×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Sues a Child

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the sue-everyone dept.

The Internet 1093

dniq writes "You may remember the previously posted story about a case against a mother, which was dropped by the RIAA right after her lawyers moved to dismiss the case. Well, guess what? The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the mother's daughter - now a 14 year old girl - and moved for appointment of a guardian at litem."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1093 comments

This sort of thing... (5, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728318)

..only reinforces my determination not to pay for content.

Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business

Re:This sort of thing... (5, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728324)

Am I a thief? yes.

Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?

Re:This sort of thing... (4, Insightful)

mad flyer (589291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728358)

Bah... the usual problem, when people repeat something false often enought it subconciously become true, in an hypnotic way...

See WMD, video games consoles are all sold at loss, Apple is dying, BSD too and others that I have forgotten...

Life is getting soooo boring...

Re:This sort of thing... (2, Insightful)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728426)

Remember, Nintendo is on its last legs and can't compete in the video games market

Re:This sort of thing... (0, Offtopic)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728373)

Whenever it deals with something under the GPL being infringed. Apparently. Well, according to certain vocal slashdotters anyway.

Re:This sort of thing... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728385)

That generally involves people claiming others' work as their own, which is not something any of these music "thieves" have been doing.

Re:This sort of thing... (0, Redundant)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728422)

People who are violating the GPL are taking credit for work that is not theirs and selling it. However, they are not stealing anything other than credit from the copyright holder of GPL software as it is given away anyway.

"Music thieves" are admitting the work is not theirs. They are giving away a product that is not theirs to give away. And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income.

Re:This sort of thing... (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728489)

"Music thieves" are admitting the work is not theirs. They are giving away a product that is not theirs to give away.

That's still not theft.

And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income.

I'm doing the same thing by not buying their pap. Contrary to coprorate belief, that's NOT EVEN ILLEGAL.

Re:This sort of thing... (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728398)

Since infringing on copyright deprived the copyright holder of income through the unauthorized distribution of said holder's copyrighted works.

Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it, copyright holders are deprived of that income.

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

Any other questions?

Side note: I am amazed at the hypocrisy I see when this issue appears. Many people who post they want the GPL upheld using copyright law, turn around and want to deprive others of their rights under copyright law.

Re:This sort of thing... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728450)

Several mistakes:

1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had.

2. No matter if he would pay or not, the correct term is still "copyright infringement". The word "theft" covers *removing* something from a person, and to remove something, he had to have it in the first place.

3. Disagreeing with using the word "theft" is not the same as agreeing with illegal copying. Personally I would be happy if illegal copying didn't exist at all, but that doesn't mean that I want the RIAA and their fans (that includes you, apparently) to pollute the language by using the wrong words to deliberately confuse the case. In the normal usage of words, it is not theft, it's copying. In the legal sense, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. It's only theft in your fantasy, and the fantasy of the RIAA.

4. Two people disagreeing is not called a hypocrisy. Slashdot is not a person, it's a message board with lots of different people who have different oppinions, and who post on different topics. The GPL fans who don't care about the RIAA-topics have one oppinion, and the Kazaa-fans who don't care about the GPL-topics have a different oppinion.

5. In conclusion, how about learning the language before you post? Let me just list the words you have confused in your post:

Income vs Potential income.
Theft vs Copyright infringement.
Hypocrisis vs Different oppinions.

Please learn the differences. Then you'd be able to sound like an intelligent person and not just an RIAA marketing guy.

Re:This sort of thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728463)

Re: Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it

No. The defence has to prove nothing. "The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court of the guilt of the accused ... presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments ... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

Or has the RIAA got human rights abolished too?

Re:This sort of thing... (1)

lorien420 (473393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728467)

Side note: I am amazed at the hypocrisy I see when this issue appears. Many people who post they want the GPL upheld using copyright law, turn around and want to deprive others of their rights under copyright law.

We want the GPL upheld using copyright law because that is the only option. The GPL is a license meant to implement copyleft in a system that is controlled by copyright. This isn't a hypocrisy, because we've found a way to use this system so that we can ignore it.

Re:This sort of thing... (1)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728472)

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

In the US, there is this thing in the legal system which says that a person is innocent until proven guilty. This means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (or claimant), not the defense. Therefore, it is up to the prosecution/claimant to prove that the downloaders would have paid for the music, not the other way around.

That being said, I normally do not use p2p to get music; I prefer to rip it from my own cds.

Re:This sort of thing... (1)

kd3bj (733314) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728473)

Stealing the picnic table out of your neighbor's back yard makes you a theif.

Stealing the "idea" of putting a picnic table in your backyard does not.

Now, maybe your neighbor sells the idea of a picnic table and
had a copyright or patent granted by some government that
prevents you from putting a picnic table in your backyard.
Maybe you can go to jail for it. But the act of
taking a physical object, and the act of copying data are two different things.

[I stole this example from Lawrence Lessig]

Re:This sort of thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728480)

Shut the damn hell up you ignorant moron. Since when does the RIAA have the right to sue a child? This is going to tarnish this poor kid's record for life.

Re:This sort of thing... (5, Insightful)

damieng (230610) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728488)

A friend of mine asked my opinion on a DVD he was about to purchase. At my suggestion he came to my house and watched it. He subsequently decided it wasn't worth purchase.

So in effect I have deprived artists and studios of potential income too.

As does every reviewer who dissuades a potential purchaser.

If we are saying it is perfectly acceptable to sue anyone who takes potential income from you then society would be in a lot of trouble. The lottery would have to go, as would interviewing for jobs....

Re:This sort of thing... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728359)

You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says.

Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference.

Re:This sort of thing... (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728410)

> Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference.

Naturally, the lack of handcuffs...

Re:This sort of thing... (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728367)

Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business

I personally don't believe you and do strongly believe that you would come up with another justification to be a thief if the RIAA stopped suing people tomorrow. I don't know you, but I have this opinion of all thieves. Could you be different? Sure. But I simply don't believe you, and won't no matter what.

If you stopped stealing their content AND buying their content, I would applaud you for your morality. The RIAA doesn't own all music out there, go look for indie stuff, I'm sure you'll be surprised by what you find.

At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.

Re:This sort of thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728431)

aww u hurt his/her feelings...

u think anyone gives a shit if you believe them or not?

oops, aparently u do!

Re:This sort of thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728468)

He wasn't saying that the RIAA suing this child make his "theft" (read: copyright infrigement) right. He still says it's wrong. He just cares less. Big difference IMHO.

Re:This sort of thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728384)

You are a copyright infringer, not a thief. Don't give the RIAA ammunition against you by claiming to be something you are definitely not.

Next on the list (5, Funny)

Edunikki (677354) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728320)

And, should that fail, against her goldfish for listening to the alleged pirated files . . .

I am in trouble too Re:Next on the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728354)

i walked past the window and heard it.

moving to alaska.

RIAA Ki maa ka bhosada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728425)

Riaa ki maa ka bhosda... chote bachon ko sue karta hai bhadwa

Re:RIAA Ki maa ka bhosada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728461)

"[Fuck] RIAA's mother's cunt ... bloody pimps sue little children."
--Slashdot Translators Alliance
  88% more useful than the GNAA

Re:Next on the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728427)

How is it that a 14 year old girl can get sued when I download games/movies/music all the time? What is she downloading? the entire Metallica library? what's going on? I want to get sued too!

Wont... (4, Funny)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728321)

...somebody think of the children!

Re:Wont... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728369)

Apparently they have thought of the children. ...as excellent targets for their next round of litigious zealotry and intimidation.

And this surprising how? (4, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728322)

I expect that RIAA will soon sue FUTURE offsprings. Worse, congress will pass laws that will allow it, and the supremes will back it.

Re:And this surprising how? (4, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728342)

Well, we already had a precedent [wikipedia.org] for this.

Re:And this surprising how? (4, Interesting)

iapetus (24050) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728493)

There are more recent precedents, in fact. In the UK, a letter threatening an ASBO (Anti Social Behaviour Order) was sent regarding Dominic Brown's abuse of his motor scooter. Which came as a surprise to his mother, because he wasn't due to be born until September.

The full story [ananova.com] .

Re:And this surprising how? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728415)

Worse, congress will pass laws that will allow it, and the supremes will back it.

The supremes? I thought this would be more in Michael Jackson's area

Re:And this surprising how? (1)

MonoSynth (323007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728441)

Forced abortion of all black and white people will eliminate music piracy within 80 years!

Contradiction? (5, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728326)

Wait a sec, the other article says "Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request.".

What gives?

Re:Contradiction? (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728340)

Well, at a glance, I would say the article in this post is FUD if the judge denied the request.

Re:Contradiction? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728412)

Well, the last artice on slashdot was gross misinformation. The judge basicly said "Continuing as the same case is more complicated and has no advantages. If you want to do it, file a new case." Which they did.

Re:Contradiction? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728438)

From the session records:
"Plaintiff's [RIAA] motion to Amend Judment [the judment of dismissal of the case to allow RIAA to proceed against Brittany Chan (the daughter)] is hereby DENIED."

So yes it is kind of FUD. They tried to go afater her, but it was denied.

The two session [p2pnet.net] records [p2pnet.net] are interesting and short (I understood overall and IANAL)

Re:Contradiction? (2, Informative)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728370)

This only applies to the original motion brought against the mother. The RIAA was not allowed to amend that. Instead, they have to file a new, completely separate motion against the child, with a guardian appointed.

IANAL, obviously, since I am posting to Slashdot, but it seems that since the case against the mother was dismissed with prejudice, she cannot again be named in her daughter's lawsuit as someone liable for the daughter's damages. I guess we'll have to see how this turns out.

Exhibit A (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728328)

"Candy Chan ultimately testified that she had a conversation with Brittany Chan in which Britanny Chan admitted to using the 'Spicybrnweyedgirl' name associated with the copyright infringement.

Whoops! Mommy, did I say something wrong?

Conveniently aged (3, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728329)

It appears as though all the children getting sued are of the age when internet access is used and their peers are all downloading.

Theres not been many younger kids sued, and we don't hear about the older ones because they are responsable for themselves.

I haven't actually heard about a real suit yet where they were truly wrong about the downloading habits.

The suits themselves are wrong, but their targetting seems spot on.

Re:Conveniently aged (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728394)

haven't actually heard about a real suit yet where they were truly wrong about the downloading habits.

These cases hardly ever go to court. The legal costs of defending such a case will bankrupt any normal person. In almost every case a settlement is agreed and the evidence is thus never examined by the court. So the truth of the claims they make are never proved.

Re:Conveniently aged (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728437)

If I was accused of something that was factually incorrect, you can bet your ass I wouldn't settle and admit liability.

"You just robbed a bank, go to jail for 12 years"

"No I didn't, but alright, will 6 years be ok?"

Even if you couldn't afford a lawyer, you would be shouting for help on every news reporter and website you could fin, and you certainly wouldnt just settle.

Maybe (5, Funny)

Lego-Lad (587117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728330)

They are hoping she'll be the next Britney Spears, and they can increase their profit margins if the RIAA can get a new guardian.

Disgusting (1)

getkashyap (678131) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728333)

... absolutely disgusting! How low can you get? More than I hate them, I pity them. /Kash

Re:Disgusting (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728400)

More than I hate them, I pity them.

Yeah, poor things. How do they sleep at night?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.

Slitting their own throats (3, Interesting)

echostorm (865318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728334)

If they think for a second that the masses are just going to roll over on this one they are crazy - this is the exact type of thing that could get people burning their products in the streets.
      The outrage of them suing unwed mothers without computers (not to mention the deceased) is a mouse fart compared to whats going to happen when they start suing children.

Re:Slitting their own throats (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728417)

Why? People seem to have funny standards when it comes to children. They have no problem with charging a 14 year old as an adult when it comes to murder, but have issues when a 16 year old sleeps with an 19 year old. Which is it? Are they adults or children. And being a child does not resolve them of their responsiblities. They do not get a "you can do what you want" card for being young. This is just the method for them to learn the rules of society. Wait a minute, did I just agree with the RIAA? Crap, crap, crap!! Here comes the mod offtopic.

Re:Slitting their own throats (2, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728433)

I hate to say it, but you're wrong.

The masses WILL roll over on this one--it's what they do best! The only way that the average joe will actually get upset about this is if the mass media tells them to. Collectively, people are sheep and will do whatever their perceived authorities tell them. Worse, once they've gotten used to a bad idea, they'll accept the next evolution of it with a minor whimper. (and the next, and the next...)

If the RIAA's behaviour hasn't led to rioting in the streets yet, this won't make it happen.

Re:Slitting their own throats (3, Insightful)

BobSutan (467781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728452)

As long as people are buying their products, they'll happily let you burn them. The execs will just laugh all the way to the bank. While the ideology of what you're saying is in the right directions, what you should be truly thinking about is long term boycott of their products (or simply purchasing second hand material).

Family torn apart? (4, Insightful)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728335)

So, download MP3's -> lose your mother??

Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?

/target RIAA
/spit
/repeat ad infinitum

Re:Family torn apart? (5, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728361)

Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?



No, they'll do much, much worse things than send zombie warriors.


They send lawyers.

Re:Family torn apart? (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728413)

Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?

They send lawyers.


Zombie lawyers!

Re:Family torn apart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728435)

Isn't that redundant - zombies have no soul - lawyers have no soul. Therefore, zombies == lawyers.

In other news... (5, Funny)

dorkygeek (898295) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728339)

In other news, an unborn is sued for cognisance as his mother listened to an illegaly downloaded song.

In other news.. (5, Funny)

BlackMesaLabs (893043) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728348)

RIAA steals christmas, kills the easter bunny, bombs a hospital, poisons a river and makes a general ass of itself.

Harvest Her Organs (5, Funny)

tucay (563672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728349)

Since Brittany will not be able to pay, the RIAA should be granted the right to harvest Brittany's organs.

Re:Harvest Her Organs (4, Insightful)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728408)

Hey now, hold on, are you comparing the RIAA to an organised crime syndic... ah...

I can see the headlines right now... (2, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728350)

Giant Greedy Corporation Sues 14 year-old Kid! In 26pt bold font, front page.

Or, as they said in the movie [imdb.com] ... I love the smell of napalm early in the morning.

Nice work RIAA. With lawyers like these, who needs enemies? Or p.r. people, for that matter?

(Yes, this is funny. Laugh).

Re:I can see the headlines right now... (4, Interesting)

cluke (30394) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728401)

I admire your optimism. More likely it will be stories about "10 signs that your child is an illegal downloader" and advice about how to turn them in for their own good before it's too late.
As far as the media goes, it's only "won't someone think of the children!" when the kids are at risk of being affected by outside forces. If it is the kids themselves offending, it's "try 'em as adults, and throw away the key."

Mcdonalds (4, Informative)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728352)

I did think that the McLibel case was the biggest PR disaster a corporation had ever got involved in ..http://www.mcspotlight.org/ [mcspotlight.org]
Well done to the RIAA , they have just managed to out do McDonald's PR disaster .
I really did not think they would be that stupid , Even if they win their reputation will be completely destroyed .I do not think any media organisation is going to let up on this one .

WAIT FOR OVERLY CRITICAL GUY... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728356)

Wait for Overly Critical Guy [slashdot.org] to post comments whining about people whining about RIAA behaving like the mafia.

And when someone responds he will attack them and call them names because they disagree with his opinions. He then proceeds and states his own opinions as fact, and if anyone questions that he'll start flaming them too.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Afecks (899057) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728364)

...the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against the father's testicles for "willful neglect" by spawning copyright infringers. In what could be the most lenient interpretation of the Grokster decision, a judge has allowed the RIAA to pursue further based on claims that the father's testicles were responsible for discoruging the illegal acts commited by their offspring. The announcement came as both a shock and an outrage to the defense team and the defendent who was heard to remark, "I'd give my left nut to get this ruling overturned."

Yea, it's a troll, big whoop, wanna fight about it?

Re:In other news... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728396)

In other news:

The gene patent people are first in queue for the father's testicles.

Know the full meaning of unauthorized reproduction...

It's not too far-fetched we already are living in a world where farmers can be bankrupted by big corporations just because their crops get patented DNA by pollen blowing in the wind.

One day if you get infected by some virus that inserts some patented genes, and it somehow manages to enter your germ line, you may end up with serious "issues" with "issues"... Wonder who owns rights to your children...

In other news... Part 2 (2, Funny)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728492)

RIAA files suit against God for "willful neglect" in creating man. The suit goes on to describe a number of ways that man is flawed including but not limited to:

  • Won't always do as it's told.
  • Refuses to hand over all money and it's eternal soul to RIAA.
  • Refuses to enjoy modern cra^H^H^H music as much as it should and demands creativity.
  • Some examples put up a fight when pushed around.

Wait...? (3, Interesting)

Devistater (593822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728365)

Wait, I thought that the kid sued ended up doing pro RIAA tv commercials? Did they decide they still wanted to go after her? Or was that another 12 yo sued by RIAA?

disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728366)

It is deeply disgusting how a mob-like organization like the RIAA seem to have gotten away with things like that on a number of occasions. To my knowledge intimidation and extorsion are crimes and should be punished accordingly. We can only hope that many of the RIAA's victims are are smart enough to countersue them and perhaps initiate a class action suit against this ruthless syndicate.

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728374)

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime! -- don't do it! what's next? shoplifting, then on to murder most foul?

(slick new interface)

How about this for a bussiness model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728380)

How about they just go ahead with demanding ~(Expected losses in sales)$ from parents for every newly born. would make as much sense as taking a chunk out of every CD sold.

Guardian Ad Litem (2, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728383)

I thought the point of the guardian ad litem in the original case was that the RIAA was suing the mother, the mother claimed she didn't do it but her daughter admitted to it, and the RIAA then amended the suit to include the daughter. Since the mother had a conflict of interest in acting as the girl's guardian, a guardian ad litem could be appointed. But the RIAA dismissed the suit against the mother, and so now there is no conflict of interest. Does that mean that there is no longer a conflict of interest, and hence, no need for a guardian ad litem?

Re:Guardian Ad Litem (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728466)

But the RIAA dismissed the suit against the mother, and so now there is no conflict of interest. Does that mean that there is no longer a conflict of interest, and hence, no need for a guardian ad litem?

Well, I can imagine a number of defenses (e.g. my mother coerced me to say that) that could still in theory represent a potential conflict of interest. I haven't quite figured out the relationship between the LAG and the child's lawyer (which are not the same thing, but many LAGs are lawyers or have other legal experience).

Uhh... who should they target? (2, Informative)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728392)

I'm reading a ton of comments saying that it's disgusting they're targetting a kid. They tried to sue the kid's parent, but coudln't, so of course they now need to go after the child that was the one that actually downloaded the songs.

Right or wrong, the child is the correct target.

Re:Uhh... who should they target? (1)

Maxhrk (680390) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728439)

but one only question, did that child was aware she was doing the wrong thing by download it? i dont know if she knew it or not.

Re:Uhh... who should they target? (0, Troll)

thetroll123 (744259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728455)

Agreed. What's all the fuss about? Kid is stealing music, kid must be stopped from stealing music. What is everyone else suggesting, kids should be able to help themselves to stuff? Hey - Johnny - go steal me a Ferrari 360 Spider.

Re:Uhh... who should they target? (1, Redundant)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728462)

Right or wrong, the child is the correct target.

Yes, thank you. People are complaining because suing a minor is wrong.

Re:Uhh... who should they target? (4, Interesting)

eMartin (210973) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728484)

I got caught stealing music when I was that age, except it was CDs from the local music store.

I got a smack in the head from the clerk and was told not to come back. I can't imagine how my parents would have managed to pay for a lawsuit.

Good thing I don't live in the States... (3, Insightful)

dbond (591005) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728404)

...I'd have to start organising an uprising. When are you guys going to get your act together and lobby your political representatives for an end to intellectual property law? Lazy bastards ;o)

Re:Good thing I don't live in the States... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728464)

People just don't care anymore. I say good for them. The people get exactly what they deserve in a democracy. My only hope is that things turn out really badly and the people end up getting proper fucked. By tanks.

Boy will they feel real fucking stupid then.

Re:Good thing I don't live in the States... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728485)

I don't have money. Who do you think the representatives will listen to?

This must be great fun for them (1, Redundant)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728416)

Sit around all day, hit the bong... who can we sue next... hahahaha

-We *are* above the law. We're incorporated.

Nelson: "ha-ha" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728428)

It must really suck to live in your country :-)

Why are people so illogical about the RIAA? (1)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728436)

I don't understand why folks think this is so surprising:

The RIAA knew the Chan's computer did some downloading.
Momma waited until the last minute to claim it wasn't she who did the downloading.
Momma refused to take responsibility for her daughter.
Now the RIAA has to go after the daughter.

If they just drop the case, where does it end? If they don't smash this smartass momma and her kid, they might as well go out of business. Their job now is to make momma Chan rue the day she ever let her kid do this. The bit about the legal guardian has to do with momma Chan refusing to take responsibility for daughter Chan.

The world is full of folks like the momma who will try to screw over the RIAA. That's what Napster showed -- people want free music, and don't care about paying for it. So the RIAA has to get tough.

At least the RIAA didn't send in the cops and their own thugs to bust the family, and then have a pizza party in her livingroom, like they did recently at Kim's video -- this one is really out there:

http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/06/ra id_on_mondo_k.html [typepad.com]

My journal (http://yro.slashdot.org/~putko/journal/ [slashdot.org] ) has more on this topic; this one is a watershed event, as the RIAA is going after mixtapes -- the viral marketing method favored by "urban" musicians.

If I couldn't DL music from usenet... (4, Funny)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728442)

...how else would I have known that the new Fiona Apple CD really isn't very good?

Re:If I couldn't DL music from usenet... (1)

fishfinger (685260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728469)

I don't think the RIAA give a f**k if the Fiona Apple CD isn't very good.

All that RIAA care about it that you pay for the crap!

Re:If I couldn't DL music from usenet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13728490)

well they better start giving a fuck or they'll drown as the dumb dinosaurs they are

I like the idea of breaking up families. (2, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728487)

This is a wonderful strategy - demand that the court appoint a legal guardian which is usually done to pit the childs interests against those of the parent or guardian, usually as a precursor to reassign parental rights. It is brilliant that now a corporation can sue you and move to take your children away at the same time.

Is it me, or is the RIAA (4, Funny)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13728494)

vying for modern-day bogeyman?

I can see it now.

"Go to bed right now, or the RIAA is going to get you!" *child screams and runs to bed*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...