Local view: RIAA actions don’t give due process
Oh my. After reading the negative comments regarding the Sept. 28 article about my family being affected by the illegal downloading suits, I felt I had to make some things clear that were not in the article. In hindsight, I wish I would have had been able to sit down with Cindy Lange-Kubick for a serious discussion of this whole topic.
My husband, Chuck, and I brought such a private matter to the reading public not to garner sympathy for our family or to say “whah” because our son was caught downloading and others weren’t.
As parents, we felt we should alert other individuals, and parents, of the possibility of this happening to them and their family. The way we understand it now is any computer with music on it and the ‘ability’ to share violates the Recording Industry Association of America legislation.
We also wanted to inform others of the unfair practices of the RIAA. Even if what my son did was deemed wrong, their use of legal fear and intimidation in their dealings is not right.
As California District Judge James Otero wrote in a recent RIAA lawsuit: “The concern of this Court is in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs [RIAA] to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.” We couldn’t have said it better. This is what I refer to when I say “legal bullying.”
The Constitution states that we are all guaranteed due process of law. With this, each person is entitled to notice of a suit, an opportunity to be heard and the given right to defend him or herself. My expressions of anger and saying “it’s just not right” were in reference to the fact that our son (as well as many other individuals receiving the letters) did not receive due process of law, simply because he couldn’t afford the expensive legal fees he would incur “to be heard.”
You see, the notice he received was not charging him with downloading music but was accusing him of “distributing music.” Not because he had ever shared any music (he hadn’t) but because he had music on his computer and it was possible on a peer-to-peer network to do so.
In April, Judge Neil V. Wake made the following ruling: “Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution. … statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute ‘copies’ of their works to the public ‘by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.’ Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a ‘distribution’ under … 106(3) has not taken place.”
This and other recent rulings we read made the issue of copyright infringement even more confusing and unclear.
I have been following a case in Minnesota where the RIAA sued a single mother and originally won. She was fined $222,000 for songs she downloaded. The judge, after the ruling, received many letters from law professors and legal professionals around the country objecting to his incorrect instructions to the jury. Thankfully, Judge Michael J. Davis declared a mistrial and made the following statements in his ruling:
“The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases. … The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts ….”
After the LJS article came out, many anonymous bloggers made harsh judgments of my son, and me, as a mother, educator and counselor. That hurt. I couldn’t believe people could make so many judgmental inferences from such a scant article. I am not perfect, nor is my son. He’s human, he’s young, he’ll learn. Life’s natural consequences teach themselves. As a family, we stand together and support each other in all that life brings.
I believe in justice and fairness, not just for my son, but for all. If I see inequity, against anyone, I will speak up. The three days we received to “pay up, or else” and several other methods of the RIAA felt very wrong. Especially when you can’t get a live person on the phone.
I believe whole-heartedly in consequences. I dole them out as “natural teachers” to children all the time, in the hopes that they will remember them in making future choices. I also teach them to treat everyone the way they want to be treated.
Last but not least, I believe the punishment should fit the crime. In Saturday’s Daily Record, I read of individual fines for various crimes and couldn’t help but think (with humor in mind) of the credit card commercial … $400 fine for assault … $400-$500 fines for driving while intoxicated … $4,000 fine for downloading music …the look on my husband Chuck’s face when he saw the RIAA letter: Priceless. Please let this important information and our son’s expensive lesson be your teacher.
Deb Biggs and her family live in Lincoln.
My husband, Chuck, and I brought such a private matter to the reading public not to garner sympathy for our family or to say “whah” because our son was caught downloading and others weren’t.
As parents, we felt we should alert other individuals, and parents, of the possibility of this happening to them and their family. The way we understand it now is any computer with music on it and the ‘ability’ to share violates the Recording Industry Association of America legislation.
We also wanted to inform others of the unfair practices of the RIAA. Even if what my son did was deemed wrong, their use of legal fear and intimidation in their dealings is not right.
As California District Judge James Otero wrote in a recent RIAA lawsuit: “The concern of this Court is in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs [RIAA] to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.” We couldn’t have said it better. This is what I refer to when I say “legal bullying.”
The Constitution states that we are all guaranteed due process of law. With this, each person is entitled to notice of a suit, an opportunity to be heard and the given right to defend him or herself. My expressions of anger and saying “it’s just not right” were in reference to the fact that our son (as well as many other individuals receiving the letters) did not receive due process of law, simply because he couldn’t afford the expensive legal fees he would incur “to be heard.”
You see, the notice he received was not charging him with downloading music but was accusing him of “distributing music.” Not because he had ever shared any music (he hadn’t) but because he had music on his computer and it was possible on a peer-to-peer network to do so.
In April, Judge Neil V. Wake made the following ruling: “Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution. … statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute ‘copies’ of their works to the public ‘by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.’ Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a ‘distribution’ under … 106(3) has not taken place.”
This and other recent rulings we read made the issue of copyright infringement even more confusing and unclear.
I have been following a case in Minnesota where the RIAA sued a single mother and originally won. She was fined $222,000 for songs she downloaded. The judge, after the ruling, received many letters from law professors and legal professionals around the country objecting to his incorrect instructions to the jury. Thankfully, Judge Michael J. Davis declared a mistrial and made the following statements in his ruling:
“The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases. … The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts ….”
After the LJS article came out, many anonymous bloggers made harsh judgments of my son, and me, as a mother, educator and counselor. That hurt. I couldn’t believe people could make so many judgmental inferences from such a scant article. I am not perfect, nor is my son. He’s human, he’s young, he’ll learn. Life’s natural consequences teach themselves. As a family, we stand together and support each other in all that life brings.
I believe in justice and fairness, not just for my son, but for all. If I see inequity, against anyone, I will speak up. The three days we received to “pay up, or else” and several other methods of the RIAA felt very wrong. Especially when you can’t get a live person on the phone.
I believe whole-heartedly in consequences. I dole them out as “natural teachers” to children all the time, in the hopes that they will remember them in making future choices. I also teach them to treat everyone the way they want to be treated.
Last but not least, I believe the punishment should fit the crime. In Saturday’s Daily Record, I read of individual fines for various crimes and couldn’t help but think (with humor in mind) of the credit card commercial … $400 fine for assault … $400-$500 fines for driving while intoxicated … $4,000 fine for downloading music …the look on my husband Chuck’s face when he saw the RIAA letter: Priceless. Please let this important information and our son’s expensive lesson be your teacher.
Deb Biggs and her family live in Lincoln.
Copyright © 2002-2009 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.