RIAA takes kid's life savings for making a file search engine

[AlexMax]

...

And when I dont think the RIAA can be any more of a fucking pain in the ass, we get THIS...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/TechTV/techtv_RIAAvsteen030609.html

They nail some kid for making a file search engine. It wasn't even advertised as an MP3 search engine, yet the RIAA with it's bullshit lawyers just say. "This might get used to download MP3's so we're going to take you to court." Without any evidence.

The kid settled out of court. But he had to pay them $12,000. What is so significant about this number? That is his entire life savings. All of it.

There are donations going on to recoup the money. But even if he does recoup it, it's still technically a victory for the RIAA, since everyone is reporting this story and no one will report "Kid who lsot 12 grand gets it all back".

To hell with Microsoft's comparatively petty shit, the RIAA is the most viral association I've ever had the unfortuniate experience to gawk at. Burn in hell.

[SquishyMon]

Like I said before- screw the RIAA, the MPAA, and expecially the DMCA (digital milenium copyright act).

[bigjoe]

Their outrageous attacks on people who dont intend on pirating their music are exactly the reason I am boycotting them. And they must be really hurting for money if theyll settle for 12000.

Their organization is going under and trying to hide it with such imperialistic moves as this. I wont be surprised if their motives attract physical violence.

[TheGeepster]

Actually, from what I hear, I tend to agree that the RIAA was acting out of line. Perhaps they did have a valid reason, but I can't see how..

Did I mention my general loathing of lawyerkind? (There are some honest ones out there, but it's hard to believe at times.)

[Rijuhn]

WTF? That's just damn crazy. Money hungry bastards die and burn in hell in the end. So they may not suffer now, but at least I know they'll reap what they sow, nothing.

[tgf_guy]

This is a very controversal subject.

Let us look at all sides of the story: The RIAA is attempting to stop piracy. The person in question here wrote (Actually, he simply editted a pre-existing program by tricking it out with an assortment of added features.) a program that can track filesharing over networks. The problem: This particular program can also detect MP3's, which is why the RIAA went after him.

HOWEVER: Microsoft has implemented the very same feature into its operating systems, which allow you to check activity on networks by searching for specific pieces of information.

So, what, precisely, is the RIAA attempting to accomplish? $12,000 is chump change for an organization as large as the RIAA; is this simply a deterrant for other possible, "program" writers? Again, we do not know the complete story (Whether or not he wrote it EXCLUSIVELY to search for MP3's.), so saying, "DARN THAT CRAFTY RIAA!!!!!!!!!!111" without knowing all of the facts is shooting before looking.

[Thunderbird]

If you look further down in the article, you will find that the following items were being exchanged using this service:

Pictures, Powerpoint presentations, physics notes, anime and music

You wouldn't be able to exchange all of that kind of stuff if the program searched exclusively for MP3s. Yet the RIAA makes it sound like he intended for the system to be used to swap music, which is clearly not the case here.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by Thunderbird
You wouldn't be able to exchange all of that kind of stuff if the program searched exclusively for MP3s. Yet the RIAA makes it sound like he intended for the system to be used to swap music, which is clearly not the case here.

It could very well have been: However, things such as IRC are illegal, so, yes, there is some animosity coming from me as to the legitimacy of this lawsuit.

[AlexMax]

Originally posted by tgf_guy
This is a very controversal subject.

Let us look at all sides of the story: The RIAA is attempting to stop piracy. The person in question here wrote (Actually, he simply editted a pre-existing program by tricking it out with an assortment of added features.) a program that can track filesharing over networks. The problem: This particular program can also detect MP3's, which is why the RIAA went after him.

HOWEVER: Microsoft has implemented the very same feature into its operating systems, which allow you to check activity on networks by searching for specific pieces of information.

So, what, precisely, is the RIAA attempting to accomplish? $12,000 is chump change for an organization as large as the RIAA; is this simply a deterrant for other possible,"program" writers? Again, we do not know the complete story (Whether or not he wrote it EXCLUSIVELY to search for MP3's.), so saying, "DARN THAT CRAFTY RIAA!!!!!!!!!!111" without knowing all of the facts is shooting before looking.

Actually, if you can come up with a better explination than deterance, then be my guest.

In all actuality, I think that what the music industry should be more worried about are the solo artists who didn't happen to suck enough to get a deal with the RIAA. And they are doing well. Without it. Especially because of MP3.com, which has a great place for solo artists to release their songs on.

Now, we are hearing the dying knells of the RIAA as it desporatly tries to go after an easy target. Or maybe they have an alterier motive...maybe they think that if they control how music flows on the internet, they will once again have control over solo artists who have run out of their control (before, if you got rejected, you were pretty much doomed to play local).

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by AlexMax


Actually, if you can come up with a better explination than deterance, then be my guest.

It's pretty much my only explanation: They have money, they are still in complete control of the music industry; a deterrant would be the first thing that springs to mind.


Originally posted by AlexMax
In all actuality, I think that what the music industry should be more worried about are the solo artists who didn't happen to suck enough to get a deal with the RIAA. And they are doing well. Without it. Especially because of MP3.com, which has a great place for solo artists to release their songs on.

Solo artists are definately a big hit when it comes to internet-wide useage; I forsee a time at which we will download MP3's as a legitimate process for buying songs. But that's a bit far away.


Originally posted by AlexMax
Now, we are hearing the dying knells of the RIAA as it desporatly tries to go after an easy target. Or maybe they have an alterier motive...maybe they think that if they control how music flows on the internet, they will once again have control over solo artists who have run out of their control (before, if you got rejected, you were pretty much doomed to play local).

I believe they are, mainly, trying to stop both file-sharing programs and ways that they can detected and found; they are only going after, "easy" targets, however, as something like Microsoft would be a battle of the government midget versus the monopoly.

[Radium]

Those sons of bitches need to be capped in the ass, or realize how f*#%ing IDIOTIC they're being. This sh#t pisses me off.

[AlexMax]

Originally posted by tgf_guy
I believe they are, mainly, trying to stop both file-sharing programs and ways that they can detected and found; they are only going after, "easy" targets, however, as something like Microsoft would be a battle of the government midget versus the monopoly.

I disagree. Even thouogh the RIAA isn't as huge as Microsoft, it still has a lot of clout. And besides, the RIAA wants to be on Microsoft's good side so they will support their efforts to enforce DRM in future operating systems.

They both want to control their respective universes. They are a perfect match.