When they start sueing and locking people up for down loading music, who are they going to nail? Me, or my mom and dad? It’s their computer.
Hm.
The Republican solution would seem to be to lock ALL of you up.
Unless you’re rich. Then we just fine you.
Unless you’re campaign contributors. Then we suspend the sentence, and throw it out on appeals…
The owner of the computer would be my guess ,they have an obligation to make sure of whats on their computer or what its being used for, regardless if you are swapping files, or launching virus’s or DoS attacks.
Declan
Good thing I got that spare harddrive with an exact OS ready for a quick swap. MP3 free.
They won’t start suing downloaders… too many, too thinly spread. Much easier to keep nailing sharers instead…
In any case, wouldn’t they have you ISP data and thus not need your HD anyway, ParentalAdvisory?
Political sniping is not permitted in this forum. Consider yourself warned.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
If you are under age, then they would probably want to have a talk with your folks.
Does the RIAA (I think I have the acronym right… I don’t even know what it stands for :o) have any power in Canada?
More generally - are these sharer-hunts happening here too?
No, but the Canadian version of the RIAA has powers in Canda 
RIAA = Record Industry Association of America, BTW.
I would imagine if you are underage they will go after your parents. It may be sooner than you think!
FYI: Music Industry Wins 871 Subpoenas Against Internet Users
Get ready to bend over America!
Ah, the joy of GQ, in which each and every poster answers factually, and doesn’t open their stinkin’ yap (or, I suppose, type using their stinkin’ fingers) if they don’t have a factual answer to contribute.
I can dream.
In any event, so far as I’m aware, the only action being contemplated is a civil suit, which means that neither parent nor child goes to jail.
It’s very rare for the law to impose criminal penalties on one person for the criminal actions of another.
Now, if the parents - or the owners of the computer - were civilly liable for permitting downloads to happen, if they knew, or should have known, the activity was going on… I don’t know. I seem to recall at least a few jurisdictions retained the concept that a parent is civilly liable for the wilful misconduct of the child, but I don’t know any more specifics than that.
It’s certainly amusing to read the parade of offenderatti that posts things like, “Hey, bend over, America,” as though downloading other people’s intellectual property was a civil right. It’s equally amusing to read the justifications (“If CDs had more than one or two good songs, I’d buy them, but I ain’t bein’ ripped off by the record labels!”). But both of these, of course, are fodder for the world of GD, where they have been discussed at some length.
I believe the GQ is answered.
- Rick
Serious question. Can David Letterman sue anybody who uses a top 10 list? NBC had to let him keep it as his “intellectual property” when he went to CBS. Does this mean any other use of a top 10 list infringes on Daves’ territory?
**
Likewise. Or did you really believe that your unilateral declaration of the end of the thread counts as a factual answer?
Besides, we aren’t talking about downloads we are talking about sharing files. As far as I’m aware no one is going to get busted for downloading anything. But if little Timmy (wittingly or not) makes his mp3 collection available then someone will have hell to pay. Actually more like a couple thousand per file to pay. If you think that’s the price society has to pay to protect those poor exploited record executives then that is your perogative. Personally I think that is rather shortsighted and naive, but hey… this isn’t GD.
Actually, and just to be 100 percent clear about this as a factual matter, whether the current law serves the interests of “poor exploited record executives” or is “shortsighted and naive” is a matter for GD. That the activity is illegal is not – it is a fact. A true fact. An incontrovertible fact as true as .999~ = 1.
Whether you agree with the fact is wholly and completely irrelevant. That someone will be asked or ordered to “bend over” is factually in error. People will certainly be sued civilly, and there exists in this thread a perfectly legitimate General Question whether liability extends to parents of minors who engage in the questioned activity. There is also a legitimate General Question about possible criminal sanctions and jail, which you have helped answer – it seems that the answer is “no, but that would change if a current proposed law is enacted.”
Hope that helps.
If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock on how a bill becomes a law, we’re not there yet. But it is certainly relevant to the OP.
Canada’s ‘version’ of the RIAA is CRIA (The Canadian Recording Industry Association).
At this time CRIA has not taken any legal action against file sharers.
The OP lives in Wisconsin. Wisconsin allows under Wis. stat. 895.035 for the parents of minors to be sued for certain torts of the minor but caps damages at $2,500 per wrongful act. The same section also provides that a parent may be ordered to pay restitution for certain criminal acts of minor children if the minor child does not or it appears that the minor child will not pay them. So in that instance, assuming that the theft is determined to fall under the terms of the statute the parent may be held civilly responsible and subject to covering the cost of the criminal penalty, although not to serve any prison time.
IANAL and YMMV by jurisdiction.
Assuming that this is a serious statement and not meant to be humorous, it is probably not a good idea to confess on a public message board your apparent intent to conceal evidence that in a civil suit you would be compelled under the rules of discovery to provide and that in a crminal matter would open you up to obstruction of justice charges.