A 12 year old honor student in New Yorks upper West side was sued as well, despite the fact that her mother pays a $29.95 monthly charge for the program she uses to download.

What burns me is that the artists themselves say they're not in this for the money, it's about being able to express themselves, and all this other nonsense.

Bull crap. 

The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope to God that this backfires on the recording industry.

I will NEVER buy another new retail CD again, because I don't want to give them a dime of my money.  From now on, all my CD purchases will be made at second hand CD stores, where the money stays away from them altogether.

Also, and maybe someone will know this more than I, but this is a civil suit, so there will be no jury.  If someone were to fight it, couldn't they request a jury trial?  My thought is that if someone fights it and wins, with a jury, then wouldn't the precedent be set, thus eliminating future lawsuits?

No one will fight these guys though, and the RIAA knows it.  It's a scare tactic.  You know that the RIAA will offer a settlement to everyone they sue, and most people, not having the kind of money they're looking for, will take the settlement.

My question for the RIAA is this.  Can you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my downloading music has directly caused a decline in your sales?

EVERYONE'S SALES ARE DOWN.  Music, movies, athletic events.  We're in a recession, meathead.  Of course sales are down. 

You don't see Microsoft suing over lost sales because people downloaded FrontPage or Windows, yet I know for a fact that there are sites out there that do just that.

This is nothing more than a bunch of upper class a$$holes trying to bully the rest of the nation into complying with the rules that benefit them the most.

It's always been my understanding of copyright law that you can't make a PROFIT from copied music.  You can do it for yourself all you want.   Just like in the 80s I could tape a song off the radio.  Maybe I should go to jail for that too.  Or what about back when cassettes first came out and people copied their albums and 8-tracks onto cassette?  Let's round them up and hang them too!

Meanwhile, murderers and rapists walk the streets or get paroled....

I think this is just rediculus. If recording artists are going to sue us for downloading their music, why don't authors sue libraries. Libraries give books away for free don't they? I was just looking around the website of a Canadian electronics store. Most of the CDs on their first page around $10-$15, fair but thoes are only the ones on sale. If you look a little deeper, many CDs are $20 plus. Now it only costs $1 to make the disk and perhaps another $5 per disk for putting music on it, including mixing and editing. That means that these so called artists are getting $14 per disk. If their CD sells 1 million copies, thats $14 million for them. They have the nerve to say that this is forcing them too loose money. Oh, they might get $10 million instead. That's more than my entire imediate family makes combined in a dogs year (or 7 human years).

Think about it logically too. Who the heck is going to fork out $20 for a 14 song album that only contains 2 songs they like. Also, it's mostly teenagers who buy CDs and with car insurance and school, how can they afford to keep buying that stuff. That's why people turn to Kazaa.

I haven't time to read all the posts so sorry if somebody has already mentioned this. It has been a long time since Apple Computers has come out with something really inovative. It's their new pay per song system. This system allows you to purchase high bit rate songs individually (for something like a buck US) without having to buy the whole album. You simply download and pay with your credit card. This will be the wave of the future. Unfortunately this is only available in the US as of now but there are plans to expand to Canada and the rest of North America in the very near future.

BTW, well said Hyperion. You are absolutely correct. It seems today that both our governments are worried about unimportant issues. With elections comming up both North America's major players, these issues are becomming no more than a grab for votes.

If the artists are only getting a very small percentage of the profits, is it the RIAA who is 'stealing' all the money?

There's a reason why people are being forced to turn to Kazaa. The last music CD I bought was over $20!

If they would cut their cd prices in half, they might make more money in the long run.

Libraries do pay out to authors.  In the British system they compile a list of the most borrowed books and pay out a "percentage" to them.  A few years ago it was Terry Pratchett who was number one most borrowed author and thus got the highest pay out.

Will

If there was ever a time to pray/hope/wish for something.  Now is the time.  I hope to everything everyone in the world considers holy that this backfires on them.  It is a fact, that if it weren't for KaZaA, I wouldn't have bought all four of those Rammstein CDs in my stereo, or that Fear Factory, or the Evanescence, or the Metallica, or the Ludacris, or the Shakira, or the... you get my drift.  The only reason I'd even get a CD burner is because the best classical music is to be found in games, and it's not as if you can pop your CD-ROM in your walkman.  In fact, because of KaZaA, I've bought four, count 'em four games.  I remember Roger Ebert writing an article on how P2P networks are beneficial to the industry, since they introduce users to music they wouldn't have heard otherwise.  He actually said CD sales went up since KaZaA came around.  As far as the RIAA is concerned, I hope there canopy jams and their engine explodes. Eat it.

Why the hell is the RIAA is sueing NOW?!!

When Napster first existed, the RIAA did not sue those who used it (the public). Intead, Napster was just shut down.

Why don't they just shut down Kazaa as they did with Napster instead of being such @$$HOLES, Dimwits, Nitwits, and Drunkards by sueing everyone. And I mean everyone!!!! Elderlies, KIDS, and low-income families??

The Recording Industry just wants money. Sure, I understand. The U.S. Constitution does promote capitalism. However, the damned RIAA (pardon my language, but I'm pissed) is taking this thing WAAAYYYYYYYY too far.

You're right. Why are murders, rapists, and MAFIAS walking around the streets while the INNOCENT, low-income, lower-class families are being SUED???

Those families need the money that they currently have in order to pay for their children's education (like college, etc.). Once those children get their education, they will have a brighter future.

However, the RIAA DOESN'T CARE about that. By sueing the families (of any level), they are taking away the future of the children.

Pardon me if I am off-topic. I am just giving an example of CAUSE and EFFECT.

I will now say this to the RIAA: BACK OFF AND STFU!!!!!

pardon my anger.

Cheap?  No.  If I had money, I would honestly go out and buy the stuff.  I get $5 a week maximum for doing chores, it doesn't matter if I unsunk the Bismarck and made her seaworthy again, my parents would give me $5 for the week.  Even then, my parents have a tendency to 'forget', so at the very least, I have to wait 4 weeks before getting any CD.  I consider KaZaA quality control, I can't afford to just assume a CD will be good, I don't have that kind of budget.  I'm tired of two bit artists trying to get rich quick.  Now that we have a way to check their work, it's an outrage, they'd actually have to work!  Joe Miller goes and sits in a cubicle for half his life, and you can't even write 11 good songs every 2 years.  I've saved myself numerous headaches with these programs, avoiding bands like Kittie and Mudvayne.  With software, I do feel guilty however, so I keep strict guidelines, once 30 days has expired, I make my decision: buy it, or get rid of my virtual copy.