"RIAA bloodlust not satisfied with 12-year-old Brianna, sues 10-year-old downloader"
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/029511.html

When he bought his 10-year-old a computer, Antonio Morrell was just trying to help the boy get ahead in school. Now the Miami construction worker is being sued by the music industry, which has brought its battle against Internet piracy to South Florida for the first time.

More than a dozen record companies have sued 30 South Florida residents, accusing them of illegally downloading music and making it available for others to copy.


Some of those named in the lawsuits told The Herald the record companies have offered to settle for about $4,000 each.


Morrell said he never downloaded any songs. Yet he's named in a lawsuit, he said, because his son, Alessandro -- who was 10 when his father bought him a computer two years ago -- downloaded about 1,000 songs and opened the door for others to copy them.


''I don't see how I could be paying somebody $4,000 for something I didn't do,'' Morrell said. ``I bought the computer for schoolwork. I'm sure he didn't know he was doing anything illegal.''


Morrell said he separated from his wife over a year ago and wasn't around to monitor his son's computer activity.

Not doing anything illegal? Maybe you should think again buddy. Most 10 year olds are criminals, including yours. You're lucky she's not in jail.

look at me, I'm pretending I work for the RIAA.

1) The 10 year old in question is a "he"
2) It's even more illegal to harass, abuse, molest, and extort minors
3) The only distribution the kid did that the RIAA has a record of was to authorized personnel, hence, there was no illegal distribution and they have no evidence proving otherwise.
4) It's Florida, we demand a recount

soooo is the father going to fight or pay the settlement. that's what I'd like to know?

"Alessandro -- who was 10 when his father bought him a computer two years ago"

So he's 12 not 10.

These folks are going after the hard core users. Guess this is really gonna put them in good public relations.

Is it any wonder they are having to turn to this new money maker to keep the doors open?

Heck, they don't have to sell music anymore, they just gotta sue instead.

There has long been a raging debate in the Abortion arena, about when life begins. I think the RIAA will finally be able to resolve this issue legally.
They will sue progressively younger and younger people until they sue a developing fetus, because it heard that devil music...that "pirated" music....

I can see it now..the RIAA vs. Fetus John Doe....

Way to go Cary...you BASTARD!

"At long last Mr. Sherman, have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame sir?"

In the past few years, more school districts are holding parents accountable for their truant children. Some are jailed. This is also true for parents whose children disobey curfew laws.

However, are there any cases of parents being prosecuted for shoplifting when it is the minor who committed the crime?

fetus john doe.. thatll be the day... the embryonic computer nerd can only DREAM of a 3 megabit placenta!

He's 12 the same age as Brianna if the computer was bought for him at age 10 two years ago as his father states. So not progressively younger (Yet). Im not defending the RIAA but I prefer to see the facts unskewed.

You made that point earlier, DeadMan. But should the parent be responsible for the minor's actions? And should the RIAA be allowed to extort money from individuals because it has determined that filesharing is illegal?
Is every computer owner be licensed to use their computer? Is that next?

Meant: SHOULD every computer owner be licensed in order to even use their computer?

Um, aren't there some states where the parent cannot be liable for copyright infringement which was committed by their dependents as long as they are minors? Would Florida per chance happen to be one of these states?

Beats me, Bufo. I'm not an attorney and I don't live in Florida. That's why I asked.

I found this (from 1999):
"Every state except New Hampshire has on the books a so-called parental liability or parental responsibility statute. These laws make parents legally responsible for the intentional damage and injuries inflicted by their minor children.

Because these statutes impose "strict liability" on parents--the plaintiff doesn't have to show the parents were "negligent" in any way--they also limit the amount that can be recovered.

These caps vary from state-to-state and average about $2,500. A few states, including Georgia and Maryland, provide a $10,000 limit, while Texas permits recovery up to $15,000."
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9903/rights.html

Sorry about the age thing guys.. i'm reposting a headline from corante.. plz dont shoot the messenger : )

These caps vary from state-to-state and average about $2,500.

iinteresting.. so theyre "stealing" an average of $1500 per person and are violating legislated litigation caps.

What is the penalty for that? is there one? can the parents, armed with that information, countersue on those grounds and demand full restitution?

"...legally responsible for the intentional damage and injuries inflicted by their minor children"

Doesn't that open the door here? I mean, I'm sure Alessandro wasn't intentionally downloading and sharing music files to damage and injure the record labels?? Is the law worded this EXACT way, or were you paraphrasing???

I posted the link, INeedAlover.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. And it's from 1999. It's a quote from the site.
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9903/rights.html

"Minors can be sued directly for negligent conduct of any kind. When minors are sued, their parents have some financial responsibility to contribute toward any damages awarded.

When damages are awarded to a person injured by a child, the child's custodial parents are responsible in each incident for a maximum of $1,000 for each injured person or $2,500 total per incident.

Any damages awarded against a minor over these amounts cannot be collected from the child's parents. Despite these limitations of law, it is wise to make sure that your automobile and home insurance policies properly identify the children in your custody.

Most of the incidents that lead to litigation against minors can be covered by a well?planned policy. Whenever children are permitted to engage in dangerous activities, parental supervision is a must."
http://www.eletra.com/palawhelp/e_article000051601.cfm

Now, this is from the musicunited.org site. Notice the words "can" and "could". Has this ever been challenged in a court? Are parents coerced into paying the settlement?

"The fact is that civil liability can extend to the parents of under-age offenders, even if they were unaware that their child had been stealing. It’s a chilling thought. While you’re downstairs watching TV, thinking your teenager is upstairs studying, he or she could be doing something illegal that could land you in court."
http://www.musicunited.org/9_parents.html

What do you think, mroop? leflaw? raoulduke1?

I followed the links to the original Miami Herald story and it included a survey of "What should happen to parents of children who illegally download music"

The available responses were (paraphrased):
1. The parents should be liable.
2. Only the kids should be liable.
3. I don't know.

There was no acknowledgement that this action is reprehensible or just plain wrong. No wonder the general public is so ill informed on this subject.

If this truly is a game of semantics, hopefully the tables can be turned.

"Whenever children are permitted to engage in dangerous activities, parental supervision is a must."

Downloading?! A dangerous activity?! How could the father be sued for this when there was no way he could be present to supervise this extremely dangerous act of file sharing?

I want to see this kid drag the artists into court. Make Britney or Usher explain to this kid how they have suffered due to the child's "intentional damage and injuries inflicted."

Better yet, let's make the kids WORK to pay the fine levied by the RIAA. Yep, let them start slopping burgers at McDonald's at 12 years old, at minimum wage. By the time they are 18, they might have repaid the debt.

Britney's watch: 2000$
Britney's earings: 10000$
Britney's clothes: 5000$
Britney's boobs: 5000$

Watching Britney explaining how the 12yo kid was threatening her yearly income by sharing some of her songs: PRICELESS



Btw, anyone knows where i could get some law informations/advices?
I have some questions.

Laws related to internet are so new/unclear

When they sue someone for sharing some Britney songs for exemple, did they downloaded the songs from the person? Or are they assuming that Britney-OopsIDidItAgain.mp3 is really an mp3 from britney?

Got lots of questions like that

"Better yet, let's make the kids WORK to pay the fine levied by the RIAA"

Better yet!
Soon, riaa will make some new deals.

"Ok boy, you have 2 choices. You pay us 4000$(or go in court). Or we can make a deal. We'll forget about your crimes, if you works for us. Just help us catching some of your friends at elementary school. You'll see, its easy, and we'll give you a new identify when job is done."

oops
identify = identity

The funny thing is, these lawsuits aren't stopping activity on file sharing networks. One would think that since the first 4 rounds failed, that it's alittle stupid to go at it a 5th time. But, I suppose if your profits are at an all time high, and you have millions of dollars but don't know what to do with it all, you just do retarded things for the hell of it.

Hey! They sued Kenny! Those bastards!!

If the kid downloaded any music that had mature or violent lyrics, I hope the father sues the songwritters and singers. Afterall, if the father is liable for his child downloading the music, then the songwritters and singers should be liable for it being available in the first place.

look, the real thing is these shouldnt stand in court, i mean, shes 10... what the hell is she supposed to do? take out like 3 friggin paper routes and use her 5.00 a week allowance? its frackin rediculous if you ask me...

anyone remember when the RIAA was letting their victims sign a waiver stating they will never download again in exchange for not getting the shit sued out of them? lol

Britney is a rich biatch today because of all of the lame morons who supported her music.......a nothin to a something that has power and athority over all of us

It was only pedophiles that made Britney rich anyhow.

Ah, Code, you and your famous lines

What new low will they stoop to next? We already know what the RIAA and the Justice Department would like to do if only the law allowed them free access into our computers. (They just might get it with Bush and this Congress). Pretty soon, they'll be suing dead people for filesharing, if they haven't already! This is getting completely ridiculous.

I keep hearing the media say that the RIAA lawsuits have brought about a decrease in filesharing. That is the biggest load of lies and crap I have ever heard. P2P is alive and well - the lawsuits have failed to stop it.

But it's not just lawsuits that they're trying...I recently did some searches on popular (but not yet released) songs, and found that the RIAA was flooding the P2P networks with hundreds upon hundreds of dummy files in advance.

That is so sad. Too bad for the RIAA it doesn't work - at all. They're so stupid. It was so easy to tell which files are fakes because all the dummy files are being hosted on computers with T1 connections. LOL. Anybody that's reasonably intelligent will quickly catch on to this, bypass the T1s, and go for their download from someone who has cable or DSL - the next best choice.

The lawsuits don't work. The dummy files don't work. They would be wise to realize that P2P is not their enemy, but they haven't. Ah well. Down with them and their evil machine.

:-:~ Phantom

He's 12. He's a downloader. He's a music lover. These facts are not in dispute.
What IS in dispute is the fact that his father SEEMS to be liable for his actions, which to me is reprehensible. Why? Why would the man have to pay 4K of his hard earned money because a minor child did something that all his friends are doing. I'd really really like to see the rubric that the RIAA is using to find these people.
And yes, I have to ask the same question that's been asked before. Did the RIAA download something from the kid, or just assume that a file with a comparable name was from their collection? Remember the Usher debacle?

Dundee asks: "When they sue someone for sharing some Britney songs for exemple, did they downloaded the songs from the person? Or are they assuming that Britney-OopsIDidItAgain.mp 3 is really an mp3 from britney?"

My understanding is that the RIAA does in fact hire someone to actually download a few songs before any John Doe Lawsuit is filed. They also note how many songs the targeted person is sharing (typically the RIAA goes after folks who are sharing 1,000 songs or more). The lawsuit that is filed is based on the few files which they actually downloaded from their target.

Mmm...
So if they see my 40,000 mp3s, they will download like 100 of them, and if they are "real", they'll assume that all the collection is.

So, if the police catch me driving 20miles/h over the speed limit 5 times. They can assume that i always drive at that speed. So they could give me 365 tickets.

That's so stupid. What kind of lawsuit allows lamers to sue with such arguments?

RiAA: Your honor, we accuse the defendant of sharing 40,000 copyrighted mp3s
Defendant's lawyer: How many of those songs did your nice association download and checked?
RIAA: We downloaded 100 of them, so we are sure that all of those tracks were infringing our copyrights.
Defendant's lawyer: Objection your honor! This is only speculation!
Judge: Objection accepted. You can only sue if you have proofs.


Sorry for my bad english

That was my other personality that downloaded that song..I am undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.

I couldn´t decide which one of these responses wins the prize for the greatest disconnect from reality

Did it start with the incorrect spelling of peadophile or was it just the lapse to emotive fallacy here?

Without recievers you wouldn´t have thieves.....an old saying supported by precedent.

Anyone surprised that people who misappropriate others property might get sued need our sympathy

Dundee,

Here is the problem: thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, in theory the RIAA can sue for up to $150,000 for one (that is 1) song that you shared. Now, the RIAA has never actually collected this much (and in fact, in the US anyway, the RIAA has never actually had a lawsuit go to a full trial). But the threat of losing up to $150,000 per song which the RIAA downloads is enough of an incentive for accused folks to just settle for a few grand.

Also, the RIAA may target folks who share 1000+ songs, but in theory they can target someone for sharing just one or two songs if they really wanted to.

Bufo:
I already know that.
There's a lil function popular in mirc that says something like:
"I owe the RIAA 823,290,928$"

When u have a decent mp3 collection, 150,000$ per song make a nice amount hehe

I know people who share a few thousend songs. That function would work right for him cause he uses mIRC.