Daily Kos :: Comments Record industry to 13 year old: No mom for you, you little brat!! [w/ poll]

Just to clear this up, this is what's going on... (none / 1)

The Record Company sued for copyright infringement.
They sued the girls mother because they determined that the violations were originating from the internet connection registered to the mother.
It was determined by the mother that the daughter was doing the file sharing, and the mother essentially told the record company to shove it, because they couldn't sue her for something she had not done. She refused to accept responsibility for the actions of her daughter.
So, the record company sued the minor daughter. The minor daughter is entitled to a guardian ad litem, which is a person whose job it is to look after the legal interest of the child within the scope of this legal action.
The guardian ad litem will be one of a randomly selected lawyer from the probate court within that jurisdiction.
The minor child is not being removed from the custody of her mother. The minor child did break the law. The record company is entitled under the law to bring a civil suit. The court is doing exactly what it should in appointing an ad litem in this case...
If someone is trying to get people worked up about abuses of the legal system, or the abuses of the record companies, it's just nonsense in this case.
by SenatorX on Fri Oct 7th, 2005

Over the 'guardian ad litem' thing, I agree... (4.00 / 2)
...but I think that, even in this case, the record companies are behaving badly. Going after a 14-year-old kid for thousands of dollars when the industry has yet to demonstrate filesharing as a practice has cost them a dime is deeply unethical.
Do they have the legal right to do it? Yep. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
by Jonathan on Fri Oct 7th, 2005

There you go... (none / 0)
That's a complete different debate.
Yeah, they're being stupid.
Digital Music Sharing has been the best thing to happen to musicians since radio was invented.
Record companies know this.
They just don't want to like the paradigm shift.
by SenatorX on Fri Oct 7th, 2005

BREAKING THE LAW??!!?!?!?! (none / 0)
I'm sorry, but can the FUCKTARDED record co's prove that the daughter didn't already own the albums and songs she downloaded? Real world example:
I have purchased both Loveless(My Bloody Valentine) and London Calling(The Clash) several times over since 2001. Both about 6 times. For several reasons I have either lost, destroyed or just had them stolen. I still have a copy of both on vinyl. Now, in order for me to have these records on my computer, well, I would need to download them because I don't have anything to trasnfer vinyl to computer. I have spent well over $100 on these two albums. Am I breaking the law?
by mkf on Fri Oct 7th, 2005

Daily Kos :: Comments Record industry to 13 year old: No mom for you, you little brat!! [w/ poll]


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home