"force the courts to appoint an official legal guardian for Brittany Chan so they can move forward with their lawsuit against her."

They got her a new mom, just so they could continue to sue her. I just got done reading RIAA headlines above this one and this is just madness.

Am I the only one that get's angry when I see this crap? All I did was download some music and now they are full and willing to come into your house, find you a new legal guradian, sue you, and then be done with you after crushing your financial life. All before your 16th birthday...

They have no morals. I am going to go and download some music. **** these people.

Yet again the record industry is going after easy targets. Does this mean their high price lawyers have told them they don't have a case against the real "villians" in the file sharing business?

Well, I'll tell you what, why not take a look at your handy bedside copy of the United States Constitution.

As you carefully read each paragraph, you'll be fascinated to discover that the word "PRIVACY" does appear anywhere in the document; and, except for the Fourth Ammendment's prohibition of *illegal* search and seizure...the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" does not exist.

Also, to the person who said, "We have a right to privacy, I dont have any software in my computer that has an EULA that states that I allow the RIAA to snoop into my system", my answer is that you do not have a right to privacy when you are in possesion of stolen property.

Did you see where Eminem is suing the cell phone companies for selling clips of his music for ring tones without his permission ?

And what about those pervs with child pornography are busted by the Feds? Do they get the same "right to privacy" ?

This is all so boring really because the major reason people engage in P2P file sharing of copyrighted material is that feel they can get away with it due to the fact that they feel they can remain anonymous and free from respnsability, and now they're all pissed off because the people who actually own the property are not going to put up with it anymore.

"people who actually own the property"?

How about people who arbitrarily changed the term property to apply to numbers and are now extorting money out of every citizen including 14 year olds?

See anything about so called "intellectual property" in the Constitution?

One day you will wake up to these people copyrighting DNA combinations and claiming your children belong to them. And since they will continue to brainwash you about sacredness of the so called "intellectual property" by that time you will probably be ok with it too.

um sry but the supreme court rulled in the 60's that the bill of rights was intended to say "right to privacy" so we are all given that right as to this day! Sorry buddy but you were wrong!!

Since when is the RIAA a government body? Since when do they have the same powers as the FBI?

Lets look at one very important term when we are talking about Privacy. Just cause, and a WARRANT. The FBI, Police have no right to search through my computer, or home, UNLESS they have aquiered a Warrant for search of the premises. This warrant usually is aquired after just cause has been established.

Who in the hell is the RIAA that they can jump over and around what the FBI and Police have to do, and at the same time doing what the FBI and Police are supposed to be doing?

If you think ppl dont have the right to privacy then I dont know what country we live in, cause last time I checked part of our freedoms is our freedom to privacy.

To quote from the original article:

"...the record labels latest actions stem from the refusal of the teen's mother, Candy Chan, to take responsibility for the **ALLEGED** file sharing of her child..."

This is a civil issue, not a criminal one; and frankly I'm surprised the RIAA has not also named her parents
in the suit.

The FBI may need a search warrant, but I can sue you purely on the suspicion that you have taken (aka stolen) something of mine without my permission. The civil procedures differ greatly and the burden of proof is less stringent.

Like I said before, you're all pissed off because all of your hands are in this cookie jar and the owner of the cookies wants to shut the lid & make you pay for the cookies you've all been eating.

just like the woman who's suing the RIAA on RICO charges has every right to do so. have you heard what they "alegegedly" did to her. they hired a collection company to collect a setttlement from her before even attempting to prove she did anything wrong. Not only that, the collection agency admited that they didn't have much of a case, but would still pursue it, to teach people a lesson... these people are not losing money from p2p file sharing... it costs them more to enforce it than not... tell me that is a good business decision...

ok, i'm not sure if there are the exact words "intelectual property," in the Constitution, but there is a proision for artistic copyrights FOR A LIMITED TIME. This was probably taken from Brittish law and made sense. when someone creates an original work of art, they shoudl be allowed a certain amount of time to make a living on that work, then the work woudl enter the public domain for all to enjoy and help enrich our culture.

the unfortunate thing are the people who have bought laws into being that allow them to control other people's creations for longer than they are alive and place the actual artists into near slave conditions sometimes....

America is a free country, copying music is not. But the RIAA is taking it too far

Here's something we won't hear anymore:

"America: It's a free country."

My thoughts exactly.

A crime of "possessing illegal information" - it would sound funny if it wasn't true.

Amen.

On the contrary. I hear that all the time, but the music industry is not free, nor is it a democracy just as the RIAA is not one. Everything costs money. That's why we work.

RIAA is just making themselves look stupider all the time. Their going to start a virtual holy war against themselves if they keep this kind of stuff up. Well i guess that's what they are looking for. Once and for all, to win and control how everyone listens to and handles music. And if it takes dragging kids and corpses into courtrooms to do it, by God they are going to do it!!!

fyi more stupid not stupider just in case you wanted to know the correct way

Both are correct, so blah to you

People used to laugh about me when I stated that nowadays they use the laws to be able to sue anybody. Here is the beginning, just the beginning. And there is one argument that won't be denied, and this one argument is MONEY, MAKING A LIVING.

So don't be astonished about this - just think about it, think about how this is thinkeable, how crooked minded a person must be to just THINK about sueing a 14 year old for this and to take her away from her parents. Totalitarian governments usually do things like that, even today for any reason they wish

Where money is concerned a corpse in the cellar won't be minded.

All these kind of actions of the RIAA - and the according lobbies in the rest of the "civilized" world , o yes there they are doing the same - are immoral and antisocial and people should be on the streets to show what they think about it. But then, again: a show is just a show, and where is the power the people really have about these kind of things????? Didn't they even shoot Kennedy and Martin Luther King . . .not to talk about Christ Jesus of Nazareth who was killed for/in spite of the good he did.

All this talk about violating rights? You 'sign away' any number of constitutional rights anytime you do these things:

Sign a medical consent form (usually you are agreeing to binding arbitration, losing your right to a jury trial).

Start working for a software company (The non-disclousure forms you are often required to sign essentialy cancel your free speech rights)

Install software (The EULA in almost all software installs states that you DO NOT own the software, therefore illegal seach laws do not apply).

I don't know if that last one would stand up in court, but apparently the RIAA does.

You are mistaken. These ppl did not sign any agreement with the RIAA to allow them to snoop into their computers.

We have a right to privacy, I dont have any software in my computer that has an EULA that states that I allow the RIAA to snoop into my system.

By surfing the web you do not give away your rights.

Oh and by the way.. a EULA is a shrink wrap license, and one that has NEVER been tested in court. EVER... No company dares take their EULA up in court, because they fear that it will be revoked and open up the biggest can of worms in history. That is why for example, you have never seen a MMORPG company take one of these ingame item selling companies to court, because of fear that the EULA wont hold up.

We are supposed to be a free country. We are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. If we dont fight for our rights, we might find ourselves in a not so distant future, under a true dictatorship.

By the people and for the people.

Concerning EULAs:

There has been a decision of a supreme court in Germany ruling that computer dealers had to rip off of the price of the machine if a person didn't want to have any Microsoft product with it. :-) - But this was about four or five years ago

P R I V A C Y. Im sorry, that is a very important word in any discussion of File Sharing. PRIVACY.

The RIAA is not a goverment agency. They are not authorized to police the internet. My computer is my property, what I do with it is my bussiness. Any unauthorized intrusion into my personal property which is held within said Computer is breaking the law.

The law is made to protect a persons right, the right to privacy is one of the most important.

The RIAA has NO RIGHT to invade a persons computer to find file sharing programs and or music/movie files. I dont believe the Department of Justice have given them a blanket Warrant to search suspect pirates computers. Because again the RIAA is not a Goverment Agency and they right now answer to no one, and there are no regulations inspecting their practices.

Packet Sniffing, is really stretching the law, and I wouldnt be surprised if a court found it to be Illegal.

Someone said that with Packetsniffing you can pretty much tell to who something is going and what it is. Well here is a simple defense to that, OH my friend had the CD but scratched, im just seding him the song, he owns the CD honest!

Someone needs to stand up and sue the hell out of the RIAA, their practices are ILLEGAL, I dont care if john doe is sharing files, you cant pursue a criminal with criminal actions. I cant wait to see someone take them to court, and call them out on their very questionable methods of catching ppl.

I swear if 1 day i find out one of their spy programs reached my computer I am going to take their sorry asses to court. Offcourse I doubt it will happen, since my system is contained like fortnox =) NAT, Firewall, AV, ect.

Again one more time, P R I V A C Y. IT IS YOUR RIGHT!

I totally agree with this 100%. Even the police are required to get a search warrant. Who the hell do these people think they are?

Its none of their business what I do with my computer.

14 ? isn't that considered statutory rape ?

haha probably

LOL thats funny, twisted but funny

statutory...???

i think this is falling under down right violent sodomy....

Pleeeease.
Shut up with the RIAA already. We know they sue anything that moves. Let's stop feeding them rebellion, they thrive on it.

So how bout them Yankees?

"We know they sue anything that moves."

Let's not forget the dead person (that does not move) that RIAA filed a suit against.

They are the reason I won't buy music. When will America wake up to these tatics and demand good law - not bad law for the sake of money. We have gone from inocent till proven guilty, to guilty at birth.

Maybe Google can save us... and at the same time become hero's.

http://www.betanews.com/...o_Washington/1128691070

"Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication and innovation," Google senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin said on Thursday.

Someone needs to explain this to me like I am a two year old, cause last time I checked a search without a warrant is illegal.

So how can they search someones computer and use this as evidence in court? Any judge with half a brain would suppress any and all evidence that was obtained illegally. If a court can let a murderer loss cause of some technicality with the collection of evidence, Illegal searches should be tossed out of court as well.

As far as the RIAA is concered, you are opening a can of worms you really dont want to see. Instead of making friends in the community you are making enemies, and if by a long shot you some how get a court to fine this 14 yr old with your ridiculous lawsuit, you will see the true wrath of the consumers, and the american public.

I do not support RIAA's actions but you are incorrect that an illegal search was involved. If you read the p2pnet.net article (linked in the BetaNews article above) you will find a link to the actual court filing which explains that RIAA followed due process, first filing a John Doe complaint in order to obtain a subpoena for the ISP to divulge their customer's identity. They then amended their suit with the child's mother who voluntarily provided the information in a deposition.

Lets take all of our MP3s, burn them to 1 CD per song, and mass mail it all to the RIAA with a note explaining how sorry we are for being such horrible pirates.

The RIAA will evertually get what they got comming to them. Heck I already know there are 2 people already fighting back the RIAA in court. all that has to happen is one of them beat the RIAA in court and then they'll be finished

hell i uy about one to two cd's a year. most of my music is downloaded. so yea the RIAA must be doing something right. next there going to put away a infant for staling music. kids will be kids, we dont sue them if they did something worng. i hope the RIAA goes to hell for this. This is wrong on so many levels. its just sick.

Ok, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of hearing about this. Record companies going after P2P software developers for developing software that allows people to use longstanding and existing protocols to share files. gee, go way back to win95 (I havent checked windows 3.1 yet) and you will find under networking, Peer ro peer networking installed when you install a computer on a network. P2P software developers arent the only places sharing music. FTP, WWW, emails, Instant messengers.. nearly every protocol on the internet is used to quote"share copyrighted material illegally", so lets cut the crap and instead of nit picking on ONE of many protocols, lets go straight to the root of the problem,, lets see the record companies go after the CORE of the problem, the internet itself.
You all are probably too young to know this but the internet is the end result of the US Defense initiative, they developed a system they named DARPA, which eventually evolved into the internet. Record labels: sure the US government for making the backbone that allows the illgal sharing of files and songs. Instead of trying to put a ban on P2P, lets ban the internet!
I know, sounds ridulous huh? so is this whole movement to squelch P2P. Software piracy has been around a LONG time, since before the internet, and will survive a long time after the recording industry finally kills off P2P, then FTP, gets the www redesigned to keep files from developing, outlaws telnet, buries the already dead Gopher, gets Usenet banned, and makes Instant messaging a fossil. There will always be piracy, face it.
ignoree the claims that the recording industry (and for that matter, the software induistry as well) make about how much money is lost because of piracy. Both industries are flourishing, all developers and musicians are still getting paid, everyone's making money.
Can we now move on to somethings that are relevant to everyday life?

A few weeks ago I recieved an email from my ISP telling they detected I was downloading music. Before I complain, I would say that they also told me that most P2P software can be used if the share feature is disabled and they showed me how to do just that.

Now, I would like to know how they know what I was downloading. I may have been downloading text, searching on Edonkey or Bear Share instead of the internet websites. They assume that I'm downloading music and movies. That may or may not be the case. Its like one lawyer explained to me about movies. As long as I dont show the movie for profit I can do anything I want with the origional. Matter of fact, years ago, Software companies suggested that you make copies of the origional disk. Now they have a coniption if you do. Ok, I'll get off my soap box

IP packet sniffer software and hardware exists that can be used to determine the content of most if not all internet traffic. They do not have to break into your computer or the computer(s) you are sending/recieving. They just intercept the stream of packets between your computer and the other. They examine the packets and determine the content. IP packets have headers that contain information such as your IP address and the destination IP.

Last time I checked, MTV Cribs wasn't having any trouble showcasing "musician"-owned mansions paid for by over-priced crap burned onto CD-ROM disks and hyped to the kids. All this "terrible" piracy sure doesn't seem to have hurt their ability to put a jacuzzi in every room, or a few Escalades in their 20-bay garage. Maybe if they appeared to warrant sympathy, consumers would give in a bit, but this is stupid.

Last time I checked P2P were sharing programs. Stealing seems to be a misused word.

BTW. Some of these artists end up on drugs/alcohol. Outside of privately funded clinics, who pays for the rehab? The taxpayer/downloader. Nice.

AMEN to midfingr... they always end up somewhere... If it wasn't for us, where would they be? It's not like every time their song goes on air they ARE paid for it...

IIRC, during the MGM vs Grokster suit, the federal judge specifically told the RIAA lawyer to stop using the word theft, because it was missleading.

Well, thats life, steal music , get sued. The hard facts

Even if you are 14 and that means taking you away from your mother so you can be sued. Life is not that simple you retard.

It's funny how things work these days.

A hundred companies come out with mp3 players cd recorders, dvd recorders, blank cds and DVDs, mp3 playing capability in car stereos. Why? Because they know there's a huge demand for them. Why is there a huge demand? Because it gives people the ability to copy things. They know damn well people rent movies at blockbuster and burn them before they return them. They also know damn well people borrow CDs from friends and copy them. And of course they realize people download all this stuff and burn it.

All the while, the RIAA is going after the consumers for committing illegal acts of copyright infringement. Who's really doing wrong here? Sure ethically people shouldn't copy a friend's CD for their own listening pleasure, but it's been happening for decades. Where was the RIAA when cassette tapes were around? People were constantly copying other people's tapes. Nobody cared.

The RIAA's practices are an abomination. It's a horrible abuse of power.

I highly encourage everyone to visit:
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

And sign the petition against the RIAA.

SONY BMG is the biggest pusher of tape recorders, VCRs, CD and DVD burners. When will artists sue this hypocritical record company for undercutting sales? They provide millions of thieves with the ability to make counterfeit albums. Oh, it's easier to sue kids...

I would love to sign the petition, but I don't live in the U.S. But wow, people are pissed.
The headline about the 12yr old girl in NY. Man, that's just sick.

Perhaps they're just trying to send a bold message: " Hey all you bad people out there downloading illegal music, if we're mean enough to go after 14 year old girls, just think what we'll do to you adult bad-asses!"

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

agreed, desperate times lead to desperate measures. The Recording induistry isnt desperate.. they will soon drive the pirates to desperation however and ignite a war they cannot win. They will financially bankrupt themselves in trying, The artists will see less and less a cut of their hard work and start to leave, people will buy less and less music, and all the while the recording industry will spend more and more money on more and more useless lawsuits, realizing less and less profits. cd prices will skyrocket, further pushing people to pirate music, less and less cd sales and we wont even bring in industrial sabateurs, hackers and such that can cripple the recording industry.

History is rife with stories of what happens when a people as a whole, are squelched and driven to desperation. I laugh at the recording inductry and their feeble attempts

We need to do some protest togehter against RIAA.

Anti-RIAA Elite Society!!!

Okay. Cool.
But take a look here first.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

what the hell???

The execs at RIAA are the lowest form of bottom-feeding Fascists.

RIAA is going after our children now.
How long are we going to take it?

Until that criminal organization is dismantled I make it a point not to pay a single cent for music.

If you must buy music; obtain it directly from the artist's official website. Some musicians are involved with direct marketing. No RIAA companies there. Continue to boycott I-Tunes, Napster, WalMart and Amazon.com. Fascists get a piece of their action...

The simple solution would be to send BOTH daughter ~and~ mother to Abu Ghraib for a couple years of interrogation !

The Computer Rodent

I still don't understand why more people aren't going after the RIAA for their investigative tactics. How did they know what content was on the computer? NetSentry uses highly illegal methods to obtain the information the RIAA uses to blackmail people into paying them thousands of dollars. When someone fights back, they turn around and sue. They sue for the publicity, not for the money. It could take years before they'll see one cent of anything they're owed. It only takes a few hours to obtain the publicity for their cause. If more people fight back, the media might begin to see who the real wrongdoers are.
As for those posting comments like "Death to the RIAA" or anything similar, you don't need too much intelligence to say something a little more worthwhile. Remember....action speaks louder than words.

this is seriously messed up, goin after kids, whats next, infants? and whats the big deal, only 829 trax. Maybe theyl sue a chimp next, for downloading trax via a zoo uplink.....LOL

Death to the RIAA

meh.

Restraining orders against pirates barring them from ever touching a network-connected system ever again unless supervised in a work environment.

Problem solved.

RIAA sucks. Plain and simple.

Next they're going to be roaming the streets asking anyone with an MP3 player to "show us your papers".

And after that? Concentration camps for offenders.

If the RIAA has its way, you may need a lawer before you would be able to listen to a song, be it on CD, radio or MP3. Would this mean that you would need a "contract" for every piece of music you are listen to???

If RIAA had it's way, folks would buy the damn tracks or CDs and not pirate them.

Exactly, and the artists would get 0.0000000002% of the total sales.

If that were the case, do you actually think they'd sign with that label?

Where did Britany get all her money if she's only making 0.0000000002% on each sale.

She might be getting more revenue from advertisements??

Artists have to pay off the record companies for recording & promo expenses first. Then they get some percentage of the sales.

So, the pop artists are able to make money cause they sell so many radio-hyped records. The little guys usually end up owing money. A minute precentage supposedly goes to the song writer also.

Are they out of there fricking mind?? The RIAA has gone to far. There actions now boarder on the ridiculous. Isn't it enough that file sharing companies are folding and closing there doors like crazy lately. If a bad public image is what they wanted, they sure got it.+

Well I have a daughter that's around that age. I try to monitor her activity as much as possilble, but remember, at 14 they need their privacy. I can't just go walking in to her room any time I want without knocking - by that time, the p2p program is turned off.
One observation though. This age group has developed an attitude that will never pay for music. Simply because it's so easily obtained through p2p.

Believe me I've tried; from buying time on legit music sites, installing the software, stating how dangerous this kind of thing is - to threatening (and have) to take away the computer. But remember young teenage girls are very defient and very selfish. They don't think that we as parents are responsible for their actions. But when I get the chance, I do go and delete the crap of her computer. Utimately, I'd rather have her at home on the computer, than wondering the streets. If that's what it's comes down to.

But even if all of the p2p software were to disappear. There's still the issue of sharing stuff through MSN and similar chat programs. Then what?

To me. It's black and white. Either use the Internet or not. Parents can only do so much. Schools pretty much demeand that a student have access to a computer - there's a lot of studying material on the net. So taking away a kid's computer is not the answer. I wish I had one. People can't and don't live in a vacuum.

To address this article. Sueing a 14 yr old kid is certainly not an answer to the RIAA's problem. There are millions (maybe billions) of teenage girls using p2p to obtain music. As for setting an example, this will just make kids even more defient. Sueing the parents. Mmm. We have enough on our plate right now and you can't get blood from a stone.

Finally. These so-called artists. They had to learn their craft from somewhere. Geez, I wonder how? Okay. Taking music lessons for one. 99.9% of the time they would of learned something from another (cough) recording artist. And how do they learn that? By buying some of the CDs/Records - fine. But there is no way that they bought them all. They 'shared' tapes, CDs, books, records, videos amongst their peers. Were they sued by the RIAA? Not likely. Such is the vicious circle of the music industry.

Ever thought of trying to install tracking software? Privacy, at that age, is earned, not a right.

Oh yes. Definetly. We've implemented all kinds of things and they have helped, somewhat. But it takes a while to root out the useful and not so useful programs. Such as alerting me that she wants to visit some harmless webpage made by a friend, and so on.

As for me being her father, I let 'mom' take care of the room rules, which are earned. Although, I do take care of the computer aspect, but there are so many hours in the day ;)

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

Depends on the amount of time you want them spending on the damn things, I guess.

*shrug*

Anyone who has watched any number of pop stars gyrating around a stage or TV screen to pop songs with questionable lyrics, must wonder at the moral values of a music business that promotes this music (and the often suggestive or provocative imagery that goes with it) strongly, persistently, consistently and directly at girls of Brittany Chan's age group.
It is a business that has the nerve to come over all offended about this girl's crime of downloading music illegally, while seemingly having no such worries about the way it goes about promoting and selling its products to children, who are usually the least able of anyone to afford to buy it.

Um...I don't think that they're moving to strip the mother of her rights. I'm not a lawyer (and neither is whoever wrote this story) but a *guardian ad litem*, which is what the court has been asked to appoint (and presumably where the author got the "strip the mother of her rights as a guardian" idea), is just a fancy term for a lawyer specially appointed to represent the child in court.

"When a child is involved in a court case, it is common for everyone involved to be represented by an attorney, except for the child. The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is a person appointed by the court to represent the child in court and to make recommendations to the court regarding the best interests of the child (some states may refer to a Guardian Ad Litem as Attorney Ad Litem or Law Guardian). The role of Guardian Ad Litem is not exactly the same as being an attorney for the child. The Guardian Ad Litem has to consider the child's wishes, but also is required to make an independent judgment of what is in the best interest of the child, even if that is not what the child wants. In Missouri the Guardian Ad Litem is often an attorney, although in certain kinds of cases the court may appoint a non-attorney volunteer to serve as Guardian Ad Litem, with an attorney available for the volunteer to consult regarding legal issues.

"The Guardian Ad Litem's exact legal authority and duties depend on what statute he/she was appointed under, which in turn depends on the type of case. Generally, the Guardian Ad Litem has a duty to familiarize himself with the case prior to the trial or hearing; to find out the child's wishes by meeting with the child (or by meeting with others involved in the case if the child is too young to express wishes); to gather information and arrange the presence of necessary witnesses for the hearing; to represent the child in court at the hearing; and to advise the Court as to the child's wishes and the Guardian Ad Litem's recommendations. The Guardian Ad Litem also has authority by statute to obtain records and information regarding the child and others involved in the case, even if such records would ordinarily be confidential. The duties of a Guardian Ad Litem in Missouri are spelled out in the Missouri Supreme Court's Standards for Guardians Ad Litem."

For more information: http://www.rollanet.org/~bennett/bbchild.htm#GAL

or search Google on "guardian ad litem".

Sue the girl for what? For her dolls or her stuffed animals? If they succeed, then I foresee other lawsuits. Every newborn would be liable for lawsuits.

Why sue the child? Uhhh, cuz they had no choice?

Because they were told by the courts that the mother was not at fault and could not be help liable? Apparently, under US law, parents are no longer responsible for their children.

This left them with only one option. *Someone* had to be responsible. It's not like the files showed up and shared themselves.

I understand the anger and the pure "wtf?!?!" response here, but seriously. What's happened to US law here?

I find it much more upsetting that this is their only legal recourse. It blows my mind that a parent cannot be legally responsible for the actions of a minor.

I'm sorry, if my child breaks a law while they are under 18, it is *MY* fault. I obviously did not raise them porperly. Parents need to start taking responsibility and actually, *WATCH* their children.

Friggin deadbeats.

I look at this issue with a different perspective. The RIAA went after the mother and lost.

Now, the RIAA is going after the daughter because the mother felt that the person who shared the file "might" have been her daughter.

I feel that the issue is more in the fact that the RIAA does not really have to prove who shared the files, only that the files were shared by an IP address.

Who knows, they may have trained a pet hampster to dance around the keyboard and share files. If the daughter states that this "might" have happened, will the RIAA be able to go after the hampster?

The hampster idea is very funny. Nice one :-)

The daughter, as far as I know, admitted to it.

now this is finally a mature and sane statemaent: the responsability of the parent.lots of things start and end here. as for one, I completely agree with you (pc_tool) that raising a child is a parents responsability as well as teaching them the difference between "mine and dine". so back to basics: sharing and downloading illegal software, non paid for copyright protected content is a crime by our and international laws. there should'nt be any doubt about this. neither any further useless discussions.

do you have any children? how old?

I have two sons, of 14 and 12 years of age. I have recently gotten them a computer. and of course they want to download music because all of their friends are doing that. how I do cope with this ? I teach them whats right and wrong and motivate a good behaviour with buying them cd's. and frequently check their computer to see what they are doing.

Parents aren't responsible for their kids? Wanna bet! The city of Los Angeles hands out $1,000.00 fines to mom and dad, if junior plays hookey too often...

HA HA HA! Strip the kid from the parents... ok, so let me get this right -- you're going to sue a 14 year old for everything she has? Why, because she can't file for bankruptcy until she's 18?

The logic defies me. They can't really ever catch anyone downloading a song. It's really not feasible. These kids are getting sued for sharing the files, making them available. However, it's nearly impossible to sue someone in other countries for sharing, right? Imagine the RIAA going after someone in Moscow... Therefore, they are suing the people not smart enough to not share what they've downloaded?

Effectively the RIAA is going after the careless or unaware. I can't wait for the next P2P that has an installer that says, "If you are in the USA, click here to disable your sharing." Then what... go after someone running a server in Kerspackistan?

I hope the girl loses, and brings her piggy bank to the RIAA with a press brigade recording the whole thing. Imagine the girl breaking open the piggy bank with a small hammer, and handing the RIAA rep something like $5. In pennies! :)

The parents may not be liable for her actions..whuch is BS, but they are liable for her financial obligations.

This is where they are going with this. The courts have told them the parents are off-limits...basically not logally responsible for the actions of their children. Complete BS.

The labels, realizing this, respond with a BS lawsuit to *try* and bring to light the absurdity of making a 14 yr-old legally responsible for their actions. If they are responsible, they can be sued....right?

Absurd? Yes. Necessary? No. Effective in proving a point? One can only hope.

I'd like the labels to go after me if my kid did it instead of my kid. I take responsibility for my kids actions. Unfortunately, in the case of pirating music, the law won't let me.

never mind my other question about if you had children :) I agree with you on "Absurd? Yes. Necessary? No. Effective in proving a point? One can only hope."

Funny! Serves em' right...

This is one of the worst reportings of a news story since I first began reading BetaNews!

Not the subject matter-- this story!

Sounds like a test case to me. Someone to make an example of.... probably.

I agree they've gone too far and this is morally wrong, but it's probably to try to send a message to parents: "Accept responsibility for your child or else" (Subtitle: You give us money and we won't sue your kids... sounds like extortion to me!)

However, what exactly are they going to sue out of her? It's not her computer, not her internet account and I'm assuming she ain't earning. Half her pocket money and sweets for two years? I'll be interested to see how this one pans out!

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the girl was caught sharing music and she is only 14 it's the parents who are to be held responsible for not monitoring or stopping the behavior. You cant strip the parents of their rights so you can sue that kid, that's insane. Besides ... wtf are they going to get by sueing the girl? She's 14 for pete's sake, it's not like she has a job or means of income other then her parent's anyway.

You're right. Going after a 14yr-old is a bad idea.

Making the parents not legally responsible and forcing the record companies to go after the children is even worse.

PC_Tool - Mate I completely disagree with 99% of what you have said here.

Think back to when we were kids.....

I had a double tape deck. I used it to copy tapes. No one ever tried to sue me for it. It never stopped me from paying for a record I thought was good. There is and always will be a certain satisfaction in buying and owning an original copy with a printed label and nice cover etc etc.

But lets set all that aside for a moment.

Lets put this in the proper context.

Some facts. Parents ARE NOT responisble for their childrens actions......think about it - if your kid shoots someone do you think you should go to jail for murder? Did you give them a gun (I assume not) Did you tell them that killing people is wrong? (I would assume you did) But that still doesnt mean that it never happens - nor does it mean that its the parents fault.

Parents have a responsibility to raise their children well - no argument there, but thats not the same thing as being responisble for all their actions.

Now following that line of thought - Punishment should fit the crime. When I was a young lad I broke into a friends house and "stole" one of his starwars figures. Now according to your statments my parents should have been arrested for break and enter and charged. What a load of tripe. My parents had told me over and over and over again that stealing was wrong. But to a 10 year old kid - going to a friends house, discovering he wasnt there and that his window was open, and then reachin in and grabbing a starwars figure (which I then sat in front of his house and played with) didnt seem like stealing. If my friend had been home - I am sure he would have been happy to let me play with it. So should I have been charged with break and enter? got a criminal record and been put in a boys home for it? Dont be ridiculous. My parents marched me down to the police station, told the policeman what I had done and then made me sit there while the policeman gave me a lecture.

Guess what - I might not have realised what I was doing was stealing before hand - but I sure as hell never did it again. The punishment fit the crime.

THIS is the sort of "example" you make of a child - not trying to fine them a ridiculously huge amount of money that they clearly wont have - or failing that make the parents pay it.

My parents made me give the starwars man back - again fair enough. They didnt go to the kids mother and say - look - my kid stole a toy off yours - here is all the money he was going to use to go to college........

Ok so downloading music isnt stealing a toy - but to a 12 year old (or 14 or however old she is) it amounts to the same thing. The response to this needs to be in proportion to the crime commited. Did she kill anyone? no. Did she steal a car and endanger peoples lives? no.

She listened to music she had not paid for......pfft....if the music was really good she would be saving her pennies to buy the nice copy with the picture of the band on the cover etc etc - 10 bucks says she still buys the occasional album.

Back to my original point - when I was a kid we coppied tapes and recorded songs from the radio (my reception was good enough I couldnt tell the difference in sound quality from recorded off the radio or from a bought one) No one tried to sue us.....My tapes made from the radio were actually better in some ways than the bought ones - they only had the songs I liked on them - still didnt stop me buying tapes and records from the shop.

I cant even begin to count how many tv shows I have taped because I wasnt going to be home but didnt want to miss it - does a VCR with a record funtion really have any other use? Certainly none that I can think of. No one ever tried to sue me for that either.

In Australia (where I live) People on TV shows often say stuff like "If you are going away from the TV pop in a tape because you wont want to miss the next exciting...blah blah blah - yep its "technically illegal" but they know its an unenforceable law and that people are going to do it so why bother trying to sue.

They now sell a device called a PVR - it has NO other funtion than to record TV shows so you can watch them in a way thats convienient to you - you cant record your home movies on them (well it would be much simplier just to record to VHS or DVD if you can)

PC_Tool have you ever recorded a show from TV? (say no and I will know you are full of it)

Would you have thought it reasonable for the TV channel to fine your parents because you taped a movie on the night you went to football practice because you didnt want to miss it? This was (and probably still is) illegal in most countries with similar copyright laws to the US.

IF sony is sooooo against people copying music - they should stop selling blank CDs/DVDs and the devices to record onto them. They wont because it makes em too much money.

If you ask me, they cant have it both ways - they either say "Hey buy our blanks and burners and go for your life......." or they say Nope - thats bad we are not going to encourage that and stop selling the damn devices - but they dont - they want the money made from the Piracy equipment as well as the money made from the music. This isnt justice, its greed.

Again - I am all for an artist receiving payment for their work. Again lets put this into perspective.

Musicians make trillions (collectively) from the music because there are millions (if not billions) of people out there and if they all pay just a couple of cents each for a song then the "artist" would very quickly become rich. If the song is that good then this is what happends.

But here is how it normally works - the record labels hype the song up so much (and target this hype at teenagers) to the point where (at least this is the record compaines aim) the listener "must have that song" but of course this hype and marketing costs money - so they charge a whopping amount for the song in order to pay for the said marketing. Does the "artist" see any of this money? Nope - the artist gets a very small percentage - as I have just said - most of the money goes towards paying for the advertising and hype. The artist probably receives no more than they would if everyone who listened to it just paid a few cents and no money was spent on advertising and marketing.

One of the reasons a child is called a child is because they havent matured enough to have built up a defense to this sort of hype.

So really what we have here is a company who thinks its OK to over charge for the music, doesnt give the artist the extra money they charge, but instead uses it to manipulate someone who doesnt have a defence against the manipulation used, and then tries to sue either the mother or the child for the results of this manipulation. If you tell a child enough times that they must have something - they will probably start to beleive you. Why act surpised and get all upset about it, and why try and blame the parents.

Children are children and are not responsible for everything they do - making mistakes is how people learn, and childhood is the time when its ok to make mistakes, because you havent developed the skills of an adult yet (if you had they would lower the age of maturity to 12 to match wouldnt they?)And a child should be able to make mistakes and not have their parents made bankrupt because of it.

I am sitting here staring at a comment you made that says "Making the parents not legally responsible and forcing the record companies to go after the children is even worse."

pfft - no one is MAKING the record companies do anything. Certainly no one is forcing them to impinge on the rights of a child to completely screw things up in order to learn the differnce between right and wrong. (especially when its clear that the self/same record companies have no real idea themselves)

Ok the kid shared a some files - ground her for 2 weeks - that would be appropriate - Sueing her or her parents is just greed not justice or an example.

Punishment for punishment's sake is wrong. Fair enough if you are trying to educate or rehabilitate, but not just for the sake of "making someone pay" No one was hurt or killed so why the need "to make a child pay"

I really pity your kids - mine are free to make mistakes, my kids DONT get in trouble for making them. They get given advise and guidence on how NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE OVER AND OVER.

Kids dont need to be (and deffinatley shouldnt be) mindless slaves who are too scared to question authority for fear of the punishment they will receive.

Question everything, take nothing for granted and above all think originally - this is the sort of behaviour that should be encourage as is what makes the human race advance. Mindless obedience is how to stunt growth and kill original thinking. (The same type of original thinking that the artists used to create the song in the first place)

**Edited for grammar and some spelling mistakes (aye - even adults make mistakes)

That...was...retarded...

The contortions you made in this (good god, how long is it?) post are totally amazing. You start off claiming that parents shouldnt be held responsible for their childrens actions...which is a fair enough viewpoint in certain instances of extreme cases but anyway, your view is fair enough and not really worth arguing over.

Then you start doing these amazing contortions until youve twisted it around to make PC_Tool sound like he is agreeing that the 14 year old girl should get sued. Which is decidedly NOT what anyone here is saying. Damn it was amazing to watch you do that, it was like watching Hoodenie.

Before long you'll find parents banning their kids from buying music out of fear of the music industry.

I hope it happens too.

*That* would seriously rock. *That* I would pay to see.

It's already been done in my house. ;-)

Yeah right. This cannot be allowed to happen. If the companies successfully stripped the parents of their legal rights to their children they would be making themselves into the enemy in the minds of most people who are normally on the side of the law imo. Even pursuing it seems incredibly damning to them.

Just 829 songs.

lol, most people i know, "not my self", have 8290+ songs, all in albums

We're ALL going to burn if that's all it takes!
I wouldn't consider her a MASTER FILE-SHARER wtih those stats.

These people are going too far now!

i have to agree, that this is going to far,

and i as a parent would not allow my daughter/son be held responsible whilst the person who shared the music in the first place is not held responsible & gets away scott free,

and as for the people saying that parents should be more watchful & trust is earnt not given,

there is only so much a parent can do, and if a child goes of the rails a little bit, well this is life, i have a close friend to my family who is a great parent, all three of his children are loverly, but 1 of them went through a spell of theiving, now i suppose that even though all three have been brought up in the same way, and only 1 of them decided to think that thieveing is ok for a little part of his life, that this is the parents fault, nothing to do with that the child may of been mislead by other children at school perhaps, or after school club,

the fact is there are many elements in life that decide our fate, friends, love one's, bad times, sad times, and even un-justified death, and the point to this is, we can only persuade the above events, we can't control them,

i feel that every one deserves a break, and teenagers, well depending on the seriousness of the subject in question, sometimes they requite a few chances,

the fact is the parents should of been informed by letter, explaing them in detail, and simplified at the same time, and let them know what one of there children are doing,

and then the RIAA should put a watch on the house (I.P),

but to prosocute a teenager for making a mistake without pass go or collect £200 is too strong, as a parent i would like to have the chance to correct my own child first, but if i fail, then let the law interven if that is to be the case,

i just don't understand why there making such a song and dance and more importantly don't mind putting a young and foolish child through all this when a simple correction from there parent may do the trick.

life...where no one has gone before....???

So what happens when a kid of someone in the record company is caught sharing music? Most kids in grade 6 - 12 don't care, they all have kazaa or something similiar, and they all want the music there friend has. You can only do so much, everytime I come to my parents house I have to wipe my sisters computer of adware/virus's/and 100's of corrupted mp3s, and I can't stress enough how much I threaten to disconnect her from the router, lock her computer down so she can only do homework, etc... It never sinks in! The RIAA is going to keep pushing, and pushing, only to find that they are no where near what they wanted. Instead of pushing people into purchasing CD's again, they are going to find that most people will either continue sharing music, purchase online, or say screw it all together and listen to satellite radio. I can not wait until the day hopefully Apple or someone, puts up there own studios, charges the band a minimal fee, and allows them to get a majority of there profits. I would feel good every time I baught a song, knowing this great song, and all its hard work is being paid for instantly. Not the producer and record company, turning some s***ty song to a pop hit with a computer. My 2 cents

Some of these things are being done now! see www.dead.net

but to prosocute a teenager for making a mistake without pass go or collect £200 is too strong, as a parent i would like to have the chance to correct my own child first, but if i fail, then let the law interven if that is to be the case,

Totally agree with this. Children should be allowed to make mistakes without fear of retribution against them or their parents.

if you aren't responsible for your kids. Who is?

Thats how simple this is.