Slashdot Log In
RIAA Sues 12-Year Old Girl
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Sep 09, 2003 09:01 AM
from the squash-her-like-a-bug dept.
from the squash-her-like-a-bug dept.
tcp100 noted an article running at fox about
The RIAA suing a 12 Year Old girl: "'I got really scared. My stomach is all turning,' Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they drop the case, then all of the other people they're suing will (quite publicly) ask: "How come it's okay if a 12-year-old does it, but not if I do?" Because really, if it's unjust to do it to a 12-year-old girl, it's unjust to do it to anyone. Little girls just catch the public eye more because they're sympathetic characters.
It's a lose-lose situation for the RIAA. I love it.
Parent
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that minors can't asssume debt, it's that they can't enter into legally binding contracts. That's why the cosigns are required. Credit card agreements and loans require written legal contracts.
Parent
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Funny)
Jaysyn
Parent
Re:Click bang !! (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, someone with a billion dollars to fight back. If they are truly doing blind suing they should hit one of those sooner or later, and if they don't, that says something about this "blind suing" that they claim to be doing.
Suing blindly leads to uncomfortable lawsuits.
Parent
Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses. They must be millipedes to have all these feet they keep shooting themselves in.
OK, cheap shots aside; what will this lawsuit serve? They obviously know they won't get much money, if any, from a girl living in a city's subsidized housing system. This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.
Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.
Parent
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not a "majority", but certainly enough to elect a president.
According to CNN [cnn.com]:
Bush received 50,456,169 popular votes.
Gore received 50,996,116 popular votes.
According to yesterday's article in the Washing ton Post (reprinted by Yahoo) [yahoo.com]:
About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services...
I think the winner is pretty clear.
Parent
Re: Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
> It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.
The only thing missing is that it was on FOX instead of The Onion.
Parent
Re:Set up? (Score:5, Funny)
I know her! I bought a box of Camp Girl Cookies from her! She was trying to raise enough money to buy a flag, as all they can afford is a piece of sackcloth, but they salute that raggedy old thing and sing the Star Spangled Banner at the top of their little tuberculosis ravaged voices like the bravest little patriots you've ever seen.
Parent
Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see you argue that in front of a jury of parents.
I double-dare you, in fact.
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's called deterrence (Score:5, Insightful)
To the extent that making and enforcing laws is "social engineering," you're right. The whole concept of private property is social engineering (see Locke's Two Treatises of Government [hanover.edu] for a detailed explanation). Most of us approve the sort of social engineering that gives us government, laws, and property. Under this system, "instilling fear" into lawbreakers is exactly what lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are about. It's called deterrence. This is one of the principal purposes of the law.
Parent
Amnesty program (Score:5, Insightful)
What this will accomplish is to scare off all those borderline-computer-literates who found a neat program called Kazaa and thought downloading music was fun. Most of these people have never even considered the legal ramifications of what they are doing. Simply being threatened a little, or sued and then "mercifully let off" will cause people who have no interest in the issues at stake to delete their kids' Kazaa clients to make sure that never happens again. These people will then go back to watching television and shaking their head over this whole Internet thing.
Since this same demographic probably buys 80% of popular music, the score will stand: RIAA 1, angry informed minority 0.
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Informative)
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." I don't think the RIAA will care that they are going after children.
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine how the music we take for granted today would be affected if the RIAA and ASCAP existed 150 years ago. Great compositions, folk music, etc. from the 19th century would still be under copyright and inaccessible to anyone without the necessary greenbacks. Jazz artists everywhere would get sued for incorportating classic themes into their solos. Cash-strapped symphonies would need to drive away an already too-small audience with higher ticket prices. Small businesses wouldn't be able to afford to put music into their products. Hell, we probably couldn't even sing the national anthem without stuffing a dollar into the panties of some RIAA whore.
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is really bad for business, at least from my experience.
Before we were old enough to get jobs (legally) in school the kids would all save up our paper route money and buy a new tape and a pack of the-cheapest-blank-tapes-made. We couldn't afford to buy more than one new tape every couple months, so we'd copy our friends' tapes on a dual-deck cassette player and we all got our music fix. It's not like Mom was going to buy me the latest Anthrax tape.
Guess what? When we got jobs we traded up to CD's and went out and bought albums. The illicit trade of pirated materials by children had created a consumer group of adults. We were hooked at a young age and the RIAA was better off for it. To this day I've only ever downloaded songs off of Napster that were out of print, and a couple songs from a box set from the iTunes store - I like the CD quality and longevity well enough to pay for them.
Even if they don't care about engendering bad will, going after children is going to eat into their profits.
Parent
Shouldn't target RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Smooth move. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not do what they're doing for profit. They know they're taking legal action against individuals who do not have the resources to fight any sort of legal action. They have said publicly that this is a fund raiser for more suits.
So, they're raising money from, and making examples of, people who will not get their day in court (becuase they can't afford to) in order to support their (often corrupt, as shown in price fixing court cases) businesses.
You don't need glasses to work it out. Maybe you could go and explain how the record companies are really trying to do the right thing to some poor, scared 12 year old they're bullying.
Get a clue, man.
Parent
gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Funny)
nip it in the bud!
Re:gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think the bell won't toll for everyone else at some point.
Parent
Re:gotta get at 'em young... (Score:5, Funny)
I hope so!
-John Banks
Parent
girlie mp3 warez shutdown (Score:5, Funny)
Re:girlie mp3 warez shutdown (Score:5, Funny)
Cary Sherman,
RIAA President
Parent
Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
If the piracy continues the recording industry may we wiped out, then would would all those poor executives do? The can't all join SCO.
Good direction for discourse.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really going to help the cause against the RIAA's draconian retributive lawsuits, as it will appeal to the hearts of the populace at large. Bad PR, RIAA, baaaaad PR.
RIAA doesn't mind bad PR (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree this looks really bad on the RIAA (I don't remember minors being targetted before), but those who think this spate of publicity is going to stop them are dead wrong. They've already shown that they're willing to go to any length to kill the file-sharing phenomenon.
I can see the outcome of this case right now: The RIAA will probably have to respond to the negative publicity and probably drop the suit against the twelve-year-old girl. The rest of the cases will go on as planned. One poor target isn't going to be the downfall of their enforcement operations.
Parent
Re:Good direction for discourse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? You buy a stereo once, and get all the free music you want.
You think the average person is aware of business models behind the products and services they receieve on a daily basis?
The mother's quote at the end of the article is priceless. Of COURSE what they were doing is illegal. It's called copyright infringement. Is it theft? Hell no. But it's still illegal. I suspect the RIAA will quietly drop this case and move on to someone else who won't make them look so bad.
Everyone on this site knows it's copyright infringement. But the lines are blurred to the 'average joe'. IF you can listen and watch for free just by buying a radio/tv, why would the internet be any different? You get a FREE web browser with a computer, an have access to a lot of free information (like newspapers that you can just pick up and read at a bookstore/library), why would downloading music be viewed any differently?
Parent
Good Lord (Score:5, Funny)
And in further news, the RIAA and SCO have teamed up to kick a 6 year old's puppy. Film at 11!
Thanks for the free press, RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
This is precious, just the kind of screw-up the RIAA didn't need. They sued frickin' Tiny Tim [fidnet.com]. That's about one degree shy of suing the burlap sack boy [snopes.com]. Way to go RIAA, we couldn't buy better press.
Fox being one of the four (Score:5, Interesting)
Your grain of salt for the article:
Fox is one of the four motion picture studios in the MPAA that do not share revenue with a major U.S. record label. (The others are Disney [losingnemo.com], MGM, and Paramount.) Anything that makes the RIAA look like the bad guy benefits Fox indirectly, as every dollar spent on recorded music is a dollar not spent on a Fox movie.
City Housing Authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling Quote - Public Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
Public perception is that file sharing is NOT illegal. When there's a gap bewteen public perception and law, public perception usually wins. Public perception was that alcohol was not worthy of being banned. We no longer have prohibition. Public perception of drugs is that 'Drugs are bad, M'Kay?'. The negative effects of the drug war are felt more by non-voting minorities than the white majority, so the horrific drug crime laws we have in this country are allowed to continue.
The RIAA and other **AAs aren't convincing anyone. Young mothers and children beleive that file sharing is an OK thing to do. Therefore, it is and will continue to be. Law or no, public perception is going to win this one.
Re:Telling Quote - Public Perception (Score:5, Interesting)
The family paid the money, they just paid the wrong people.
Parent
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
I disagree with the RIAA's ability to serve its own subpoenas, and this article might throw a little sympathy Brianna's way, but let's be totally honest here. Yes, Mrs. Torres, your daughter was doing something illegal. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Re:"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" (Score:5, Insightful)
You, of course, have never:
But wait! Those last two are legal now. Kind of. Sort of. Maybe. But only because case law precedent has decided so.
See, in the US, they aren't actually legal, it's just vanishingly unlikely that you'll be successfully prosecuted for doing them.
Do you begin to see how this works yet?
Parent
Parents' responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
My first reaction was "they won't pursue this". But consider the reason behind these lawsuits: to make an example of people. Now they can also show that parents are responsible for their kids' downloading. Obviously the family can't pay out too much, but don't expect them to be let off the hook.
Not sayin' I agree with it... I'm just sayin'
Why the child? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad Media for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking about the possiblity of something like this last night when I was listening to NPR's report on the RIAA. All these lawsuits and going after downloaders have already created a bad identity for record labels. Before all this, most people didn't know about the labels, they primarily knew the about the artists. Now there are major negative connotations with the labels.
So, now the primary demographic they need to spend money, teens and college students, will now associate labels with persecuting them, asking colleges to violate their privacy, suing a 12-year old, and going after grandpa. Grandparents, a large part of the senior citizen voting group, will start to see themselves as potential victims.
If the studios want to make money from selling CDs again, they need to both drop the price and start really creating albums again. I remember albums that were created very well that the flow from song to song made listening to the album a joy, but now with pushing the crap they are now, they make an album just a collection of tracks of which one or two might be neat to listen to for a few months.
The RIAA needs to sack the lawyers and send their marketing people back to school for the fundamentals.
A diffirent view (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't be the popular one around here, but I thought this quote was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The mother thinks the daughter's age allows her (the daughter) to do whatever she wishes! Hey, she's 12, give her a gun and tell her to shoot the number - it's not like she's doing anything illegal, she's a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud!
As the law stands, she IS doing something illegal and the law is (pseudo) blind to age.
This has been all over the NYC radio news this morning, and yes, they are slanting it towards Brianna being the victim.
(Don't mod me a Troll, just because I have a slightly different opinion...)
Bad for RIAA, good for the rest of us (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad it won't last. This particular case will get resolved as quickly and quietly as possible. You'll be able to feel the breeze from the RIAA quickly brushing it under the rug. Or, worse, if they're smart they will dismiss all charges (and give little Brianna lots of free music) in exchange for her too-cute 200-word essay on "Why Filesharing Is Wrong".
The EFF and other RIAA opponents could get heavy mileage out of this case if they tried, but I fear they just aren't coordinated enough to counter the RIAA's spin.
It's also a matter of computer EDUCATION... (Score:5, Insightful)
She's paying $29.95 for KaZaA service. Now, unless they paid for the application (didn't specify), maybe they were referring to their ISP service? Kinda like when users point at their computer and say "My modem".
Dig deeper (paraphrase):
"We just listen to the songs and then just let them go. We don't save them."
Obviously these folks do not realize that KaZaA saves the files to their harddrive and automatically "shares" them. They don't even know they still have the song! Not to mention that they probably download the song over and over if they want to hear it again. Don't laugh, I've seen my dad do that. He didn't know, literally, that just because he downloaded a song via napster that he still "had it" and had no idea on how to find it if he didn't use Napster to get to it.
I cringe at the thought that my own dad can't use a computer and has no inclination to learn. I've literally shown him a dozen-times how to open up windows explorer and browse through to find stuff, but he doesn't use his computer very often and by the time he wants to find something, he's forgotten again. It's not that he's stupid (to the contrary, he's a professional musician, a retired machinist, etc etc), it's just that computers are something he very rarely uses and he just doesn't have the dedication it requires to learn the basics.
But that's Joe Average User.
This little girl might know a bit about IM and kazaa and how to use Internet Explorer, but I doubt it goes much beyond that.
Re:Says a lot (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Says a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
- Oisin
Parent
Re:Media Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:haha suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In case of /.'ing (Score:5, Funny)
Parent