AP: Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000 | iLounge News


AP: Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000

“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.’”

Related Stories



Wow. Shaking down a 12 year old for 2 g’s. Let the little girl go watch MTV cribs and see how bad she’s hurting the “artists she loves.” Big, bad RIAA.

Posted by Ghost in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 2:07 AM (CDT)


i think parents should fight the cases involving minors in court and not settle them. I am not even sure the minors can be charged with such “crimes”; one could argue that a teenager may not understand/be aware of copyright laws and the differences between borrowing a friend’s CD and downloading a song from the same friend’s computer. In any case, at this point in time, these lawsuits would make more sense if filed against adult heavy “downloaders” (thoudands of shared songs0

Posted by Vitaly Citovsky in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 6:20 AM (CDT)


What I would like to do is send Brianna’s family some money.  Apparently they are a disadvantaged family that pays housing using government subsidies.

I suppose its fair since the music execs have to pay their penthouses too…

Seriously anybody know how we can set up sending money to these people.


Posted by Alric in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 6:32 AM (CDT)


I think that’s a fantastic idea, Alric.  Maybe someone could contact the reporter at the Post?  Brianna’s mother doesn’t seem to be listed, which is probably a good thing.

Posted by Ella in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 7:45 AM (CDT)


$2,000? Boy, that’s teaching her mom a lesson…

Posted by joe shmoe in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 7:52 AM (CDT)


“The case against Brianna was a potential minefield for the music industry from a public relations standpoint.”

Now the sceptic in me wonders if perhaps the RIAA have decided to brush this under the carpet and maybe come to some arrangement with the mother that if she keeps quiet, they will pay the fine for her and thereby drop, what could be a awkward case to try and prosecute, from the public gaze.

You know how these corporate types work. The last thing they want is a music martyr - and a 12yr old one at that!!!

Posted by MadPict in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 8:22 AM (CDT)


i think the RIAA is just being riduculous, c’mon now, going after 12 year old girls? thats sick, almost as bad as child molestors!!! the RIAA is dirty and i hope it dies and the artists under the RIAA establish another kind of program thats not sick.

Posted by suwatch in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 9:54 AM (CDT)


My guess is that Brianna & her mom will not have to pay anything if they “behave”. 

If I was advising the RIAA, they should settle the case as quick as possible for a token amount (in this case $2000) to show that they will go after anyone who downloads.  With a private settlement, the RIAA could stipulate that the $2000 would not be collected if Brianna & her mom issued a statement to the media acknowledging downloading is an illegal violation of copyrights and never to discuss the terms or publicly say anything to contridict their admission of guilt.

Posted by vietnamkid in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 10:59 AM (CDT)


Ironically, with all the publicity, Brianna & her mom could benefit financially when people start to send them money to pay off the settlement.  My guess is that it will be many times more than $2000.

Posted by vietnamkid in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 11:02 AM (CDT)


I can’t believe how many people (including most of you) are suckered into this feeling that the RIAA is this horrible organization that preys on little kids.  Don’t you see that RIAA opponents have publicized this one instance as a way of toying with the public’s emotions?

She did something wrong (or more accurately, her mother failed to tell her that she needed to stop doing something wrong).  She should pay the price.

Posted by jerseyfreeze in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 12:57 PM (CDT)


Yeah but all big coporate companies (excluding Apple, Adobe, Quark, Extensis, etc) are evil. Look at microsoft. One of thier banners is ‘microsoftbanner666.jpg’. Ask the devil how ‘Bill’ got all his money. Macs Rock!!

Posted by JaJa in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 1:37 PM (CDT)


The RIAA sued a 12 year old child, who thought by subscribing to Kazza for $29 she was entitled to download songs.  To a 12 year old, this would be akin to getting your library card and going to the library to check out books.

If the RIAA had sued the parent, that would be another matter.  However, they sued a minor and in my opinion, that’s just out of control.

Posted by Bender in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 2:13 PM (CDT)


Heh, the RIAA is getting sued in return for that stupid “Amnesty” program they’re offering.

Posted by tetro in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 6:10 PM (CDT)


I’m wondering if the RIAA is going to re-distribute that $2,000 to the “hurting” artists who’s songs were downloaded.

Someone has to hold the copyright on that music, and I’ll bet it is NOT the RIAA.

I’d rather be broke than leech money that isn’t owed to me by muscling in on the poor who can’t afford proper legal representation.

Vultures, whores and thieves.

Posted by Andrew Heaton in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 6:16 PM (CDT)


I’m all for making sure the artists get paid.
I for one would have preferred being able to buy some of the stuff I’ve downloaded.
But I have never been more repulsed by the tactics that the RIAA seem hellbent on using. A 12 year old? I’ve seen the Kazaa ads,and on the surface,it is presented in a manner that would make you believe you’re taking part in a subscription service.So I can understand why they would think they were paying for a subscription service. But what kills is me is that the RIAA are clueless to the fact that the very people they are trying to reach are the very people they are alienating. Then to expect people to react favourably? Especially considering that the RIAA are primarily responsible for the mess they now find themselves in? When I go to the store,and can’t buy a song because the record company says that releasing in any other form besides the CD would cannibalize sales? Never mind that I may already own the album,and am looking for the remix which would be additional income. For pretty much conditioning a whole generation of potential music buyers to get for free what they can’t afford to buy because of MSRP-which is another fancy way to say price fixing? I think not. Just as I am having an increasingly hard time hearing them go on about wanting to protect the rights of the artists. The record business is probably the only industry in the U.S. that engages in a legalized form of slavery when it comes to dealing with its artists.But they care deeply about the welfare of its artists. Okey Dokey. Give me a serious f**king break. The newspapers here have been disclosing where this little girl goes to school(that’s another topic of discussion…),but I don’t know if they are taking donations. If they were, I would definitely donate. But if not, I still plan on sending contributions to the various legal groups that are fighting this idiocy.

Posted by Christianicononev.2 in Irvine, CA on September 10, 2003 at 10:17 PM (CDT)


I am reminded about something Steve Jobs mentioned (half jokingly, half serious) during one of his keynotes addressing the iTunes music store.  He said that stealing music via p2p services was “bad karma.”  This solidified for me the fact that Apple has it right.  They have some, relatively light, digital rights protection on the music store songs, but for the most part they understand that A. trying to impose heavy and confining digital security methods on the music is bad business, and that B. attacking consumers that buy said music is bad business.  This is a conflict that the RIAA has to realize can only be won by curbing consumers instincts to download *free* music.  In a sense, it’s a psychological issue, not a technical or legal one because the technical means of getting music for free will always exist (does the RIAA plan on suing people who rip cds from their local library?  Maybe they should start suing libraries too since 12 year olds can get music for free from there as well).  Technological barricades and legal action can only affect consumers negatively.  For instance, some college students might say “I won’t download music because I might get sued.”  But this doesn’t mean they’re going to be the next in line at the record store either.  So basically Apple’s got it right by offering an easy and legal way to acquire music that’s similar to the way so many p2p users do already.

Posted by Dave in Irvine, CA on September 11, 2003 at 2:23 PM (CDT)



Way to go RIAA!
Unbelievable that they are this low

Posted by SCRINS in Irvine, CA on September 11, 2003 at 2:37 PM (CDT)


There were a few too many references to the Wizard of Oz in that article. Do you think that guy (Adam Eisgrau) has a thing for Dorothy? :)

Posted by Rich in Irvine, CA on September 11, 2003 at 9:46 PM (CDT)


wowie they actually got a 12 year old man they should be catching killers and melesters instead of some frickin 12yr old girl for 2gs’

Posted by brandon in Irvine, CA on April 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM (CDT)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy