p2pnet - rss feed: 100,000 for Britanny Chan!
p2p news / p2pnet:- 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 …..
It’s a milestone for Brittany Chan. And it’s a milestone for p2pnet.
At 10:40 am Pacific, after only around 48 hours, we clocked up the 100,000th read of Big Music wants Britanny Chan, making it by far the most-viewed item we’ve ever had. It also proves the world is now starting to pay attention to the RIAA’s bloody-minded sue ‘em all marketing and sales scheme under which it’s trying to use international legal systems to literally sue people into buying its grossly over-priced downloads.
But we’re not saying the world is watching because of our posts, although we feel really really chuffed that we’re playing a part.
Rather, our story is currently registering about 1 rps (reads per second) and if that’s the case for p2pnet, think of what’s happening on other sites that are also carrying the story of the travesty.
Just in case you missed it, as we said earlier:
“Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.
“She was 13 when this all started, but she’s now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian …” That’s so they can go after her personally.
In another story, we said:
The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she’d given Britanny a computer. “After taking Ms Chan’s deposition, the RIAA moved to add the daughter,” her lawyer, John Hermann, told p2pnet. “I objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that they had to appoint a guardian ad litem before for the child before they could proceed.
“In the meantime, I threatened filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Ms Chan”. That frightened off the RIAA legal hit men and the complaint against her was dropped.”
Meanwhile,
bear in mind: the ‘traditional’ media instantly start pumping out headlines every time the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), owned by Vivendi Universal, Warner Music, EMI Group and Sony BMG, say they’ve ‘sued’ another 750 innocent men, woman and children.
But they’re not covering the Britanny Chan outrage, or the stories about the three American mothers who are refusing to cave in to the extortionate RIAA ’settlement’ scam. Patricia Santangelo, Dawnell Leadbetter and Tanya Andersen have started a protest which could spread around the world.
Is this lack of covereage linked to the fact a significant segment of the corporate media are owned or controlled (through advertising) by the entertainment and software cartels?
But it doesn’t matter. Their day is done and news in the 21st century is being disseminated increasingly by news sites, blogs and word-of-mouth (IRC, IM), completely by-passing the electronic and print mainstream ‘news’ outlets.
As we say elsewhere, “for the first time in history, ordinary people around the world can, and do, access the only real currency, raw information, which is allowing them to make informed decisions, which in turn means they’re not consuming like good little consumers should”.
Stay tuned, keep the story rolling, and remember:
They depend on us. We don’t depend on them. Bug the hell out of your local congress person, MP, or whoever is supposed to represent you, wherever you are. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
October 7th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
There already is somewhat of a campaign to help stop the RIAA’s lawsuits.
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
By signing that, and getting the signature number closer to 100,000, you’ll help deter their efforts to sue “criminals.”
October 7th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
When Scott Simm, member of parliament for the riding of “Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor” in Newfoundland, asked the Heritage Minister if changes to copyright law would target his 10-year-old son, the Minister avoided the question.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/22
Many members of parliament have children that will be targeted by the American and European major labels that make up the “Canadian” recording industry association. I suspect if they realized just how bad this situation is they would then speak up in parliament and not allow those MPs practically “owned” by the major labels to bend over backwards to hand Canadians over to CRIA.
Please do what you can to protect our children. If you are a youth (under 18) that isn’t yet voting age, write your member of parliament anyway and get your patents involved!
Information on finding your member of parliament: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ectools
If you want help writing letters, or want feedback on something before you send it, please connect with me or the other folks with Digital Copyright Canada http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
October 7th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
whats the score now?
October 7th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
100,758 at 12:09 Pacific.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
omg, that is the cutest name ever! =3
anyway… I hope the case against the 14yo girl is thrown out… I can’t beleive they’d even consider sueing a child… and the court knows that the kid can’t pay that… the mother has too… and the case against the mother was already thrown out!… how can the RIAA even be allowed to continue this… >_>
October 7th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
I can’t help but notice the utter absence of RIAA spin doctors posting on the subject. Are they beyond redemption
October 7th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
This is one of the very things that the RIAA fears. Say what you will but there is a good reason that you aren’t hearing of this in lamestream. As long as the cartels can keep the news undercover of the dirty goings on then the longer they can continue with this farce. Critical mass is the one thing they should fear deep in their coal black hearts.
It takes a long time for critical mass to be reached. If you can delay or even stop news getting out about it you can believe it is controlled and the critical part will never be reached. It is through stories such as this that you find out just how “controlled” the news outlets really are. None of them want to cut off the advertising revenue feeds provided by the cartels. Those that are owned outright aren’t going to make a peep against their masters.
It is remarkable that none of this news is in lamestream other than as a prop that the RIAA would use at random to attempt to boost their claim of legitmaticy. What is really odd is the majority of the news about infringement and its determintial effects on the industry comes solely from the RIAA. It is repeated just as if you had heard the echo coming off a cliff wall somewhere, word for word. Prehaps if we were all still cavemen we might buy some god is out there juggling with the laws of nature for his amusement.
The idea that people are reading this article and in record numbers is a sign that more and more are realizing just how screwed they are when it comes to reading or hearing “unbiased” news. Simply they are turning to other sources to get the “fair and balanced” part of news. It doesn’t appear its going to come through lamestream unvarnished and without a slant that reflects the news sources wish to protect its economic well being at the cost of truth.
This is why lamestream more and more are going to the bloggers and the like for their news and to make their presence known on the net. They, like the cartels, depend on you in the end for their economic well being. That is where the real power lies no matter how it is spun or simply they wouldn’t be on the net. They must go where the readership is and if they don’t they face the slow prospect of starving. The action speaks far louder than the echoing of puff peices for the RIAA does. If they can’t give away their product then no amount of advertising dollars are going to keep them in business in the long run. Those dollars will follow the masses and news outlets will find that they are only the home as long as they get the masses what they are interested in. Truth in news should certainly be in the criteria required.
We are all awaiting critcal mass. Ideas like those presented that the settlement center isn’t interested in any sort of reason beyond you’ll pay. Even if that reason is being falsely accused. They don’t have time to investigate such claims in hopes that each and every one of those accused will cave in rather than face a long and protracted legal battle that can leave one victorous and in economic ruins on a personal basis.
If readership rates indicate interest then the word is going out and more and more are leaning towards the idea that something is rotten in Denmark when it comes to gobal, national, and local politicans and their own news sources.
October 7th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
has there been any attempt for anyone to actually contact the mainstream media about this to see what their response is.
I tried once to contact USA today about an issue with the RIAA and got a pretty condesending email back from the tech editor. soooo I guess we know where their loyalties are.
October 7th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
where is it at now?
October 7th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
At 2:19 pm Pacific, it’s at 101,591 and counting
Cheers!
October 8th, 2005 at 2:13 am
Because they can’t afford NOT to pursue it.
If they don’t continue they appear weak, and the fear will diminish.
If they win, THEN this will appear on the news,even though it is a 14 year old girl. In their minds a clear victory, even over a 14yr old, is worth the negative press.
Until then, they ( rightfully ) fear the court of public opinion.
See, even though it’s not supposed to, LARGE VOCAL PUBLIC
OUTCRY can affect a high profile case.
The media blackout is to stave that off.
If they LOSE, it will be buried.
Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.com
October 8th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Is the local news media in Ann Arbor covering this? If so, are the neighboring TV markets picking it up? That’s how things get thrust onto the National Media agenda. This is what happened in the Mary Schiavo case that turned it into an obsessive national pre-occupation. If it’s being reported in a couple of markets, likely one of the national news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) will pick it up as an ‘interesting’ story to round out a broadcast cycle and break up a barrage of one serious political story, followed by a serious economics story, followed by natural disaster of the week, etc.
Has the univeristy of Michigan weighed in on where they stand with file sharing and p2p on campus? Where they stand is going to have a significant effect on the media coverage. In smaller cities that are home to a huge University, the University has an enormous amount of unseen and undetected influence in EVERYTHING that goes on in the city, including the media and what gets covered. (Unless it’s some incredibly negative revelation about the University, in which case the supposedly ‘independent’ media can not be seen kow-towing to the school, but will gleefully assist in skewering whatever sacraficial scapegoat the University coughs up to absorb or deflect any blame.)
It would also be interesting to do an analysis of where the RIAA is filing suits to see if they are doing any venue shopping based on previously amenable treatment by the federal judges in a certain district, or if the bench is heavily weighted with appointees of a common political persuasion or appointed by the same administration.
Another trend to look at is to see if they are using a favorite trick of those who file SLAPP lawsuits by filing them in a distict that has scant, but detectable nexus that is tremendously inconvenient for te defendant to defend themselves in because it’s far from their homes. Some SLAPPers would file suits in Dulles VA for defamation suits for comments a person on the West Coast might post on AOL because AOL is HQed in Dulles VA.
–TG
October 8th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
The RIAA is disgusting!
October 9th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
We already know what the position of the politicians and the press are: Silence or against the people and in favor of political investors such as big business cartels.
But I wonder, what is the position of the artists? Of the songwriters? of the religions? The silence is deafening.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 9th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Who is next?
My guess it will be those that have possesion of the “stolen” copies. That way they can grab everyone, that is you and me, at the airport, on the job, in school, at home, etc. Until they grab the President and the highest judges of your contry.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 10th, 2005 at 12:45 am
They may sue some people, but they will never shut down file sharing. There are over a million private ftp servers across the world and they cannot legally break into them and if they hook up to upload/download, they are guilty of fraud and entrapment.
Let ‘em sue. The world will stop buying their music slowly at first but they will be the ones to suffer the loss. Also there are more ways than downloading songs to get them. The dummies should know that. All we have to do is listen. hint, hint
October 12th, 2005 at 11:04 am
As we all know filesharing is not illegal.
Anyone who has first hand knowledge of the various p2p networks knows that there is a great wealth of information and applications avalible and it’s really great.
Everything from freeware to PBS documentaries and lots of BBC stuff, music etc.
I was able to obtain rare interviews with little known philosophers and more on WinMx.
But what about the copyright thing?
First of all we should know that legally — despite the national brainwash campains deseminated through the totalitaritan media (TV, radio — that media where the few determine what the many can access) copyright infringement is not theft.
You can disbelive that if you want — but the supreme court said it not me.
But that is not my point. My point is that you cannot copyright a title. No you can’t. There can be twenty books titled Rome and it’s perfectly legal for you to write another one and title it Rome.
Let us imagine for a moment that you are browsing or searching through the files avalible on a p2p network.
You see ROME and you see it’s an avi file. What do you know about this file at this point?
It could be a bbc documentary. It could be an amateur video of their own play. It could be HBO’s new series. It could be a porno flick. And because anybody can name any file anything and seed or share it, it could be Star Wars or just garbage. Many of these spoof and bogus files are put there by the same people who bring lawsuits against filesharers.
Very few of the p2p apps allow you to preview partially downloaded files. How in the world can you prove motive under such circumstances, if no one knows the file is copyrighted until after they have downloaded it?
And who is doing the copying? Not the downloader — they are receiving the copy — not making it.
Of course with BitTorrents everyone who is recieving is also copying — however this was not their decision. As they are not aware if the file is copyrighted until the download is complete.
Actually this fact is so simple and elemetary that I am suprized I have never seen it persued legally.
Take HBO’s Rome: First you need to subscribe to cable or sattilite — then you need to buy HBO in addition to that. So there are what — 100 channels of nothing anyone but a braindead zombie would watch, and then you get maybe two or three good programs a week for your $80 dollars.
Why not just cut out all the middle men and crap including the lawyer racketeers, and sell the show for $1 apiece online? Money my friend — as always — money. In a society that has basically been hijacked by real pirates, it is only logical to describe what amounts to parking along the road to sneek a peek at the drivein movie as piracy, and to decribe sending OTHER peoples children to shed their
blood for your own war profiteering lies, the acts of honorable men in an honorable cause.
At present we are in a situation that is like that of a person who has an apartment in a building that houses a entertainment multiplex and a student union. In the hallway there are thousands of doors — many of which contain misleading marquees. You walk down the hallway and some of the doors you are not allowed to go through — you are suppossed to go out front and buy a ticket to get in. However they are wide open and you can just walk in if you want to. Some of the doors it’s ok to go through — some of them you don’t know if it’s ok or not until you go in and see whats’s in there. Yet if you go in the wrong theater — even if you don’t stay for the show, you can be prosecuted to the same extent as someone who held up the boxoffice with a gun, and all you did was sneak into the movies — and the damn door was open. That is to say — not only has the industry failed to adaquately protect their intellectual propety by avaliable means, but a considerable percentage of the illegal copies of their properties were leeked by people within the industry — like all the movies with timecodes running or intermittent “screening only” disclaimers.
Or you could look at it like this. The entertainment industry is like someone who builds a skateboard park but fails to put an adquate fence around it. During the day they charge admission but at night anyone can go in and use the park. I believe this would be refered to as an “attractive nuisance,” and the owner of the skateboard park can actually be sued by anyone who is injuried whille trespassing on their property.
Your friend,
at
(c) 2005 by at
BTY, The above is a copyrighted article and you just downloaded it by accessing this page — thus copying it to your computer without my expressed permission. This is not a joke, this is the same rational as used by the music and entertainment industry. I am taking ips and kicking ass so send me thousands of dollars and it will all go away.
A sliding scale is avaliable for disabled mothers of four
October 12th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
“BTY, The above is a copyrighted article and you just downloaded it by accessing this page — thus copying it to your computer without my expressed permission.”
For those who think this is a joke, then please read up on the Access Copyright proposal to levy the Internet.
There are a few articles on this issue on our Copyright (royalty) Collective Societies part of our BLOG:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/374
This isn’t the major labels pushing this one (they aren’t the only villains), but the old economy book publishing industry who see the Internet as a threat to their business.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:33 am
Candy Chan is a huge tool!