RIAA settles with 12-year-old
 

Link
<hr>
Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000

WASHINGTON - A 12-year-old girl in New York who was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music over the Internet is off the hook after her mother agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000 to settle the lawsuit, apologizing and admitting that her daughter's actions violated U.S. copyright laws.



The hurried settlement involving Brianna LaHara, an honors student, was the first announced one day after the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) filed 261 such lawsuits across the country. Lawyers for the RIAA said Brianna's mother, Sylvia Torres, contacted them early Tuesday to negotiate.

"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," Torres said in a statement distributed by the recording industry. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

Brianna added: "I am sorry for what I have done. I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

The case against Brianna was a potential minefield for the music industry from a public relations standpoint. The family lives in a city housing project on New York's Upper West Side, and they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services.

Even in the hours before the settlement was announced, Brianna was emerging as an example of what critics said was overzealous enforcement by the powerful music industry.

The top lawyer for Verizon Communications Inc. charged earlier Tuesday during a Senate hearing that music lawyers had resorted to a "campaign against 12-year-old girls" rather than trying to help consumers turn to legal sources for songs online. Verizon's Internet subsidiary is engaged in a protracted legal fight against the RIAA over copyright subpoenas sent Verizon customers.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also alluded to Brianna's case.

"Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" Durbin asked RIAA President Cary Sherman during a Senate Judiciary hearing.

Durbin said he appreciated the piracy threat to the recording industry, but added, "I think you have a tough public relations campaign to go after the offenders without appearing heavy-handed in the process."

Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested.

"We're trying to let people know they may get caught, therefore they should not engage in this behavior," Sherman said. "Yes, there are going to be some kids caught in this, but you'd be surprised at how many adults are engaged in this activity."
<hr>

For the love of crap this is asinine. What are they really accomplishing right now besides getting people pissed off at them?

They are not accomplishing much. They think that they will scare people into not sharing music over the internet, but it is more likely that people will find a way to share music that is harder to track.

Well if it makes people think twice about downloading music, it has accomplished something. All other threats have not worked. I agree that it's a shame to have to sue a 12 year old, but at least people will be taking notice and will refrain from 'stealing' from the music recording industry.

I understand and sympathize with both sides of the issue. I was a music swapper/downloader, but have now stopped due to the threat of being sued.

When a monopoly is resented by its customers, it hurts it financially alot more than if it did not behave like one (and did not profit like one) but was liked and respected. Its too bad RIAA doesn't realize this, and will blame any losses in sales on file sharing.

The REALLY sad thing is that I *need* my music, just like I *need* electricity and water, and have no choice but to pay up to the evil empire.

Its just sad when RIAA bites the very hand that feeds em, and we can do nothing.

Sick, SICK!

good, seems like justice was done. I think the girl's mother got off easy.

Fortunately for me, I don't need music. And what I do want, I will find a way to get without giving the RIAA a fucking dime, whether it be p2p, irc, or just borrowing from friends. Or I will go without. The worst part of this story is that they made a 12 year old apologize to the music artists who are getting raped more by record companies than by file swappers.

I agree, she was let off with not much of a punishment. I can't, however, let go of the fact that she and her mother were under the impression that paying Kazaa $29.99 meant they could legally download music. You and I both know this is wrong, but these people are obviously somewhat naive.

This does prove, however, that the RIAA really does need to do it's homework before launching the lawsuit. They haven't done any work to assure that the lawsuits are legit and they have the right people.

I forget which page I was reading this on, but consider this:

I have a nice fat pipe to the net. I am lso generous and have set up an open WiFi hotspot for my neighbours. One of my neighbours utilizes this to share copyrighted material, and I get busted.

Of course, I don't log who is doing what because that would be morally wrong.

Oh well, I guess I am still responsible for being a nice guy.

God. Caving in and settling was the WRONG OPTION. Now the rest of us are going to have to go into the fight with what really counts as a "legal victory" under the RIAA's belt.

Fucking short-sighted people. They had the best initial, precedent-setting case of probably EVERYONE subpoena'd, and they dropped the goddamned ball.

It is not a legal victory until a judge says it is. It does not set precedant.

I have bought approximately 100 CD's over the last year or so. Every single on of them from a used cd store by my house. Sure I have to wait a little while for a new release, but I am paying 1/2 price and also not giving one cent to the record companies. I would rather spend eight bucks on something I might or might not like than spend time trying to download good copies of songs I want.

That is a durn shame.
Money hongry M F'ers

I think the recording industry has this thing all wrong. The internet isn't going anywhere in the next several decades. The internet also remains the quickest and easiest way to view merchandise and purchase it. Don't they see the flashing money signs?????They can come up with a solution that they charge nominal fees per download, or monthly......either way, they make bank.

The first story about this pissed me off. I can't believe they actually went through with that.

I think I'll just go back to borrowing my favorites from my friends and copying them that way. Now way to track me except through my friends - I know they're not narcs. I'm not going to bother buying Cd's at least not from those artists agreeing with this.

that's fucked up.

she is 12. a little kid. STFU already.

blerg.

Doesn't set a legal precedent, but it sets an example for everyone else who is sued. If the 12 year old girl who downloaded "if you're happy and you know it" doesn't think she can win, what chance do I have?

They were probably scared that the lawyer fees would be way over 2 grand. but I think there are a million lawyers in the country who would have taken this case for free. Maybe they knew that but didn't want to deal with the time/publicity aspects?

maybe the mum realised that she was being held legally liable for her kids actions and took a chance to settle bbefore ti got REALLY ugly. People.. know your fucking rights bfore you get online, ignorance is not an excuse..
Also..watch yer damn kids..

This disgusts me, it really does.
I cannot find the words.

The riaa is fucking moronic though. THey need to drop prices of cds...and give the artists more of the money from there. Not sue 12 yr olds...