RIAA goes after 13 year old

[Lazybones]

http://p2pnet.net/story/6485

She was 13 when this all started, but she's now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian ---- which she'll definitely need with the venal and unscrupulous labels trying to get her

1. Try to sue mom (fail)

2. Try to sue 13 year old kid (needs a Guardian)

3. Appoint a new Guardian and continue to sue kid.



I think the US is loosing the war on terror if you ask me.  :x

[Thorin]

I love the commentary on that article...

"The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she'd given Britanny a computer." (here)

If your son is a minor, and has no way to pay for the tickets, you as his guardian become liable for the ticket cost. (here)

You may be liable for it, but not for the reason they give I think. If you use that argument and you go a little further can't the RIAA sue themselves for producing music (hence giving people the opportunity to make illegal copies from it)? (here)

Heh heh.  I could almost see them suing themselves...

[Cova]

I think this part of the article is just as important though...

Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.

Yes - the RIAA is evil, all members should be rounded up, put into a rocket, and shot into the sun.  But as far as I'm concerned, you can send that girls mom with them - good job trying to fight back and all, but when you lose don't offer up your child to protect yourself.

[Shayne]

Thanks the lord for being Canadian.  No only has our Government steped up, but we are also protected by FOIP.



THe problem is that most bands worth buying are part of the RIAA so you cant exactly avoid them.  Even bands that i thought might be independant unfortunatly are not.



*fires up IRC downloads the latest Abandoned Pools disk*

[Tonnica]

What really bugs me is the /Spit*AA is trying to sue this 14 year old girl as a adult by using the Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of the girl. Usually the justice system goes a bit easy on minors or just lets them off with a warning because as minors, they might just not yet understand the entirety of the copyright issue.



I've read about this story on Slashdot and there were quite a few cries of "she's guilty because her mom basically admitted that she took part in the activites that were involved in the copyright infrignement!" (these posts often used the word "stealing" in regards to the implied offense as well so I took 'em with a boulder of salt). It may be true that there's admission that she was invovled in the copyright infringement, but to what extent was she involved? While I won't wail "think of the children!" I will furrow my brow and consider the punishment that's usually administered by the law for shoplifting. Then I'll sneer and parodize the last *AA ad I had to sit through at the movies in my distaste.



"You wouldn't steal a handbag... You wouldn't steal a bike... So why would you sue a minor for hundreds of times the cost of the suggested value of the content you accuse she infringed copyright on?"



Lordy lou.

[Shayne]

So...they sue the girl after replacing her mom as guardian.  I hope they have a blast trying to collect the $500 from her.  *repo her bicycle*

[Thorin]

I think this part of the article is just as important though...

Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.

Yes - the RIAA is evil, all members should be rounded up, put into a rocket, and shot into the sun.  But as far as I'm concerned, you can send that girls mom with them - good job trying to fight back and all, but when you lose don't offer up your child to protect yourself.

I took a different meaning to this.  She didn't offer her daughter up and she hadn't lost the case.  She refused to be bullied into paying for something she didn't do herself.  Because really, if she had taken responsibility for her daughter's actions, RIAA would have been awarded a settlement.  It's not like she's not there next to her daughter at every possible court appearance.  At this point, it is RIAA and not Candy Chan who is making life difficult for Brittany.

[Darren Dirt]

So...they sue the girl after replacing her mom as guardian.  I hope they have a blast trying to collect the $500 from her.  *repo her bicycle*

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=guardian



a guardian appointed by a court to represent in a particular lawsuit the interests of a minor, a person not yet born, or a person judged incompetent



In other words, it's not that Mommy is no longer "guardian", it's that a judge/court has "fairly and without bias or prejudice" (haha) decided that they need somebody else to act as the guardian just for this specific court case. I'm guessing outside of this case, Mommy is still Mama Guardian.



What a great inJustice System eh? Logic and facts, step aside, Necessity is more important than Fairness let alone the "Rule Of Law"...  :?