Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

RIAA sues 12 year old girl

17:14 / 09.09.03

We've all heard about the RIAA filing suits against music traders, targeting Kazza users and the like. The media's picked up on one such target, 12 year old Brianna LaHara.

FOX News coverage

But The Register really tickeled the issue nicely, bless them:

The RIAA sees the face of evil, and it's a 12-year-old girl
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago
Posted: 09/09/2003 at 13:54 GMT

The RIAA has nailed one of the most prolific file-traders in the U.S., filing a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara.

When not at the playground with her friends, "Biggie Brianna" is trading music files from her home in New York. The little girl received one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) on Monday, according to the New York Post. She may look like a sweet and innocent child, but the RIAA says it's only going after major copyright violators at the moment. So you make the call.

"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna told the Post. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

It turns out that Brianna's mum paid a $29.99 service charge to KaZaA for the company's music service. Brianna, however, thought this meant she could download songs at will. How naive!

When reporters charged into Brianna's home, she was helping her brother with some homework. She is an honors student at St. Gregory the Great school.

Brianna could face charges of up to $150,000 per infringed song, but we have a feeling this might be a tad unrealistic. We suggest the RIAA take all of her toys instead.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," RIAA president Cary Sherman said in a statement. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."

Go get her, Cary. ®

18:58 / 09.09.03

I wonder if this was accidental or completely planned.

Afterall, the goal of this initiative is to scare people away from p2p file sharing. Most music pirates have an attitude of "well, they'll never come after me," so by choosing an unlikely, even random, target (i.e. a twelve year old), suddenly everyone with mp3s on their computer has to wonder at least a little if they could be next...

19:08 / 09.09.03

so is anyone actually scared by this?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

19:09 / 09.09.03

"It's not like we're doing anything illegal!"

Well, yes, you are, but suing a twelve-year-old for hundreds of thousands of dollars is not a very useful response - and since the same companies which are now grumpy about file-sharing in many cases provided and endorsed the technology to do it, my sympathy for them is starkly limited. My sympathy for a bewildered and terrorised child, however, is considerable.

I think the issue of file-sharing requires something of a public relations offensive, not a legal battering. It also occurs to me that people appear to be willing to pay for songs (content) if they are offered a coherent opportunity to do so - and a reason beyond 'or we'll smack you one'.

19:50 / 09.09.03

What's weird is she paid $29.95 for KaZaa - so they should sue KaZaa (which they already did) and not her, no? Or is their argument that sure, she was paying for a service, but a service which she knew was illegal, and the fact that she paid for it doesn't change that?

Also, what's up with the sole survivor of the Napster/KaZaa type companies, that Apple thing where they charge you 99 cents per song? Has that been successful or what?

19:51 / 09.09.03

Drop the price and we'll pay, otherwise fuck it.

20:12 / 09.09.03

Sam Vega sez
I think the issue of file-sharing requires something of a public relations offensive, not a legal battering

ah yes but do we trust the RIAA not to sex-up their case? What about the claim that you can download anything you want legally for reasonable prices in under 45 minutes...

21:15 / 09.09.03

what's up with the sole survivor of the Napster/KaZaa type companies, that Apple thing where they charge you 99 cents per song?

it's hardly a soul survivor, since it just launched about 3 months ago. it was an unprecedented aggreement and a testament to Steve Job's deal closing superpowers -- no one else has been able to get all major label to agree to anything remotely like it. and its been super successful.

21:35 / 09.09.03

even though apple only has around 4% of the home computer market in the US

00:24 / 10.09.03

It still sucks. The interface is good, but you can't get new music, and you can't get obscure music. You can pay less than $10 an album for slightly-old music in a second-hand shop, and if you're so net-obsessed you can't bear to leave the house, you'll already know fifty ways to get the music for free anyway.

emusic.com looks okay, though I haven't tried it.

01:04 / 10.09.03

If they were smarter, they'd have gone after some Nathan Barley (or the US equivalent). Since they're only half smart, they're offering an amnesty that's useless against criminal prosecution and a price cut financed by cutting promotion subsidies to music stores.

08:58 / 10.09.03

I've heard (on Coast to Coast AM, of all things) that the girl's mother settled for $2000 dollars, but I can't find a link. Anybody else seen this?

If true, it's probably a good deal for this poor family, as I understand other settlements have been much higher. Though these people getting sued have my sympathy, they are in fact breaking the law. So who's gonna get all this money those RIAA bastards are bound to make from these lawsuits? I'm guessing it won't be the artists who are supposedly being robbed.

It'll be interesting to see if any of these defendents actually go to court. At least one is bound to have the courage for it... but I don't like their chances.

09:11 / 10.09.03

My apologies for not html tagging this, but, well, I dunno how. I'll go learn, but first here's that link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/US/D7TF9UP00.html

You can all cut and paste, I hope.

19:15 / 10.09.03

Apparently a U.S. senator said at a hearing about this [to an RIAA representative], "So you're going to round up the usual suspects at junior high schools?" LOL! This quote was in the yahoo story today about the $2,000 settlement.

21:51 / 10.09.03

Seems the president of Grokster has offered to pick up the 12 year old's tab.

And next up.. a 71 year old grandfather. Nothing like kneecapping the elderly, Cary Sherman.

22:14 / 10.09.03

What's weird is she paid $29.95 for KaZaa - so they should sue KaZaa (which they already did) and not her, no? Or is their argument that sure, she was paying for a service, but a service which she knew was illegal, and the fact that she paid for it doesn't change that?

well, part of the problem is that the RIAA not too many federal courts have ruled on this issue of whether P2P software makers can be held liable for copyright infringement -- back in april, a district court in california ruled that in fact they (being the makers of grokster and morpheus) could not be held liable (yay!)...the argument being that they're not unlike the makers of VCRs, which can (and obviously are) used to infringe upon copyrights, but can (and again obviously are) used for non-infringing purposes as well. read more here if you'd like.

so under this particular court's reasoning, paying for the $29.95 is like paying for the VCR. it's not the service that's illegal, it's the act of downloading copyrighted music.

of course, this is but one court. and, obviously, other courts have ruled very differently. so until the supreme court rules on the issue, the RIAA will just keep suing anyone with a pocket, big or small...

22:26 / 10.09.03

Well, the RIAA certainly got their $2000 worth on this caper. I buy CDs on occasion unless they're clearly marked with the booby-trap logo. Now I'll actively avoid buying from RIAA member lables. (link loads sloooowly).

22:52 / 10.09.03

Er...labels. The page is slow but it does work. Mute are NOT an RIAA label!