RIAA Sues Family Without A Computer
By
Newsferatu,
Writer
Sunday, April 23, 2006 @ 8:38 PM
No Internet Service, Either
- advertisement -
From the Rockmart Journal:
A Rockmart, GA family is being sued for illegal music file sharing, despite the fact that they don’t even own a computer.
A federal lawsuit filed this week in Rome by the Recording Industry Association of America alleges that Carma Walls, of 117 Morgan St., Rockmart, has infringed on copyrights for recorded music by sharing files over the Internet. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and requests unspecified monetary damages.
The lawsuit states, “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings, to distribute the copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make the copyrighted recordings available for distribution to others.”
This came as shocking news to the Walls family, who were notified of the lawsuit Friday afternoon by a newspaper reporter. James Walls, speaking on behalf of his wife and family, said they have not been served with legal papers and were unaware of the lawsuit.
After being shown a copy of the court filing, Walls said he found the whole thing bewildering.
“I don’t understand this,” Walls said. “How can they sue us when we don’t even have a computer?”
Walls also noted that his family has only resided at their current address “for less than a year.” He wondered if a prior tenant of the home had Internet access, then moved, leaving his family to be targeted instead.
However, the RIAA’s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: “Who Will Save Your Soul,” Jewel; “Far Behind,” Candlebox; “Still the Same,” Bob Seger; “I Won’t Forget You,” Poison; “Open Arms,” Journey; “Unpretty,” TLC; No Scrubs,” TLC; and “Saving All My Love for You,” Whitney Houston.
The lawsuit follows similar wording as in some 3,500 other lawsuits filed by the RIAA in the United States since June 2003.
Typically, the lawsuits have targeted users of Kazaa, Grokster and other peer-to-peer Internet services – most of which have since been shut down by RIAA lawsuits. With these services, users typically have an open folder on the computer that allows other users of the service access to any songs that have been saved in a digital format, such as MP3 files.
The RIAA lawsuits have come under fire, with critics calling the effort a “scare tactic” meant to intimidate the public from file sharing activities.
However, in a public statement defending the litigation, the RIAA says its efforts have been effective in dissuading illegal activity.
“The industry’s anti-piracy efforts have deterred a sizeable number of would-be illegal downloaders,” the RIAA statement reads. “Although a significant online problem undoubtedly persists, particularly with hard-core, frequent peer-to-peer users, absent action by the industry, the illegal down-loading world would be exponentially worse.”
blobbur - 5/2/2006 6:08:25 PM analgravy , if it was not for me you would not exist. ask your mommy , she knows what i'm talking about. you can tell her blobbur , it's my real name
analgravy2 - 4/29/2006 9:48:38 PM You should see how much it costs to get Blobbar & Blobbur's nut stains out of my shirts. It's in the upper millions. BTW I want to be called the first Bitch. First man doesn't fit me...but your dick sure will.
Mummyman - 4/29/2006 6:40:41 AM I actually do know what it cost to silk screen a shirt and it's NOT anywhere near $15 a shirt, I've worked with printing vendors throughout the garment industry for the last 8 or 9 years so try again!- Lets just agree to disagree given that common sense and facts seem to elude most including yourself on this subject.
orethrius - 4/29/2006 5:43:35 AM Do you know how much it costs to screen a shirt? Fifteen. Fucking. Dollars. Plus $10 for the shirt if you want the very best imported silk. Actually, techincally speaking, it's a 29.6 - 37.5% profit. Compare that to the average CD price - bear in mind that BOTH are costs after goods and service - and you can see a better explanation than "it's easier to download music than to rip off a shirt." Really, all it takes to make a cheap knock-off at home is an inkjet and a $2 pack of iron-ons. However, I stray from the points you brought up. To reply to your points, respectively: Nobody thought that MGM v Grokster would go anywhere ("it's just another Sony v Betamax" - which is slowly being repealed, but that's another issue for another day) either. I quite understand the concept of charging for goods and services - I am, after all, a *Republican* citizen of the United States. What I cannot understand, good sir, is how major labels can gouge the consumer (there are laws in at least twenty states prohibiting such activities, California - where I reside - being one of them IIRC); engage in behaviour that defies Sherman, Clayton, and oftentimes the laws of physics; engage in payola scandals that would see indie labels put out of operation; justify said actions as "benefiical to the artist" who's lucky to see the 10% their publisher should be getting; then have the nerve to call anyone that decides to "share" the file, thereby giving the artist some more exposure, a thief simply because the label has implied injunctive abilities against donating directly to the artist. Add THAT on top of the fact that the average CD materielle is less than a quarter, and you have a situation that all-in-all makes me want to projectile vomit. "This is how the real world works." Reality is highly overrated. Actually, people were concerned about the "rising cost of music" long before file-sharing came about. Why did file-sharing come about, anyway? What was the major cause of Napster's origin? Some people *are* out-and-out thieves, but there are a number of individuals that feel the artist deserves exposure. If the record company wants to take all their hard-earned money, that's hardly the consumer's concern. Really, if an artist cannot be paid for their work - and even Metallica's "deal" is a rip-off they've yet to realise - they should support what patronisation they can get. If it's good enough to warrant payment, such will occur automatically - driving an economy with captive art has never been to the betterment of society. The whole reason why nobody complained about CDs before is that they felt they had no public voice, and bent over and took it up the ass like everyone else. Then people realised that it didn't have to be that way. The problem occured when people decided to burn and redistribute the discs at cost - not at the point of sharing. As I said, this "war" has been waged for quite some time - the battle between money and art - so it's naive, at best, to believe that the public "whining" is anything but a potential revolution.
genecottone - 4/29/2006 12:26:31 AM hey nightmare ad for everything else there is master card.so now the riaa can go fuck themselves because napster came back and all the other piaracy people will be back to.but nightmare i finished the commercial for you.so no offense to you.
NightmareAD - 4/29/2006 12:02:36 AM FACT: COST OF AN LP(RECORD), $5.99-$10.99
FACT: COST OF A TAPE (CASSETTE), $7.99-$13.99
FACT:COST OF CD(COMPACT DISC),$17.98-$30.00
FACT:COST OF A family being sued with no computer,PRICELESS!!!!!
Mummyman - 4/28/2006 7:22:21 PM Bart: From what i've read Metallica ( the band that everyone loves to hate ) has one of the sweetest deals in respect to their cut per CD sold which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 bucks a disc. Most established bands do make most of their cash from merch which brings me to my next question...How come no one is on a fucking tirade over $35 & $40 T shirts- effectively 2 or 3 times the price of a CD. Ahhh I get it....you can't steal those off the internet, therefore less whining
Blobbar - 4/28/2006 5:40:02 PM and i'm gonna ban korn from all music.blobber 2008!!!!!!!!
Bart - 4/28/2006 5:34:20 PM According to Johnathon Davixs of Korn bands don't make much money on CD sales anyways. They make the bulk of there money from t-shirts sales and other swag
Blobbar - 4/28/2006 9:28:54 AM blobber 2008!!!!!!america's first gay president!!!!!what do we call my gay partner analgravy if im elected president?the first man?hell lets bother about that after im sworn in.blobber 2008!!!!!!
Mummyman - 4/28/2006 7:58:30 AM Orethrius: First off you're assuming that the "family being sued" is actually a case that will go anywhere legally from a prosecution standpoint- Somehow I doubt it, ultimately time will tell the story. Secondly, It's a stretch to say the least to justify illegal downloading by using the tired excuse of "CD's cost too much"...In my opinion this is reverse engineering reality-goods and service have a cost- period, This is how the real world works. Everyone needs to remember that no one was complaining about the cost of a CD before file sharing came along...all of sudden when people realized that they could steal music and then that system of theft went under investigation, then and only then did the pissing and moaning about this subject begin.
Blobbar - 4/28/2006 7:12:23 AM my sympathies are with this family.i know how tough it can be to be sued for something like this.i was charged with raping a girl,had to be dragged to court and only when they saw i didnt have a dick did they release me.if elected in 2008 i promise to put an end to frivolous lawsuits.vote blobber 2008!!!!!!!!
orethrius - 4/27/2006 10:29:40 PM Mummyman, there have been some words on both sides of this issue, about half of which I take to be without merit. Despite that, I'd be interested to know your opinion on the following situations.
1. A band decides to play in an auditorium. They sell tickets to the concert. However, some of their groupees decide it would be easier on their pocketbooks to merely stay in their cars the whole time. Should this be illegal? What if they decide to tape the show for home replay?
2. Is it fair for artists to portray the "honest businessman" exchanging "public services" for "prearranged fees" when they are neither collecting fees for their services, nor even receiving a "fair shake" from those who do so on their behalf?
3. How would you justify the cost of media, given that the average blank CD these days costs about USD 0.20 ($20 / 100)? Is it all the "cost of performance" or is the artist being ripped off by shyster lawyers that simply "cut-and-run"? Is it fair to the artist to be misled into damning contract provisions by the allure of monies they shall never receive, then expect the public to recoup their costs? In similar fashion, is that fair to those that would be their biggest fans?
4. How does ANY of this justify suing a family for file-sharing that has no means? What the hell kind of "preemptive strike" rhetoric can even BEGIN to rationalise a gaffe of this magnitude?
Reply as able, when able, and I shall await with bated breath.
gods_resolution - 4/27/2006 6:57:00 PM nobody's losing money because of people downloading music. only the top 10% of artists ACTUALLY make a profit off selling cd's. the rest go on tour
how can anyone still support the riaa when they're suing people who don't even have a computer...oh wait, they're retarded.
