff.
It further shows catflap knows of what s/he speaks of…
Lastly it might explain why the RIAA has such problems with taking 11,000 people that didn’t settle out of court to court. There seems there just might be a big problem in presenting ownership of said copyrights. Now why does that not suprise me?
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16628
May 15th, 2005 at 7:57 am
So will somebody tell me where to find files to share? Thanks