Chan RIAA hearing January 5
p2p news / p2pnet: With all the media attention on Patti Santangelo, it’s easy to forget there are other people being racked by Sony BMG, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal and EMI, the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel
Tanya Andersen and Cecilia Gonzalez are two such, and Brittany Chan, who was barely 13 when the cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) first targetted her, is another.
As we posted at the time, "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."
A court held, "that if the RIAA wanted to sue the child, it would have to have a guardian ad litem appointed," said Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People.
Their scheme is still to in effect bypass Mrs Chan and a hearing has been slated for January 5, "to determine the RIAA’s motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the defendant".
Of course, looking after Britanny’s interests is absolutely the last thing the RIAA or its lawyers have in mind.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
Patti Santangelo – How the RIAA gets its victims, December 29, 2005
Tanya Andersen – The ‘We’re Not Taking Any More’ club, September 28, 2005
Cecilia Gonzalez – Pay $22.5K, RIAA p2p victim told, December 10, 2005
Brittany Chan – Big Music wants Britanny Chan, October 5, 2005
December 29th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
He must get really exited going after little girls. It would be nice to see some dad put a bullet in him as far as I am concerned.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Jon, Why are these spams here?
I am all form freedom of expression but this is twice someone has decided we should know of donation places not associated with this site. What gives with this?
December 29th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
1. Brittany Chan is 13, a minor.
2. RIAA says that what she did is theft and a crime.
3. A RIAA record company is thus saying that Brittany Chan is a criminal in open court.
4. When minors commit crimes and the crime’s information is given to the press, the identity of the minor is protected by the court.
Clearly, under the theory that she is a criminal, and the court has permitted it.
The judge has erred. The acusers have erred…
in not protecting the rights of a minor to not be identified, and the court has not even decided if she is guilty of anything.
Justice is a sham.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Going after childeren is pointless exercise. All that will happen is the Childeren would have to declare get them self in to bankruptcy chapter 7 or 13. In other words they get no money, the childeren will never have to pay the lame RIAA/MPAA and the RIAA/MPAA is stuck with a large legal bill. When they got older and can get job they sould be out bankruptcy and have not got to pay a dime.
DUM! DUM! DUM!