Friday, May 28, 2004

Ignorance is not bliss

Recording industry sues first Minnesotan for thousands, but she's a single mom earning $21,000: "(Tammy) Lafky says she doesn't download free music. Her daughter did last year when she was 14, but neither of them knew it was illegal because all of Cassandra's friends at school were doing it."

That's a great message to teach your daughter. I can't wait for a lawyer to defend them using the "But everyone else was doing it" defense.

The article also notes that the 41-year-old mother cannot pay the fine because she only clears $21,000 a year. So why does she have a computer that she doesn't know how to use?

2 comments:

Noah Brimhall said...

Of course, ignorance of the law is never a good defense, but I am not at all suprised by this. I know a lot of people who have no idea that downloading music is illegal. My fiance was complaining about the how bad the selection on iTunes is just last night. I asked her what she was compairing it too. She was compairing it to the original Napster. She knows it was an illegal filesharing system, but she still compares it to the legal iTunes.

What I am still suprised by is the lack of research that the RIAA does on the people they sue. Going after a single mom making $21,000/year is just bad publicity. There are plenty of illegal file swappers who are probably worse that Tammy Lafky's 14 year old daughter and have the money to pay the fine.

Eddie Hargreaves said...

I'll agree that it's bad publicity for the RIAA. But I don't think their image could be much worse. It's obviously something they don't care about.

A defense I'd rather see is "I didn't know my child was downloading songs." Unfortunately, the mother not only knew about the activity but actually questioned its legality. She came to her conclusion that it wasn't illegal based mainly or solely on the fact that her daughter's friends were doing it.

If all of her daughter's friends were huffing aerosol cans or downing Sudafed, would that make it OK?

A defense I'd love to see is "I only downloaded out-of-print songs that can no longer be legally purchased. Does that make record swaps illegal?"