Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."
Hmm... they want to be able to meet with a ten-year-old girl in person. Now I may have been around the seedier sides of the internet a bit too much, but does that sound a little disturbing to you?
I always think that this failed and corrupt representative of the recording industry criminal cartel can't sink any lower, but they always amaze me when they do. Today I have decided to write my local regulatory authorities about price fixing in the record industry. I urge others to do the same.
This is terrible and can only happen in a fascist state! I hope the other part of the world were better!
8 year olds dude.
I'm always amazed that it's even possible to prosecute children in the USA at all. In Germany, for example, the age at which you start to have a limited legal liability for your actions is 14; if you're 13 or younger, you can't be prosecuted for anything you do, period. (Of course, your *parents* might, and you might end up in foster care or so, too, but you can't get put on trial or sent to prison or so yourself.) I'm not sure about other nations, but I imagine that it's similar elsewhere, too.
(And it makes sense, too: when someone isn't old enough to vote, drive a car, drink a beer, smoke a cigarette or have sex with their girl-/boyfriend, why should they be old enough to be put on trial?)
butter the donkey
Addie Loggins lives!
Does anyone NOT wonder when such outrageous stories come up? I for one do not!
This is exactly what RIAA wants, to instil a belief that they are evil and they will sue anyone, and they will win, because they are right. That they didn't care when it was granny or a child. PR does the later part of the job.
There is only one way to fight this: in court we win.
Or "democracy" but somehow I have lost faith in it.
Okay, first off, let us stop pretending the RIAA cares about it's image - it doesn't. For their current strategy - it's actually beneficial to be despised, hopefully feared. It's the front man for several big music companies and as long as their names (Sony, BMG, etc) are out of the headlines, it is doing its job.
I just wonder if it will ever backfire - in that the Politicians stand up to them. But under what circumstances? Enough bad publicity? Who haven't they paid off? I'm cynical enough to believe it isn't happening. No matter what regime - political parties themselves are machines of corruption. Always have been, always will be.
CD sales are down, but that could be due to people buying the single digital tracks they want instead of entire albums. Other than that, the demograhic with the time and money to waste on music - teens and 20 somethings - just don't care. Now, I'm talking about your typical person there - not all of them. The reason is the majority of people like to believe they will never get caught. Like speeding tickets.
Artists - this will probably be the only weak point but that means they jump from one master to another, like iTunes. Still, some have rocked the boat, I hope others join in.
I believe nothing will change for a long time though I hope otherwise. I won't shed tears when the racket dies, but don't forsee the internet killing them off for a good long while.
Somebody find some dirt on their execs. Nothing like a damaged credability to make you fail in court :)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
IANA (I Am Not an American), I don't know, but given what I read everyday about the USA, I won't be surprised if 14 is the minimal legal age to be sent to the electric chair.
The kids of today are completely out of control.
Today they're downloading music they haven't paid for, tomorrow they'll be smoking...
Summation 2
Sony: Don't try this at home... ... We've got years of experience suing people, that keeps us safe.
EMI Records:
Who are the KidBusters?
Sony "Once I rooted this music fan and deleted all her WMA certificates. That was awesome!"
and EMI Records "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Between them, more than 20 years of slimey lawyering, payola and oligopolic behaviour.
joing them
Epic "Woaahh... holy copy prevention measure!"
MCA "Justice... is nowhere to be found."
MTV Networks "We used to play music, but it didn't pay enough."
They don't just sue the kids...
... they're out to detroy their lives FOREVER
Belief is the currency of delusion.
http://www.myspace.com/gotenkito
..the RIAA has been voted the most hated "company" in the US. Not because it fights against music pirating, as someone said in another thread.
No.
It's because the RIAA behaves like an utter prick, going after the weakest people, the ones with least means to defend themself, and doing so in the most vicious way.
And it doesn't matter whether those victimized have done anything, or not.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
(Indian referrin to both the country and the politically incorrect former name of native americans.)
Those indies might start their full moniker instead of indie, as independent puts much more emphasis on their main uniting asset: they are not part of the RIAA. Or change the moniker to ANTI-RIAA.
And to any Indians (in both meanings) I insulted: sorry, it's just a matter of taste and culture ok?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
In their minds, I think they're trying to scare the parents of kids, but the net effect is to make the record companies look ever dumber and greedier, which is quite a trick.
They don't get that in virtually anyone's eyes, a 7 year old is an innocent. They really can't do stuff wrong.
And most decent human beings will come to the aid of a 7 year old when they're being attacked by a big bully.
The record companies should have just dropped this with a "warning letter" and moved on. They're really idiots.
I think RIAA is playing with fire. Surely evil fearful face might be helpful in short term, but if anyone ever gets a chance to take RIAA down or damage it somehow, it would make them seem like heroes and I'm assuming politicians won't hesitate to do that for publicity if they ever get a chance.
What I find strange about the whole music marked situation is that despite the evilness of the RIAA, despite the high CD prices, despite the fact that there is still no user friendly way to buy music cheap and effective without getting locked in to some vendor and/or deprived of even the most minimal rights -- despite all this, people are NOT turning to alternatives. There is practically no significant market that would show how to make it better. There is no significant number of users who would simply ignore the RIAA and go for artists who directly sell their music or other channels. Except piracy.
In my opinion that says more about the customers than about the RIAA. If people are too dumb to exploit the weakness of the traditional music market -- both as customers or as startup companies -- they deserve exactly this RIAA.
That is not much different from people in a democracy deserving their Bush or Berlusconi. I never quite understand why all the people then go and blame Bush or Berlusconi instead of the idiots who voted for them.
So -- why blame the RIAA instead of all the people who keep them in power by STILL buying their stuff and abide by their rules?
what has the mothers disability or income got to do witht he rights and wrongs of the story? Either they are guilty or not. disabled people can be guilty too. This is the worst example of tragic slashdot riaa bashing ive seen in a while.
grow up.
In America they call you a minor until age 18. The word minor reflects your rights.
This organisation make you think about corporate punishment. At the end organisations do not feel anything but people do. Everybody working for or represented by this organisation should be personally in for a punishment every time this organisation misbehave.
I do agree with you on the fascistiod charges, but the rest of the worls were no better in past times. For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form. It is hard to tell wether the US has derived their fascim from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it. Given the time between them, it hardly matters.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Isnt there any civil rights organization or something to help people against that SHIT what you call RIAA ?
Holy f@ck ! - Even in TURKEY there is not that much oppression !
You americans need to choose between standing up to this motherf@cking crooks as public, or using the bill of rights as toilet paper.
Read radical news here
Everyone over 10 has realized that the RIAA is a decaying corpse and (I sincerely believe) would boycott them completely if it were made easy.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Oh, you don't wanna mess with the R-I-double-A They'll sue you if you burn that CD-R It doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a seven year old girl They'll treat you like the evil hard-bitten criminal scum you are *sings* -.-
This is exactly what RIAA wants, to instil a belief that they are evil and they will sue anyone, and they will win, because they are right. That they didn't care when it was granny or a child. PR does the later part of the job.
Is being right worth the cost of the PR problems of being an unreasonable bully? Have they measured the growing movement to boycott anything major label? Have they done anything to respond to claims of being a cartel with fixed high prices?
I hope they have their PR campaign funded as much as their lawyers. Without a good PR campaign to distract the public from the ugly side of business and get the public back to the Ooooh Aaahhh Shiny mood, they will continue to see sales fall.
Some of us are never going back! Any PR campaign is too little too late. We have read hakespeare's plays and are familiar with The Merchant of Venice.
We know reasonable and we know what type of people demand a pound of flesh. This attack on a 7 year old girl (now 10) is what is showing their true nature.
The RIAA is no friend of mine. I don't need them. More importantly, I don't want them.
The truth shall set you free!
Frankly, just the fact that the RIAA hired some company to crack into her computer should be enough to get this case thrown out and charges filed for illegal wiretapping on the RIAA and their paid crackers. Once the crackers had access there is no way to prove they did not do the downloading themselves. Her ISP should file for theft of services too, after all the cracker used the defendant's connection to download their software.
The above of course is just from a relatively ignorant AC, any network security professionals here care to add some facts or ideas? Just in case the defendant's technical advisor(s) happens to read here, heck Ray might even find it fun reading even if he sees nothing new to him in it.
Can't we just build a house with one door. Put RIAA inside. Write the word prison on the inside of the door.
Problem solved.
At the risk of drifting off-topic, there is a reason for the United States' lack of participation in international agreements of this sort, and the reason is not (usually) a casual indifference to human rights. It has to do with the autonomous legal systems of the individual states, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. So even if the U.S. were to sign a (perfectly reasonable) treaty restricting how its courts could operate, one could argue that the federal government lacks the authority to tell the state courts how to operate.
The counter-argument is that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to sign treaties and that should trump the state courts' sovereignty in certain situations. However neither argument is rock-solid; both sides have a point. So the way things usually pan out is that Congress doesn't ratify the treaties because the Congresspersons (who nominally represent the interests of their states, remember) don't want to sign anything that imposes a burden of treaty compliance on the state courts.
As far as I know this issue has never been put to test in the U.S. Supreme Court, so the status quo is that no one really knows how far the federal government can go in telling state courts how to operate.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Enough bad publicity?
2 005.html
Nope... Here is more..
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/cd_sales_
"For the first time since Thomas Alva Eddison began selling wax cylinders, the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.
And what they're saying is: We have a choice, and we're exercising it.
If the record labels think their persecution of online customers who include schoolchildren and and disabled mothers is going unnoticed offline, they're wrong.
The WSJ doesn't mention the failure of Organized Music (Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI ands Warner Music) to accept the reality that it's now in the digital 21st century and not the physical 1970s and 80s and that its business models need to be updated accordingly.
OM's members are in addition being found guilty - and very publicly - of one seamy practice after another and if they believe it'll all just go away, they'd better think again."
The truth shall set you free!
In the US they are pretty busy fighting the Internet abuse, we've read quite a few stories this month about the RIAA. First that they're suckering in certain rap artists and now this one. However, what exactly are they fighting here?
;-)) is is in all aspects better than the U.S.A. but solely looking at a single aspect its my believe that their methods to fight cybercrime are a lot more to the point. When it comes to downloading stuff from the Internet its perfectly legal. I can download whatever I want and no one can touch me. Naturally; when it comes to actively spreading that stuff it's a big no no when this is copyrighted or licensed material. Then I'm violating certain laws and can they come after me.
Basicly they only seem to target people who download stuff from the Net which means that they're very busy fighting the symptoms and not the actual cause of the eledged "problem". Ofcourse going after the real problem - the people providing us with all these goodies - will be extremely more difficult and cost a lot more than they're willing to spend. And so, as it always seems to be in the US, the population which basicly made and finances the goverment is made to suffer from it.
Note; I'm not claiming that the U.S.E. (United States of Europe
Not enough? Well, when I'm using illegal software I grabbed from the Net there's no way I can defend myself by saying "But I downloaded it from the Net so I didn't commit any crimes". Sure; I can download it, but using that stuff is once again a totally different ballgame.
The difference here, as I see it, is that in Europe I really am innocent until proven guilty. After all; the software in question could have been downloaded by some virus or such. In the US however I'm guilty until thought otherwise. We've seen the examples numerous times now. And what even scares the bejeesus out of me is that this banana republic (when it comes to civil rights anyway) can even tremple on my civilian rights, even though I live in a more civilized part of the world. How's that for democracy? So, in that aspect; can anyone even explain what democracy actually is these days? I'm tempted to say that the more money someone has the more "democracy" they posses.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I would not sign on to that either. In other words it says, "And if people decide that they don't like where the UN is going, tough shit, your rights and freedoms mean nothing in that case."
What I never understood is why these people who haven't downloaded any music don't countersue for libel/slander and stressful damages etc etc, like those people who sue mickyD's for nothing :P
I mean if you can win a suit for microwaving your cat, I'm sure that you can win a suit against the RIAA for slandering and causing you stress and etc.
...who stand up and tell the RIAA to lay off the little girl.
1, 2...do we have a 3?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Everyone is rallying against RIAA as a whole, but there is only a single RIAA member behind this lawsuit: Warner Music Group, which owns Atlantic Records.
Warner is the very same company that gave the children of late Mr Scantlebury 60 days to grieve before they would be sued. (Warner v. Scantlebury) They only dropped the suit after it got media attention.
Warner also owns Elektra Records that is suing a woman with multiple sclerosis. (Elektra v. Schwartz) MS is a disorder that can worsen rapidly if the sufferer is put under stress.
And, apparently it did: In a March 2 letter to the judge, her lawyer basically writes that she is now so sick that she can no longer defend herself. Guilty or not, Warner Music has shortened her life just the same. I guess "compassion" is a foreign concept to them.
Lawyers aren't sueing file sharers pro bono, and new DRM isn't being developed by the open source community.
Guess who is really supporting the RIAA & MPAA?
Who buys their music CDs with rootkits?
Who buys their movie DVDs with DMCA protected Macrovision?
Who buys every new Blueray, new HD-DVD, and new Defective-By-Design device?
If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, then stop whining about every 10 year old getting sued.
How?
Buy your downloaded music without DRM.
Buy your CDs with the 'Audio Disc' label on them, no auto running rootkits.
Buy audio players that don't have support for DRM. (yes, this even includes that cult of fruit, stop swallowing Steve's Kool-Aid)
But what about movies on disc?
Well, if we had all followed the above steps regarding music, but for movies, then we wouldn't be in this current mess. We made our bed, now we have to lay in it, and the sooner we start, then the sooner it will get fixed.
Cause the lawyer that wants to meet this girl is scared if he sets this meeting up any other way, he might end up being one of the stars on the hit show " to catch a predator "
Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
Doesn't COPPA laws prevent places from storing information aboout anyone under the age of 13? Thus saving the information about this perosn to sue would be in violation? Not too familar with these laws.
...this article still hasn't been tagged with 'thinkofthechildren', though so many articles are, usually tongue-in-cheeck as well ;).
Look, the RIAA's stance is that this lady's child broke the law. People break the law independent of their social or financial standing. Now, it may be pointless to sue this lady as its kind of like trying to get blood from a turnip, but that really isn't their point. Their point is that in a world with laws, those laws don't stop at social or economic boundaries. Just because you don't have any money doesn't mean that you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.
A judgment against a child can't normally be used against the parent. At 10 years old, she's not going to have any income or assets.
By the time she reaches 18, it will no longer be reported by credit bureaus, and I suspect the judgment will expire by then.
So why would they even bother deposing the child? Maybe they want to see if the mother is just using her to get out of the case.
I know you put company in double quotes, but people really need to be informed about who the companies are inside the trade group. Otherwise they're falling for their trick of masking the real companys who fund it.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
... the PoliticiansThe bottom line is that the labels have a monopoly on the acts they own.
I'm pretty shocked at the number of times the RIAA has filed suits against people who had no idea what this was all about. One would think that ISPs would have better records of who owned which particular IP addresses at the time.
Unless the ISPs hate the RIAA as much as everyone else does, and the techs given the task of pulling the account information behind the IPs is handing them bogus data just to spite them. I'd probably do the same thing if it was my job...
Like the music exec's son pirating music and getting no more than a sound beating from his dad? If that? You know, the EXACT same thing all these people have been sued for? Textbook example of class justice.
And it's not that no-one knows, it's that no-one really cares. The public just does not care. Not about the son, not about pirating, not about music even. That's what's dangerous about the situation.
Her stance is that they broke the law instead. Representing that they had concrete information
about the contents of her machine from off of a closed network, using an unauthorized client
is hacking. That's a violation of several state and Federal laws on the subject. And, it's the
only way they could have concievably known about anything on her HD. It gets even worse for
RIAA, MediaSentry, and the labels. MediaSentry's in trouble for doing the hacking they did- even
if they never really hacked her machine. RIAA's in trouble for arranging the act (much like
someone would get in trouble for hiring a hitman to go do in someone...) and if they didn't get
information on her "illegal filesharing" they're also guilty of making false representations.
All of which can flow, liability wise, all the way back to the member labels as RIAA was acting
on their behalf and orders in this matter (Back to the Hitman line of thinking...)
There's a reason why She's filing under her State's RICO laws first. If it gets that far, it'll
provide the solid basis for a FEDERAL RICO suit. I'm surprised nobody's filed one against them
until now, really- they are guilty of racketeering and all. As guilty of it as a cat is guilty
of being caught in a goldfish bowl when you catch it trying for the fish in it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Sad that we only see these stories on geek news sites, never the mainstream media.
The only reason this is happening is because you allowed it.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution enumerates federal powers. All else is supposed to belong to the states.
In the midst of all the outrage over the RIAA's choice to drag a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand, I think we're overlooking the extent to which the legal system is working to the benefit of the defense (the girl's mother, Ms. Andersen).
The defense is entitled to a trial by jury. The defendant is also counter-suing claiming (among other things) that the RIAA's case is based on evidence that was obtained through unlawful computer intrusion.
It gets better: in the U.S. we have a concept called "punitive damages," which means the court can award additional damages (money) if the party who was in the wrong behaved "outrageously." When I sat on a jury and the subject of punitive damages came up (in Middlesex County Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts), the judge said to consider punitive damages separately, and that the amount should be chosen large enough to deter future outrageous behavior. That is, when it comes to punitive damages, the amount of award is set by how much of a financial penalty would really, really hurt. :-)
So the RIAA is insisting on hauling a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand to testify against her own disabled mother. How stupid can they get? I doubt that will play well with a jury. Also, if the RIAA loses their case, they're subject to punitive damages for committing computer crimes in order to obtain their evidence.
Yes, it's rotten that the RIAA is abusing its right to force the 10-year-old to take the stand, but the defense is making full use of its own rights in this case. If you read the list of complaints Ms. Andersen is making in retaliation, it sure looks as if the RIAA has a lot more to lose in this case than it stands to gain.
IANAL but I can't imagine why the RIAA's attorneys would take the dire risk of bullying a ten-year-old in a jury trial.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Lets stop opening with "RIAA" -- hardly anyone outside of /. seems to have any clue who that really is. Instead, name the actual RIAA members that are responsible, and list a few of their high-profile artists. People should know who to boycott if they're outraged. When "average joe" sees a story about the RIAA suing a kid, he thinks "those bastards!" and then he picks up a CD at the FYE in the mall. To "average joe", there's little connection. Make the title something like "Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old". In the article, clearly explain that Atlantic Records, the label representing artists like "Matchbox Twenty" (list a few more from their website), in conjunction with their RIAA partners is engaged in a lawsuit against a 10-yr old girl. Explain that by purchasing music by these artists, one is supporting this kind of behavior, even though the artists themselves may not direct the actions. Encourage the artists to speak out against their label and its dubious tactics, suspect methods, and arguably coercive behavior. Help "average joe" understand what continued support of these labels through their artists enables. Don't let them wear one face in the mall and a different one in the courtroom. Let the artists feel the negative side of having the RIAA represent them. Maybe some day in the future artists will stand up and reject the RIAA because its tactics hurt their image. Maybe some day the RIAA labels will have trouble signing new artists because association with the RIAA will hurt their career prospects. That day will never come if people don't associate the artists with the behavior of the RIAA.
And this is what happens when you sue people at random. You are likely to get grandmothers, little girls and even dead people. None of which is good press at all. Worse, it is only a matter of time before the RIAA picks on the wrong guy, like some psycho who will find one of their offices or affiliated law firms, march in with a rifle and have at it. Or worse.
Given their "win" record so far, which is mostly people who have settled, they are obviously not making any money compared to the cost of sending lawyers to every corner of the US to sue people at random. If I were a shareholder for the companies who fund and back the RIAA, I would be wondering why they are gambling with my money. Eventually they are going to come up snake eyes and there will be a big incident. And then they may start finding it hard to find lawyers willing to take on random cases for fear they will target the next nut.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
"For the first time since Thomas Alva Eddison began selling wax cylinders, the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.
I didn't know that they had weblogs back in Edison's time. I can't imagine that they did much, though. I mean, did Edison have to tell people, "Well, I invented this thing, and it's not good for a whole lot yet, but just you wait until the late 1990s, early 2000's. Then it'll be a firecracker!"
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It's really 4 big record companies, Universal, Warner, SONY, and EMI, who are doing this whole RIAA thing.
I have absolutely no conceptual problem with your idea.
Off the top of my head, some logistical problems present themselves to me:
-there are also a number of other plaintiffs who are labels owned by those 4,
-oftentimes the list would include 6,7,8, or more plaintiffs,
-Slashdot allows very little space for headlines
-the list would make boring reading to most.
But you make a very valid point. I should try to make sure that people do know which labels are behind each case, so they can know which labels not to buy from. And which artists need to fight on behalf of their fans.
Perhaps the answer is to name the first one in the headline. And to provide a list of labels at the end of each story.
Hmmmm.... you've really given me something to think about. Thanks.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I didn't know that they had weblogs back in Edison's time.
They didn't. When the media propoganda consumerism ran unchecked, they could hide some bad publicity by keeping it a back page item in some town and it would contain their spin.
Now with the internet...
If I leave the distracting middle out of the comment.. it reads better..
For the first time the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.
The wax cylinder thing was for emphasis that they haden't had to deal with freely shared public opinion for a very long time. The public opinion was limited to the local editorial in the local newspaper. Long distance was expensive.
The truth shall set you free!
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
And if you know of any recording artists on those labels, write to them and let them know what is going on.
Thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Unmitigated greed of the most disgusting sort. The last desperate gasp of a dying business model, perverse in the extreme. We should all be brainstorming ways to break their back, break their dark spirit and prosecute them as the thugs they have shown themselves to be.
Still trying to come to grips with this question, the following just occurred to me...
When I was young, there was a fair grounds not far from where I lived. It wasn't a complete stadium, but it had a full set of bleachers set up and a fence around it. Occasionally there were concerts where you had to pay to get in the gate. Sometimes my friends and I would go and listen outside the fence. Though we couldn't see, and lacked the comfortable seating, we either couldn't afford the entrance fee, or didn't feel it was worth the expenditure. I am absolutely certain that nobody would ever dream of accusing us of 'stealing' music as we listened outside the fence.
Times have changed. Today, with modern technology, we can have a telepresence at a performance in much the same way. A performance can be heard around the world without paying for it thanks to the digital media and the internet. Perhaps for some this is no different than me listening outside the fence? If you pay the entry fee, you get the CD in the jewel case and the inset with the words to the songs, but if you can't afford it or consider it not worth the price, and least you can hear the music while listening outside the fence as a telespectator.
Just want you to know I've credited your suggestion in my comments section.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
don't care who they are going after, disabled people or young girls arent automatically innocent.
Untill proven otherwise, they are in fact automatically innocent. Just like 30 year old males for example.. or anyone else, at least, if the laws of the country are followed.
Don't "representation" contracts usually have a morals clause? I wonder if I clever lawyer might be able to hold both sides to the same standard and let a conscientious artist get his contract terminated for these types of acts?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
We here about how naughty words will "harm" our children and how video games are turning all of them into psychotic maniacs. Yet when these asshats start to target the kids we hear nothing. Am I the only one who finds this wrong?
Dammit what is wrong with people!!!
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) was overturned, not COPPA (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act).
And neither should be confused with the Copa, Copacabana, the hottest spot north of Havana...
I don't get it though, there has to be another side to this. ... Is there anything we're not being told?
What's the worst thing you could be told? That the mom is a dirty bad pirate, someone who had the nerve to download gangsta rap? Would that justify any of this? I don't think so. Don't stick your head in the sand!
What you are left with is the slimy reign of terror that Rogers and Beckerman describe. Thousands of people have been threatened this way. They face the loss of all their possesions, livelihoods and jailtime. Many if not all are innocent. They turn to next of kin when one victim escapes to promote further terror: we will get your kids next! The very tactic proves they don't know who really did what they accuse. It's ugly because extortion is always that way. It's horrifying because huge companies should not act like gangsters. The reality is so horrible that people want to reject it outright rather than believe they live in such an ugly and threatening world. That fearful denial is one of the greatest assets of any tyranny.
The publishers behind these suits are not really interested in infringement, they want to control the internet itself and shut down all possible competition. The RIAA is a shell organization for the incumbent media companies, publishers, broadcasters and others dinosaurs that want to maintain their current monoply position. They want you to be afraid to share and they dream of charging you for every trivial enjoyment of your own culture. These lawsuits lay bare the true nature of non free publishing, perpetual copyrights, monoploy broadcasting and owned culture.
It is time to make copyright reasonable again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1) RIAA lawsuits are civil suits, not criminal, and therefore not prosecutions. Prosecutions of children for crimes or misdemeanors is severely limited with special rules and courts.
2) Even in civil suits, minors are legally incompetent to be parties to lawsuits. I'm sure that if you look a little closer, if the RIAA is suing a minor directly, then it can only be because they did not know the person's age. They will either have their case dismissed, or will amend their complaint to sue the child's parent, who would be vicariously liable.
You know I could understand prosecuting a kid for something extremely harmful like murder OR going after the parents for a financial reason... But this is neither. They are DELIBERATELY going after a child to scare people. NO COMPANY SHOULD EVER HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. End of story.
presumed innocent, a hallmark of our system of fairness, means that the burdon of proof is on the accuser (unless it's Saddam Hussein's WMD's)
OK a new size TV
Holy f@ck ! - Even in TURKEY there is not that much oppression !
Ok, this doesn't even compare to some of the stuff that goes down in Turkey. All this is, if successful, make this girl liable for some money to the RIAA. If she's 10 she probably won't have anything to give.
That ended five years ago:
Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty. Atkins v. Virgina,Atkins v. Virginia
Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped.
Of the 44 mentally retarded in the U.S. executed since 1976, nine were in Texas, five in Virgina, only four were executed in states outside the southern Confederacy in the American Civil War.
Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States
There have been 387 executions in Texas since December 1982. The youngest was 24 in 1985. 17 when he killed a clerk for a six-pack of beer in a convenience-store robbery. There has been almost nothing the like of that since. Executed Offenders
Untill proven otherwise, they are in fact automatically innocent.
Not in the courts of the IRS. There, you are presumed guilty, and must prove your innocence. And don't bother complaining about it to the Supreme Court; they've already said they don't mind.
Pedophiles.
.....or it's just that I never had kids, and have no idea of their developmental schedule but, geez, the alleged infringment took place when she was seven? Hey, I know kids are very computer and Web savvy these days, but does the average 7 year old even have the skills to do any serious filesharing? When I was 7, I couldn't even tune in UHF on the family TV.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Is the order they appear on the documents based on anything in particular? It looked like it might be alphabetical on the state of incorporation (California, Delaware, New York). Atlantic and its artists deserve responsibility, but I'd hate to let Capitol and BMG (or some of their artists, like "Paul McCartney" [Capitol] and "Bob Dylan" [Sony BMG]) off the hook just because of where the corporate headquarters is.
Hmm, I think these juvenile delinquent pirates should be removed from society and locked up. The USA should re-open Alcatraz. Society must be protected against this scourge.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Regardless of how the parents react to the child, if the *aa bankrupts the parents using the concepts of 'war of attrition', they are artificially abusing the child since the parents wont be able to provide for the kid.
I dont care if its legal or not, bankrupting people beacuse they downloaded some stupid music is not justice. There isn't any harm in downloading. Noone that downloads a few thousand albums were going to actually buy that many. There isnt a 'lost sale', and no one was harmed in the process.. This whole thing is just f-ing insane and we shouldnt even be talking about this. I can hardly believe it really..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
since they only prosecute the disabled and children...
I don't know one "'Christian' Right" as you put it that wasn't opposed to pulling Terry Schiavo feeding tube. Your reference to them as executing mentally retarted people is a pathetically shameful troll attempt. The only people I know and have read about who were for pulling the feeding tube were the "'Immoral demonic' Left" (see, I can troll, too) who didn't have a problem with starving the lady but didn't have the guts to say what they were doing with any more than a whisper: just be done with it and put her down. Something is terribly wrong when people will starve someone to death but won't save them the pain and put them down fast. But no, that would have been too too quick, too much like...execution...as you so fondly put it. Further disgusting is that you were modded insightful for all this.
As for your plug about the 10 Commandments, they're a useful moral code for running a country. Why people would have problems with something that says murdering other people is bad, or that you should love your neighbor as yourself, is beyond me. If our country followed even half of them we'd be far better off. Divorce? You just made your child's future a very, very painful one. Covetting someone else's newest and greatest toy? Since when did this make you happier? But I guess it would be understandable that people who lie to promote an agenda (see first paragraph about you) might not think murder is bad, and might not be interested in being nice to their neighbor-- they might be looking to stir up anger and disent for some odd reason. Keyboard courage for the win yes? Anyhow, likely your problem with the 10 Commandments being in the courtroom lies with the "Love the Lord your God" clause and the "Have no other Gods before me"? You know I've always wondered how many people would object to displaying something from the Koran in a courtroom. Would they post trolls about how the Muslims execute mentally retarted people (we could mention that they execute perfectly normal people and are willing to blow themselves up to do it; yes the Koran condones this; go read it yourself if you think otherwise)? Or how they're all in a giant conspiracy (your wording references these events as such) to kill the retards and post Korans in the US courtroom? Probably not, which is why I have a problem with you doing so over only the 10 Commandments and the "'Christian' Right".
Parent should have been modded troll or flamebait faster than you can say "biased". Why does Slashdot put up with this kind of garbage? Not to mention mod it insightful.
There was once a time when you could have a rational, straight discussion on Slashdot.
RIAA Sues Pregnant Mom and Unborn Child
Claims Both Were Present at Times of Alleged Infringment
Seeking Double Normal Settlement Fee
RIAA Files Suit Against Family Dog
Says Pooch Was Alone in House All Day -- Had Ample Time and Opportunity to Download
Suspect Responds "Arf! Arf! Grrr....."
RIAA Traces IP Address to Long-Vacant House
Hires "Ghostbusters" to Flush Out File-Sharing Ghosts
Spokesman: "Just Because Someone is a Disembodied Spirit Doesn't Let Them Off the Hook"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Someone could take advantage of the madness of the RIAA. First issue a press release that if elected, you will support the review of the copyright laws. Then watch closely for the the RIAA/MPAA to donate money to your opponent. Then come out swinging and don't stop: "My opponent takes money from people who want to put you (or your kids) in jail for moving songs from their CDs to their iPods." "My opponent takes money from organizations who sue 10-year-olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars!".
Be a real pit bull. Have many copies of the affidavits, etc... ready to hand out at press meetings and political rallies. Keep on message: Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! (don't forget to get those 18+ year olds registered to vote!)Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers!
People really do hate the RIAA when the learn what this organization is actually doing. You have a good chance of winning the election by taking the anti-RIAA stand instead of just blindly supporting them.
I have to sadly agree. We have a country now where lawyers make the law, abuse the law, and basically run everything to the near sole benefit of lawyers.
And people just put up with it.
Haven't you ever heard someone say something like, "No one better mess with us. Our uncle is a lawyer." Lawyers have an unfair advantage in this society.
They use tricks and bullshit to set murderers free. That's not what was intended. The intent was to have a "fair trial", not get psychopaths off on technicalities that suppress crucial truths.
People always say, "You hate lawyers until you need one." Maybe, but the most likely reason I'd need a lawyer is because of some other jackass lawyer pulling bullshit.
I diagree, there are 2 ways.
:)
The 2nd way is we kill all of them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
doesn't mean that you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.
Why? No one else is. People can enter the country illegally, and legions of people will defend them and want to give them free things (watch someone call me racist for even daring to say such a thing). Rich murderers can get off because they can hire expensive legal teams that will address everything except actual facts. Politicans can ignore the will of the people and override clear, voted upon mandates. Presidents can send our children to war under false pretenses. How many criminals are walking the streets causing new crimes after serving thouroughly inadequate sentences? Corporate executives scam everyone, and then bail out with multimillion dollar golden parachutes. In many cases, the one with the most attorneys wins.
This is a nation with laws? I call bullshit. This is a nation with *lawyers*, which is a very different thing.
"...your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
So... that's the motto of the RIAA legal department, is it?
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I can hear it now: "THOSE BASTARDS!!! They fucked up my daddy's life by suing my little sister because she DL'd some Britney when she was 8 years old! Now, I can't go to community college, because we're broke. FUCKERS! I've had it! I'm going on a jihad! I'm gonna fill up my old Camaro with explosives and drive right into their building and TAKE THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT!!!! MY life is OVER! My family is RUINED! All because of their GREED! My body might be delivering DEATH to the RIAA, but MY MIND WILL BE LISTENING TO DOKKEN!!!!!"
He leaves behind a suicide note stating why he is doing this.
The RIAA is destroyed by his car bomb. The government declares it a "terrorist action".
The RIAA are the real terrorists.
Prosecuting a 10 year old. For crying out fucking loud. What a bunch of assholes.
someday, somebody desperate and angry enough... you reap what you sow.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I wonder where Dateline is during all of this? I mean Dateline likes going after predators, and the RIAA is one due to their actions. You would think Dateline would be all over a story like this one.
Why don't I just go ahead and buy nothing from any labels?
Regardless of the percentage of Jews in the industry (or government, or science, or the Russian Mafia), if it looks like Jews are in charge, it means they're in charge, but if they're not obviously in charge that prooves how fiendishly clever they are at concealment (As Agent Muldaur said, "You might be talking to one right now," and he was sort-of half-right).
This way of thinking is generic to conspiratists---and they're always wrong, since it's the Whiffenpoofs that run the world.
Q: How do we know C.I.A. didn't kill Kennedy?
A: He's dead.
---old F.B.I. joke.
There are a _lot_ of ten-year-old girls*; this means they'll never get to the college students.
*"And I know where they're hiding!!!"
I'm guessing Record Company contracts only specify moral actions by the artists, not the record company. Despite their public crying, record company contracts push all the risk to the artist.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You seem to be under the common mistaken impression that the law applies equally to all people. Rich powerful people don't go to jail, they just have to wear an ankle braclet around the mansion. Rich powerful people don't get to vote just once, they can have dinner to discuss new legislation whenever they want. Rich power people aren't restricted by the law, they just tell the media that they do have the right to do what ever it is they are doing, and enough people believe it that they get away with it. Just look at how someone who had several failed businesses, multiple DUI's, and a well known cocaine habit got to rule the world. Money and power.
We are all just people.
The RIAA is a criminal syndicate. The fact that they can afford to lobby Congress to get laws passed in their favor doesn't change that fact.
Not many people have been through a deposition in the US, but I have. It is an event where the other party's lawyer is allowed to harass you and the witnesses on your side and see of they can break you or trick you into saying something that is to your disadvantage. It is a very demeaning, high pressure event. I survived by having a better lawyer at my side and by having 45 years of life experience (including some rather tough negotiation scenarios) under my belt. In the fair and just America legal system, the highly paid RIAA lawyers will eat a 10 year old girl with all the legal representation she can afford for breakfast. Best justice that money can buy.
See, These bastards just want money! And those fuckers dont care who they go after! FUCK THE RIAA! P2P IS TEH PWNZ0RZ!
Do you feel it's fair to "teach someone early on not to steal" by cutting off their hands? How about torture? Putting a 10 year old child in front of a judge, jury and the world is not only extreme, I can't imagine what it will do to this poor child emotionally and psychologically. This is reminiscent of the Middle Ages...
I cannot conceive of any "reasonable" modification of copyright law that could pertain to this, however. Can you clarify?
You will have to ask my favorite copyright lawyer, Lawrence Lessing for real advice. I don't mind sharing what I think because the law is supposed to reflect the moral sense of the governed. Right now, it reflects the best interests of a few powerful companies and that needs to change. The large list of changes required shows just how far into negative territory things have sunk.
In short, my opinion is that:
Copyright is a created right that's supposed to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment. The creation clause of the US constitution was reasonable at the time and it's spirit offers good guidance today. Copyright is supposed to be temporary and government is not supposed to be a burden or anti-competitive tool. Works of merit should become public domain while they are still current and valuable to society. With electronic publication, it may be that the best way to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment is to eliminate copyright.
Penalties for any violation are supposed to be proportional to the offense. Few members of the public believe that someone should lose their house and livelyhood because they shared their music and movie collection. Indeed, most people believe in public libraries and that sharing is good. Decades of industry propaganda have not and will not convince people that copyright violation is the moral equivalent of theft and murder, nor has it convince them that jailtime and $250,000 penalties are justified where physical equivalents carry no such penalty.
As the jib jab fiasco proves, copyright should not be nebulous. It is in the public interest to establish a database of copyrighted material and it's owners. Right now, it's difficult to share because the presumption is that everything is owned and the copyright owners say that you can't.
Finally, recorded history needs to be liberated. It is outrageous that so much of the world's recorded history is owned by so few companies. A copyright database won't really facilitate use and reuse of commercial works if there's only one owner who can charge outrageous fees. Copyright extensions have robbed the public of what they rightly expected to own when the works were created. The owners have used the profits to strengthen their position and rob the public further. The DMCA must be abolished and digital restrictions should be abandoned because they extend copyright beyond the law in a way that deserves no public protection.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
did you also notice that Atkins was a U.S. Supreme Court decision?
During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas--a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history. The Texas Clemency Memos
The Texan executions of the retarded since 1976 were in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States
Oliver Cruz was the last and it became an issue in the Bush campaign:
Gov. George W. Bush claimed Wednesday that Texas doesn't execute mentally retarded killers, although at least five such convicts have been put to death in recent years. ... In all cases, mental competency is a factor in Texas law."
The comment came as the GOP presidential nominee was campaigning in California, hours before two Texas inmates were executed. One of the inmates, Oliver D. Cruz, was described as mentally retarded, though that conclusion was challenged by prosecutors earlier this week.
Answering news media questions upon his arrival from Texas, Bush indicated that justice was being served with the executions of Cruz and a second inmate, Brian Roberson. But when told that several states have banned the execution of mentally retarded inmates, Bush said, "So do we, in Texas."
However, no ban has been approved by Texas lawmakers, although they tried as recently as 1999. Bush opposed that bill.
Constraints in existing law, which Bush cited as safeguards, failed to prevent the execution of five mentally retarded inmates since 1984 -- six, according to those who argue that Cruz was retarded. "For anybody tried in the state of Texas, mental capacity is a factor, not only during the trial phase but during the appellate phase," Bush said. "
Queried about his opposition to the 1999 bill to ban executions of the retarded, Bush insisted Texas' current law is adequate. And that's the point he was trying to make when he made his controversial remark, an aide said.
"Texas law has many safeguards in place to prevent someone who is not competent from even going to trial, much less being executed," said campaign spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that at least five laws come into play in such cases.
Even if one juror has reasonable doubts about the defendant's mental ability to form the intent to commit a crime, then that person must be acquitted," he noted.
Wednesday night's execution of Cruz drew more than the usual attention on Texas' death chamber, the busiest in the nation. That is in part because of the debate over executing people with mental retardation and because of Bush's bid for the presidency, which has put his positions on crime and punishment under heavy scrutiny.
Bush's discussion with reporters on the topic ended as he headed to a campaign event, and he wasn't immediately available to elaborate. The candidate was making a train tour of portions of California.
Houston Democrat Sen. Rodney Ellis was author of the bill last year that would have banned the execution of inmates with an IQ of 65 or lower. Ellis said in an interview Wednesday that Bush told him at the time, "I think current law is fine."
Although the bill passed the Texas Senate, 22-8, it died in a House committee.
Ellis said he plans to reintroduce the bill next spring to ban the execution of anyone with an IQ of 70 or lower and to make it retroactive to include those on death row now. If passed, Texas would join 12 other states in such bans.
Nationwide, 34 mentally retarded offenders with IQs of 70 or lower have been executed since April 5, 1984, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of those, five were in Texas, not counting Cruz.
Terry Washington, a 33-year-old black man, was executed during Bush's administration. Another mentally retarded offender, Mario Marquez, was exec
I'll 2nd $space6host's concept, with a bit of emphasis on the artist's role. The labels have been very successful in getting these stories printed with a "Poor little record label sues big bad music pirate" slant. That's one of the reasons there is such outrage when they sue little kids: it doesn't fit their PR message; "Big Bad record label sues poor 10-yr-old girl" goes against the grain of what the labels have been telling everyone for the last 5 years.
So, to really attack the messaging, we should start writing headlines that explicitly name the artists. Yes, it's the labels that are driving these suits. But Sony-BMG doesn't care if people are angry with BMG records. They have a much bigger problem if people are picketing at Alan Jackson shows. And you can bet that Alan will have a problem when he starts seeing his name in headlines: "Alan Jackson sues his listeners!"
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I have purchased one CD - count em - ONE in the past six years. And that one purchase was one I struggled with as I really don't want to support this business anymore because of this nonsense.
This was an offensive litigation strategy when it started - and it's loonier still years later. I simply will not buy this cartel's product. I want them to fail and all of their shareholders to lose every single nickel they have. My bet? I will live to see that day.
And maybe not too far off, either.
.Robert
Awesome. Where are my mod points when I need them? Classy AND accurate, all in one! I salute you.
Hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off NOW!
what does these people get.
Nothing positive to say. Any culture or society that allows itself to degrade to this level without massive public outcry ... and I mean a big'ol revolution ... deserves whatever it gets. I am very sad for the honest citizens of the U.S.of A., and the fact that they clearly have a lot of work to do in their future to return to the status of a civilized society.
A ten year old girl ... truly sick.
In B.C., our fascism is green.
I haven't purchased a CD in over five years. I do not illegally download music. I don't even purchase music online legally!
It's entirely possible to boycott these asshats of album sales, and save some money at the same time.
I'm not so sure I agree that the RIAA is made out of "real people". I'm starting to think that they're vampires, or some other kind of blood-sucking creature.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It isn't just because the music industry is going after a 10 year old child. Just look at all these lawsuits the content industry has filed in recent years. It's all the everyday blokes, who dared to get a handful of songs of the net, they're after. Where are the lawsuits against those who sell unlicenced music in bulk? where's the lawsuits against the producers and distributors of counterfeit CDs? Ohhh they're all in China are they? They're out of our reach are they? We want to do big business in China and lawsuits would be bad for it right? So we go after the little fish so we don't look as if we don't care about unlicenced music.
If we don't want to become slaves of the content industry and the politicians they bought...ermmm...lobbied into supporting them, then it is time to show them that they need us more than we need them. We can survive without EMI and Co but can they survive without us? Show them it is our way or the high way. The sooner they realise that, the better.
Stop buying music and movies. But don't get it via P2P either as this will only gove them amunition for even tougher laws. Just show them we don't need and more importantly want their stuff. Only then will this bullsh*t end and the quality of the content improve again. We the people have the power to bring their empires down. We just have to want it.
Don't get me wrong. I used to spend a lot of money on music and movies. But I am sick and tired of the methods of the content industry. I am sick and tired of copyprotected CDs which are "defective by design". I am sick of being locked in when I buy music online. I am sick of being criminalised because I make backups of my legally purchased DVDs to protect my investments. I am sick of being forced to watch "piracy, it's a crime" clips on DVDs i legally purchased. I am sick of movie trailers I can't skip. I'm sick of online shops whose "goods" are locked into one single platform. I want to be able to buy and play content whereever I am and whatever platform I am using. It must be my choice where, when and what with I want to consume content. Unless things change, these guys wil not see another cent of my hard earned money.
5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions, Roper v. Simmons
The attorney of the Andersens did a little detective work and found the real culprit, and these RIAA pedophiles still want to talk to the little girl???
What the fuck is happening here???
Shouldn't they thank her, pay a little fee for the detective work and bow out gracefully?
Why would they waste money on this shit, it will cause them only humilitation.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
They should send Chris Hansen instead of the girl to the trial - that'll scare 'em...
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
The RIAA sues 7-10yr old girls. Due to the extraordinary debt they owe for the rest of their lives these girls can't get loans for educations or achieve any success of their own in life. What does all this mean?
Simple my friend. It means in 10 years there will be a blanket lowering of the bar for how much cash you must have to get a quality piece of ass. I used to be against the RIAA because the laws like the DMCA they push for affect technology and software development and since that impacts every industry and form of production used in industrialized nations those laws literally set mankind back by decades.
Now? Who gives a fsck how soon we colonize the moon; cure aids; develop a way to join a global mental collective, bring on that easy and quality next generation ass!
Actually, I figured it was Mitch Bainwol posting AC...
Pay no attention to the *whoosh* behind the curtain =)
oh fFor fFuck's sake. is the RIAA *targeting* these people? It seems like every other week there's yet another 10 year old girl whose mother is on welfare getting a letter.
If I were the artist of any of the specific songs they're accused of distributing, I'd be ashamed. Truly ashamed, at this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's funny, if the little girl wasn't downloading the latest Britney Spears, but rather some unknown indie music, she might have gotten away scot free. Let that be a lesson parents, it is never to early to educate your children on good music :)
on their grave. This is out of hand.
Have many copies of the affidavits, etc... ready to hand out at press meetings
...or have you forgotten about the Broadcast Flag initiatives that keep getting started?
You forget how much The Media has consolidated.
Only NPR, Pacifica, and the few independent newspapers that are left will cover this.
It isn't in the best intersts of radio or TV to make any noise about this.
gewg_
Can I download another Barney song?
That makes two of us. :-P
Because the voters do not control the slimy politicians, they can merely weed out some of them.
The problem IS the politicians: they are ALL crooks and liars. You can't blame the voters for being unable of choosing a good apple in a rotten batch of cabbage!
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
I wish that somebody they sue would blow up their building.
...but has anyone considered the pure PR value of getting video/audio of an RIAA lawyer making a little girl cry on the witness stand?
Congress/Senate nearly craps itself on a daily basis at the thought of kids clicking on porn. What do you suppose they'll do when the poor little moppet is sobbing and rubbing her eyes on FOX News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and the Colbert Report?
DUDE! Slam that kid in the chair and fire away! Give her a sandwich of raw onions and horseradish beforehand, just to make sure she cranks up the waterworks! It'd be just like rolling a natural 20 with a Vorpal Sword of RIAA Smackdown!
[End Of Line]
I won't be surprised if 14 is the minimal legal age to be sent to the electric chair.
Actually, so far the youngest person on death row in America was sixteen (Shareef Cousin). Cousin would have been executed by the Great State of Louisiana by now, except for the small problem that he's innocent. After spending four years on death row, the conviction was finally overturned. Yay, justice.
Here's the last words of seventeen year-old Joseph John Cannon (executed by the State of Texas). Another interesting fact: 1 in 9 people on death row were under the age of 19 at the time of arrest (source: Bureau of Justice).
Here's a Time Magazine article on the Kids of Death Row. According to the article, previous Republican Governor of California Pete Wilson suggested that 14-year-olds should be eligible for the death penalty. So your initial statement isn't too far off the charts.
My seven year old cousin is pretty web savvy, and since his older brother uses P2P I'm fairly sure he's started, too. Of course some of those programs are ridiculously easy to use, and others just need a bit of explaining, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise.
How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A fish.
I know i'll lose karma, but I just can't resist:
Any justice system that allows for a daughter to be forced to testify against her mother is severely broken. The fact the daughter is only 10 makes it so totally wrong ins so many aspects...
Should a mother, if her 7 year old daughter calls out for her (or others of the family, toddlers and such) before looking after her family first shut down the computer lest someone who shares her household might see something that they might later be foced to spill up in court?
In Germany, first degree relatives cannot be forced to testify before any court. Period. No matter how guilty the accused and what the crime. We had this from 1939 to 1944, you still have it today.
To my opinion slicing open throats does not really count as "adult expectations" to me...
Neither does the music industry show any proof its ran by adults, which is as murderous as above
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Burn the PIRATE, on the staple with 'm!
.. still .. same draconian laws are being fired towards people that still need to learn to grow up instead of be teached by a corporation how to grow up! them kids got parents for that; not the RIAA or equivalent with a lesson/outcome even greater than a rape or two; is this the modern IP inquisition?)
That 7yr old is for sure a PIRATE,
fire 'm up, hang them all, don't let any alive!
That will teach them leeching hiding PIRATES !!
(note the sarcasm
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
If I were her legal guardian, I would try to set up a few msn chat sessions, where I would
then somehow manipulate the chat to have a slight sexual connetation without being obvious,
something that could be twisted in the courts.
This would then be followed by a "sure she will meet you in person" and have the cops standing by to catch that sexual predator. Then I would send a letter to the courts stating that my girl was traumatized by the perversions the people trying to contact here caused , and that now, definately there will be no more contact or even visual deliberations as she would remiss and have even more psychological damage.
If we live in a world where technicalities like these are allowed, then use them to your advantage and fight fire with fire. I really hope something can be done about these guys that are always going after the 80 year old granmother, or the 10 year old girl...I mean seriously, come on!
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.