RIAA Sues Child

[Samurai]

You may remember the previously posted story about a case against a mother, which was dropped by the RIAA right after her lawyers moved to dismiss the case. Well, guess what? The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the mother's daughter - now a 14 year old girl - and moved for appointment of a guardian at litem."

Source: Slashdot RSS

Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.

She was 13 when this all started, but she's now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian ---- which she'll definitely need with the venal and unscrupulous labels trying to get her.

“Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution," says the complaint. "Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.

“Candy Chan ultimately testified that she had a conversation with Brittany Chan in which Britanny Chan admitted to using the ‘Spicybrnweyedgirl’ name associated with the copyright infringement.

“Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.”

"Forced" the cartel to attack Britanny directly?

As we posted here:

The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she'd given Britanny a computer. "After taking Ms Chan's deposition, the RIAA moved to add the daughter," her lawyer, John Hermann, told p2pnet. "I objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that they had to appoint a guardian ad litem before for the child before they could proceed.

"In the meantime, I threatened filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Ms Chan". That frightened off the RIAA legal hit men and the complaint against her was dropped.

Source: P2PNet | Chan Case PDF #1 | Chan Case PDF #2

[myidisbb]

You may remember the previously posted story about a case against a mother, which was dropped by the RIAA right after her lawyers moved to dismiss the case. Well, guess what? The RIAA has brought a lawsuit against the mother's daughter - now a 14 year old girl - and moved for appointment of a guardian at litem."

Source: Slashdot RSS

Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.

She was 13 when this all started, but she's now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian ---- which she'll definitely need with the venal and unscrupulous labels trying to get her.

“Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution," says the complaint. "Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.

“Candy Chan ultimately testified that she had a conversation with Brittany Chan in which Britanny Chan admitted to using the ‘Spicybrnweyedgirl’ name associated with the copyright infringement.

“Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.”

"Forced" the cartel to attack Britanny directly?

As we posted here:

The RIAA claimed Mrs Chan was indirectly liable as a copyright infringer because she'd given Britanny a computer. "After taking Ms Chan's deposition, the RIAA moved to add the daughter," her lawyer, John Hermann, told p2pnet. "I objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that they had to appoint a guardian ad litem before for the child before they could proceed.

"In the meantime, I threatened filing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Ms Chan". That frightened off the RIAA legal hit men and the complaint against her was dropped.

Source: P2PNet | Chan Case PDF #1 | Chan Case PDF #2

if they force a legal guardian then how is the mother liable after they sue the little girl again? they cant get a contract settlement from her. looks like they are going to bankrupt the mother trick again