> I remember when RIAA was shaking down 15 year olds for $7000 for a single Metallica download from Napster.
Why didn't Metallica's fans rebel? That would have stopped it quickly and set a precedent and example for the rest.
Why didn't Metallica's fans rebel? That would have stopped it quickly and set a precedent and example for the rest.
> Take, for example, the case of the Tammy Lafky, a 41-year-old sugar mill worker and single mother in Minnesota. Because her teenage daughter downloaded some music last year—an activity both mother and daughter believed to be legal— Lafky now faces over $500,000 in penalties. The RIAA has offered to settle for $4000, but even that sum is well beyond Lafky’s means—she earns just $21,000 per year and receives no child support.
It gets worse:
> Among those sued was Brianna Lahara, a twelve-year-old girl living with her single mother in public housing in New York City. In order to settle the case, Brianna was forced to apologize publicly and pay $2,000.
How could one justify tearing cash from the hands of poor children? The irony is that they may have been downloading music because they couldn't afford it in the first place, yet wanted to keep up with their peers.
What an incredible strategy - and it worked! And in something that's entertainment and fandom-driven; it's not like the fans need a medication, job, or their auto warranty. How pathetic. The day rock'n'roll died.