Feeds

back to article Littlest pirate’s Winnie-the-Pooh laptop on the way home

The ten-year-old girl accused of piracy in Finland will probably still find it hard to stay off Santa’s naughty list, but has at least cost her family only €300 after attempting to pinch a Finnish pop song. Big Content, in the form of the Finnish Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC), was last week revealed to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Thumb Down

Gotta love it

Only bullies take pleasure in going after those smaller than they are. While they were at it why not take her lollipop as well? Can't help but think that the dad was told something along these lines, "well even if she didn't succeed in downloading these songs she's still a pirate in training. By doing this we are showing her early that it pays to support our way of life."

Never has there been a better group to be called twats.....twats

61
1
Silver badge
Meh

Just goes to show

A telling off and an explanation as to why it wasmwrongnwould be quite sufficient.

The fine is not a fine against the child, she doesn't go out to work, it's a fine against the family.

How low will these people go..........

27
1
Paris Hilton

Re: Just goes to show

That someone from the recording industry was trolling these forums? I like how just about every post on here extolling to the level of bullshit that this was to be brought against a child let alone the family has a down vote. Makes you wonder don't it?

29
0
Silver badge

Re: Just goes to show

the downvoting is me james. my thinking is that if she didnt want to do the time she shouldn't have done the crime.

2
80
WTF?

Re: Just goes to show

And what is the age of criminal responsibility in Finland?

15 if my research is correct.

That's presupposing that she actually committed a crime. It isn't stated whether she was sharing songs or just downloading them.

21
0
Bronze badge

Re: Just goes to show

Well.. Except she didn't do either. Did she.

Failed to download the song.

Did not pay the demanded extortion. Her dad paid half of it. And I seem to remember, they ended up buying the song before being accused of piracy.

And please.. No "poor starving artists" bull. The artist was apparently not pleased about this either. The copyright enforcement group apparently enforced the fine against their wishes.

Piracy is not killing the media industry. Profit driven manufactured "artists" are.

47
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Pirate

Re: Just goes to show

"Profit driven manufactured "artists" are."

In fairness to Chisu, she's gone on record as saying that the case has nothing to do with her and she hasn't asked anyone to go after copyright holders on her behalf.

Of course, the chances are she isn't even the "owner" of her musical releases, so it will be some Big Label that sees any kind of "compensation" for this.

As others have stated, the whole thing is a complete farce.

16
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: Just goes to show

The recording industry employs paid bloggers to support their cause. This is no secret.

That is why you will often find a couple of far out cartel supporting comments early on in such threads - they are paid to sit all day watching out for such news and spouting copyright cartel gospel to make it seem as if the public actually support them....

8
1
Silver badge

Re: Just goes to show

Both sides of this argument are not above paying bloggers and journalists to repeat their agenda.

I'm not accusing you of this, and I think this case is exactly what's wrong with the current status quo, but you can't accuse "Big Media" of manipulating the debate when those companies with so much to gain from weak copyright do exactly the same thing.

Put bluntly, Google's vision for content licensing is as destructive, anti-artist and anti-consumer as the RIAA's. If we're not careful, we will let one of these fuckers win.

That doesn't make the industry's current policies right, though.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Just goes to show

Children are not allowed the full freedoms that adults are simply because their brains aren't fully developed. Inhibitions and responsibility take time to develop.

Therefore holding kids to account under laws designed for adults isn't right. This is why children who kill are given another chance usually since this behaviour is often not their fault, they've been abused or neglected by their parents.

6
2
Silver badge

Re: Gotta love it

You know, instead of blaming the media industry, how about blaming Google for making it so convenient to find illegal downloads, or blaming The Pirate Bay for enabling those downloads, or blaming Google for making it so profitable for people to have websites for illegal downloads, or - and this should be a BIG favorite here on this forum! - how about blaming her parents for not sufficiently closely supervising the kid's internet use?

Additionally, the idea that the first time this kid illegally downloads a song is the time she gets caught, is not to be taken seriously. Of course, if we knew what was on her li'l laptop, we would know better - but the idea that the first time she illegally downloads a song is the time she gets caught, is unlikely to say the least and we are justified in so thinking until we have some reason to think otherwise.

And if her parents felt that there was anything unjust about it, they should have fought the charges.

One last little note. Technical note. That the girl did not successfully download the song does not mean that she did not help other people successfully download it. That's the way torrents work.

0
15
Flame

Re: Gotta love it

I think we found our industry shill, folks.

[1] Lets not get into the question of blame here. the issue is RESPONSIBILITY. Specifically criminal responsibility. I would suggest that granting powers to an enforcement body exact substantial summary fines on minors (or the carers of minors) based upon their internet activity is at the very least highly questionable, at the worst, illiberal and chilling. and to allow said enforcement agency to perform confiscations of equipment, refusing to return said equipment on the basis of an alleged attempted commission of an offence by a minor? Are we talking about serious criminality here? No: we're talking about a child listening to a pop song.

[2] Whether this was the first time, 100th or the 1,000,000 time is immaterial. The fact is that this entire action took place on the basis of one alleged failed attempt to download a song. There doesn't even appear to be a suggestion that there was any intent involved here: just a child misunderstanding the illegality of the source and/or copyright law. Were this action to be based upon /pattern/ of behaviour, maybe there would be less of an outcry, but there is no such allegation here.

[3] Sure, they could have fought the recording industry with all its lawyers and vast budgets all the way through the courts. They could have done without the child's laptop for maybe another 2 years while they did so, and perhaps had not only this Christmas, but next Christmas and even each Christmas for the rest of their lives ruined by this, or they could have taken the expedient route which they chose, which was to roll over to powerful bullies behind this action.

[4] It is not a technical note. there is a significant difference in law between attempting or conspiring to commit an offence and actually committing it. That's before one gets into the issue of the age of criminal responsibility, or, for that matter, intent.

For the record: I am an ardent supporter of copyright and the right for copyright holder to be able to exploit their works however they see fit, and the be able to enforce that right in law. But THIS action was wrong. It actually makes me think twice about my entire position on the music industry and its right to perform copyright enforcement.

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: Just goes to show

>In fairness to Chisu

It would be interesting to see the exact wording used to justify the damages. From the wording in the article it seems that the entire fine should of been paid directly to Chisu; for the money to go elsewhere would be deception ...

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@Kristian Walsh "Both sides of this argument are not above paying bloggers and journalists"

You appear to have attracted both up and down votes. Clearly you have posted common sense.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Piracy is not killing the media industry. Profit driven manufactured "artists" are.

Not completely correct IMHO.

Corrected, it should read:

Piracy is not killing the media industry. Profit driven manufactured "artists" greedy record label execs are.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

€300....

For failing to download a track her dad later bought.

I think we know who the real pirates are, don't we?

84
1
Silver badge

Re: €300....

Interestingly, this is a case where an illegal download *would* have resulted in a lost sale.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: €300....

I don't understand why he paid, they either downloaded or they didn't and if they didn't then what's the crime? That is an extortion racket, nothing more, and should be exposed and prosecuted as such.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: €300....

Well, leaving aside that we don't know that for certain (who knows what might have happened), I have to agree that, prima facie, you are right.

I feel so dirty ...

0
0
WTF?

Um, what?

From what I read of the initial story, she did not actually complete the download. So the dad has now forked over a small fortune as "punishment" for not actually getting the song.

Her dad reportedly bought her album / song the next day.

I think they held the little girls laptop to ransom here. Was a crime committed?

I watched part (say 5%) of a pirated video on a work mates computer last week. I live in fear of the heavy black boot of justice breaking down my door and taking my Xbox till I cough up.

29
1
WTF?

Disgusting that....

...she's been penalised for something she didn't actually do.

The same happened to me once - I mean 'attempted' murder - pah! They don't give out Nobel prizes for 'attempted' chemistry, do they?

20
17
Silver badge

Re: Disgusting that....

Except that murder and theft are an intrinsic "bad."

Copyright infringement and chemistry and speeding are not - there is no indisputable harm from them.

8
2

Re: Disgusting that....

It's ok - it was a joke: Sideshow Bob (in "The Simpsons") "I'm being incarcerated for a crime I didn't commit - I mean, attempted murder..." etc etc.

It would appear that "Attempted piracy" isn't currently a crime...

1
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Disgusting that....

quote: "Except that murder and theft are an intrinsic "bad."

Except when they are done in the name of government or country, of course. Who could argue that the deliberate and premeditated killing of Afghan or Iraqi insurgents by UN troops was an intrinsic bad? It's being done for the Afghan and Iraqi peoples, so it's perfectly legitimate :)

Remember, nothing is intrinsically bad unless it's being done by the wrong people, e.g. anyone not in power.

2
0
Go

Re: Disgusting that....

Attempted piracy probably is a crime, after all if you plan on taking over a ship/stealing it's cargo, you're probably well armed etc. Attempted copyright infringement, not so much. Her and her family though now have first-hand knowledge of extortion, which, like piracy and unlike copyright infringement, is a crime.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Disgusting that....

Do you know if you watched a video on YouTube and the video does not belong to the owner,this is a crime?you know you are supposed to buy xxx's albums but you goto YouTube to watch.oh you are a thief!this means almost anyone with a computer with Internet actually broke the law.everyone should be fined if that's the case.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Why did he pay?

Because he wanted a stop to this farce. Understandable, from a dad's point of view, and I would have most likely done the same.

That it is absolutely wrong, wrongetywrong wrong is beside the question. He bought peace for his girl at a reasonable price.

Which, in itself, shows that the accusing body is not fair: How can you negotiate a penalty? You either are guilty of something or you aren't. There is either a law deciding a penalty for that or not.

Everything else is just extortion by a fancily named gang of racketeers.

42
1
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Why did he pay?

indeed. You cant blame him really, as a father I would have done the same to make it "go away".

Poor girl, she isnt even of age.

Chrisu would have gotten FAR more publicity if she would havehelped negotiate. The artists response of "fuck all to do with me" was fairly shitty in this case.

8
0
Bronze badge

Re: Why did he pay?

"Chrisu would have gotten FAR more publicity if she would havehelped negotiate"

That may be true, but she would probably have lost her deal with the label to boot. I think I would have taken the safe option, too.

2
1
WTF?

Re: Why did he pay?

I have heard it suggested quite rationally that he was paid a large sum of money under the table by the MAFIAA to do it - he would then appear to be accepting fault and atoning; and aren't they generous letting him off with half the bill, even though that means the artist starving for another month.

A part of me is quite reluctant to discount that possibility. If the father had gone for their jugular and succeeded, it would have opened the floodgates for others. Even if he had failed, the publicity would have galvanised the public into yet more loathing of these criminal scum. Their despicable bullying of a little girl did not win them many friends.

As it is, the whole thing will sink within a week, and the general public will believe that paying extortion money to known gangsters is acceptable, the 'ownership' of a pea-brained pop song is more important to humanity than the cultural development of a little girl, and they must not show their noses on the internet without asking permission from the MAFIAA Bosses.

"extortion by a fancily named gang of racketeers" -- yes, no question. And one more step on their road to total control of the internet. Well worth what it cost them; which was clearly a great deal more than what they 'earned'. This intimidation and thuggery has nothing whatever to do with copyright as such, it is a ruthless campaign by the MAFIAA to take control of the internet and turn it into a monopolistic 'pay-through-the-nose-per-view cable TV channel'.

And their political pals are riding on their backs hoping for some autocratic crumbs to help them oppress the people. A conspiracy? Oh, yes, I think so.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Why did he pay?

Because it was cheaper and quicker to pay that extortion demand then FIGHT IT.

Hiring a lawyer out of your own pocket to fight these bogus charges would probably cost more than the extortion demand"""fine""".

To the extorters, the legal costs are paid for from the proceeds of the extortion demand"""fine""".

You are looking at a 'heads-we win, tails-we-win' situation here.

0
0
Unhappy

FFS

That's all.

6
0
Bronze badge

Ten year olds...

get laptops with unfettered access to the internet now?

3
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Ten year olds...

I wonder why so many downvotes?

0
0
Facepalm

Re: Ten year olds...

Downvotes because it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone in this digital age that young ones are using technology earlier and earlier.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: Ten year olds...

"Downvotes because it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone in this digital age that young ones are using technology earlier and earlier."

I'm pretty sure it was a reference to such a young one having unsupervised access to the Internet, not simply using tech.

1
0
FAIL

What an idiot... I wouldn't have given them a red cent. Hell if I had known he was considering it I'd have donated towards getting the girl a new laptop, stickers and all!

6
3
Silver badge
Megaphone

@tkioz -

The laptop is not the main reason, I think.

It's being bothered by this "agency" that seems to have all the rights and methods of the Gestapo to make your life miserable. 300€ isn't really too bad to get out of a deportation train to Treblika . . .

5
1
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: @tkioz -

then they pass this "debt" to a collection agency which ruins your credit rating meanwhile you get dragged into court.

TBH €300 to make it all go away and let the poor girl get on with her life is a small price to pay (no matter how wrong the principle)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @tkioz -

err thats not how it works Danny 14. You have to go to court and a judge decides whether you have to pay. Then if you dont pay the "debt" you are back at court / passed on to a collection agency.

You cant just decide off your own back that someone owes you and phone up a collection agency to enforce.

Danegeld springs to mind..

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @tkioz - (@AC)

That doesn't stop them from doing it though...

0
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: @tkioz -

to defend this, you have to go to court which costs loads of money... fail to turn up, they are awarded the judgement by default...

This is demanding money with menaces... the menace is that the court costs will cost a lot of money whilst paying their lower demand makes the problem go away...

This sort of legal attack using the courts to fleece people of money should be outlawed...

6
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @tkioz -

> You cant just decide off your own back that someone owes you and phone up a collection agency to enforce

Actually, you can.

But that collection agency has little or no power to take any action against, other than writing you a nice letter and asking for the money.

For an agency to take any real enforcement action - removal of goods & chattels, for example - a court order is required. A credit rating agency taking the word of someone who has not obtained a court order means that the rating is incorrect and - in the UK at least - you have a legal right to have that black mark expunged.

In short - many people threaten all sorts of things when they think you owe them money, but almost all of those threats are entirely toothless. If it's not a Court document, and it's not from a Certificated Bailliff, it's a good firelighter.

Vic.

3
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @tkioz -

> you have to go to court which costs loads of money

Not really.

Claims such as this are usually settled in something like the Small Claims track - most countries have something similar.

The expenses are primarily in loss of earnings while you attend court. The court fees are paid by the plaintiff (who is reimbursed by the defendant if successful).

Legal representation is rarely necessary unless you know you're in the wrong (in which case, settle before it gets to court!)

> fail to turn up, they are awarded the judgement by default...

But if you do turn up, they have to prove the case. Given the age of the child in this case, I don't think that would have happened...

Vic.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Finland is ...

Finnish Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC) is an association, not an authority. Still it seems right to hunt down IP addresses due petty crimes. And damage to the artist? 1€. To producing company? 19€. The rest of bills are from IP gathering and lawyer fees (practically all employees of CIAPC are lawyers).

In Finland it is not considered to be theft under 500€, but shoplifting. In exception of copyright infringement, it seems.

PS: I do not endorse piracy in any form.

5
1

Let me look in ly chrystal ball here...

The Anti Piracy Gang told dat that they would start making things very expensive for him. The laptop would be impounded, charges would be brought, and he would have to get a lawyer in a drawn out case including appeal proceedings, and it was very likely to end up costing him thounsands in the long run.

Dad possibly did not have thousands in disposable income to front the costs of allthese proceedings so they took him for everything he could could spare. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the 300 quid is coming out of his holiday presents budget and his family will have to do with a bit less over the festive days.

Maybe someone should post the names of the piracy body's enforcers that forced this deal from dad. I'm sure there are plenty Fins that wouldn't mind explaining matters to them so this kind of racketeering will be delt with in a more civilized matter in future.

21
1

CIAPC:

"We break legs, because we care"

21
0
Stop

Re: CIAPC:

"Dat's a nice childhood you got dere...be a shame if somethin' were to, ya know, HAPPEN to it..." Bunch of thieves.

13
0
Silver badge

Shooting your own foot

Ultimately, the media company will shoot themselves in the foot doing this. Is there any evidence the amount of piracy is going down? Not to my knowledge. Actions like this will simply cause more and more, not less. Far from showing people not to 'mess with the man', they are encouraging people to take exception to copyright and believe the concept is more and more unacceptable because of their actions. Ultimately, copyright only works due to peoples acceptance of it and a certain amount of people policing it themselves. It is pretty impossible to enforce copyright through legal only means as is shown these days.

These idiots have to get through their heads that there is a huge difference to people breaking copyright to make a living (copying DVDs, running download sites for profit etc.) and those that do a bit on the side. Before computers, people would tape a LP and give it to their friend. That friend listened to it and decided if they liked it. If they did, they probably went and purchased the next album from that person/band. That is wholesale different to running copying operations, charging for the content and therefore making money off it.

If the jack boot is used too much, the whole notion of copyright is likely to be lost on the masses and then what?

19
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.