Daily Kos

Record industry to 13 year old: No mom for you, you little brat!! [w/ poll]

by lawnorder

Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:57:06 PM PDT

Un-freaking believable!!!
Good Morning Silicon Valley: Confess, child, or you will never see the one you call mother again

The heavy armor of the music industry's legal department continues to clank forward..

Candy Chan, sued for alleged copyright infringement by a batch of record companies. The subject of the investigation actually was Chan's then 13-year-old daughter, Brittany, aka "Spicybrnweyedgirl." According to a p2pnet report, when Chan refused to settle on behalf of her daughter, the record companies regrouped and now want to go after the teenager directly -- but first they want the court to push Mom aside and appoint a legal guardian in this matter.

Update [2005-10-7 1:22:33 by lawnorder]: As several comments noted below, I failed to note that the "removal of guardianship" only affects the 13 year old legal representation in this particular lawsuit. Sorry for the misleading poll, IANAL, i.e. I am not a lawyer.

It is still pretty horrible that the Record Industry is pitting mom against daughter.. What's next, compell Britanny to sue her parents ?!?!?


Full text of lawsuit
chan3.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Poll

The Record Industry wants the courts to remove guardianship from the mom of a 13 year old song-swapper. This is:

6%5 votes
14%11 votes
78%59 votes

| 75 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 68 comments

  •  Uh... (none / 0)

    Wow!

    by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:57:39 PM PDT

    •  That's not what this means... (none / 1)

      No one is trying to separate this child from her mother.

      They want to sue minor directly to get an injunction to stop the copy-right infringement.  To do that, they are asking the court to appoint an adult to represent the interest of the minor in court for the purposes of this legal action.

      This doesn't mean that they're taking the kid away and sticking her in a foster home.

      Seriously author, Google something before you go batshit loony.

      -The Oklahoma Hippy

      by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:04:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So (none / 0)

        pushing her mother aside to get at her is ok?

        by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:07:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In this case... (none / 0)

          yeah, it's a good idea to have a representative who is a legal professional to represent the child's interests.

          by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (none / 0)

            The whole damn thing isa bad idea. You are backing (so it seems) the notion of allowing a greedy industry to bully a minor after losing to the mother.

            How sour do their grapes need to be in order for that much to be obvious to you?

            by gangle on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:37:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually yes (none / 0)

          Even 13 year old's are entitled to legal representation and this is one way to do it.

          Seriously, think this through.  If 13 year old's should be able to get abortions without parental notification, shouldn't they be able to be represented in court independently of their parents?

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:10:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So... (none / 0)

            is this a case of the parent defaulting and the court requiring legal representation or the recording industry just not accepting the parents response.

            by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:12:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  During the initial lawsuit... (none / 0)

              Candy Chan, the kid's mom, was the target of the original lawsuit.  In that lawsuit, she defended herself in part by admitting that her daughter had told her she might have been the one doing the sharing.

              I'm not a legal professional, but I would imagine that that conflict of interest was one reason the court agreed the kid should have a guardian ad litem.

              by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:14:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hard to say (none / 0)

              But in general, when a minor is not represented a GAL should be appointed.  It could arise because the parents refuse to answer on behalf of the child, or because the interests of the parents and children are different, opposed, or simply cannot be represented jointly.

              In general, I don't think parents should be directing a child's legal defense.  The child should be entitled to counsel independent of the parent.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:18:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Just to clear this up, this is what's going on... (4.00 / 2)

        The Record Company sued for copyright infringement.

        They sued the girls mother because they determined that the violations were originating from the internet connection registered to the mother.

        It was determined by the mother that the daughter was doing the file sharing, and the mother essentially told the record company to shove it, because they couldn't sue her for something she had not done.  She refused to accept responsibility for the actions of her daughter.

        So, the record company sued the minor daughter.  The minor daughter is entitled to a guardian ad litem, which is a person whose job it is to look after the legal interest of the child within the scope of this legal action.

        The guardian ad litem will be one of a randomly selected lawyer from the probate court within that jurisdiction.

        The minor child is not being removed from the custody of her mother.  The minor child did break the law.  The record company is entitled under the law to bring a civil suit.  The court is doing exactly what it should in appointing an ad litem in this case.

        There is nothing even unusual going on.

        If someone is trying to get people worked up about abuses of the legal system, or the abuses of the record companies, it's just nonsense in this case.

        -The Oklahoma Hippy

        by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:18:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Over the 'guardian ad litem' thing, I agree... (4.00 / 2)

          ...but I think that, even in this case, the record companies are behaving badly.  Going after a 14-year-old kid for thousands of dollars when the industry has yet to demonstrate filesharing as a practice has cost them a dime is deeply unethical.

          Do they have the legal right to do it?  Yep.  That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

          by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:22:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  BREAKING THE LAW??!!?!?!?! (none / 0)

          I'm sorry, but can the FUCKTARDED record co's prove that the daughter didn't already own the albums and songs she downloaded? Real world example:

          I have purchased both Loveless(My Bloody Valentine) and London Calling(The Clash) several times over since 2001. Both about 6 times. For several reasons I have either lost, destroyed or just had them stolen. I still have a copy of both on vinyl. Now, in order for me to have these records on my computer, well, I would need to download them because I don't have anything to trasnfer vinyl to computer. I have spent well over $100 on these two albums. Am I breaking the law?

          Fucktarded

          by mkf on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:33:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Point noted... (none / 0)

            But usually the problem isn't download, but rather making available for download.

            Say you rip every CD you own.  That's fine.

            Now, put them on a P2P network.  

            That's the problem.

            -The Oklahoma Hippy

            by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:42:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Even if is not for profit ? (none / 0)

              Sure, I see the point that scares the industry: Hundreds of copies, good quality copies, may make them lose some sales. But the p2p also gives them free publicity and free "on air" play time, which can actually increase their sales.

              The Record Companies are making a big mistake IMHO.

              The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

              by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:59:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  put the songs on the marketing-errr (none / 0)

              file-sharing networks. Bands would stab you to get that kind of marketing. Yeah, that is right, I said stab you. Bands are usually cut-throat when it comes to getting folks to listen. Unless your a piece of shit band like metallica or whatever shit band would fight this sorta thing. They just like to rip-off the folks who listen to them. just saying...

              Fucktarded

              by mkf on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:19:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  No Tips Jar (2.66 / 6)

    What can we do to stop this outrage ?

    The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

    by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:00:15 PM PDT

  •  The RIAA's ongoing campaign... (none / 0)

    ...is extremely misguided and ethically questionable, IMHO.

    A close acquaintance of mine is a former record company president (resigned about two years ago).  He's basically of the opinion that not only is P2P file sharing not harming the industry (an opinion backed up by record profits recently reported by BMI), but it can be used as part of a viable business model.  Instead, a bunch of old, out-of-touch guys who have no clue about the technology (and barely one about music) are strong-arming their customers en masse into large settlements.  Including, it would seem, 14-year-old kids.

    Amazing.

    by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:00:24 PM PDT

    •  A lot of the bands.... (4.00 / 2)

      ...that I'm into love file-sharing, because they're not really that well-known and it allows people to get a good feel for their music without having to risk eighteen bucks on a CD that may or may not be good. And since the bands don't really make that much money from the CD sales, they don't really mind. The free music will get more people into their band and more people will see them in concert and will buy their merchandise. And anyway, a lot of people I know, if they like enough of the music they've downloaded, will buy the CD to get the packaging and to support the band.

      by metal prophet on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:03:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you really listen to the rhetoric... (4.00 / 2)

        ...coming out of the recording industry, they're very careful to attack P2P filesharing in general, rather than just illegal file sharing.  They'll tell you that that is because file sharing is overwhelmingly used to violate copyright.  But it's not lost on people that the legal uses of file sharing are also a direct threat to the recording industry's business model.

        If and when small artists don't have to rely on the recording industry's good graces for exposure, then the recording industry loses some control.

        by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:08:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  without file-sharing I would never have (4.00 / 2)

      heard: Sufjan Stevens, Devendra Banhart, Wolf parade, Andrew Bird, Animal Collective, The Decemberists, The New Pornographers, Fiery Furnaces, Joy Zippers, Great Lake Swimmers, Thee More Shallows, The Stars, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Devin Davis, Russian Futurists, Br. Danielson, Hood, Bearsuit, Of Montreal, The Boy Least Likely To, Antony and the Johnsons, Okkervil River, Akron/Family, Art Brut............................Etc etc etc.

      I have never had the ability to preview and get to know artists as I have over the past few years. Now when I buy a record it is not a crap-shoot.

      NO amount of marketing will get these bands out there like the p2p. The old men(and old out of touch bands as well) are just scared and stupid when it comes to change. Remember the fight over blank-tapes and the VCR?

      Fucktarded

      by mkf on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:09:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dude... (none / 0)

    That's only someone to represent the interest of the daughter in the matter of this legal action.

    The ad litem isn't a foster parent.

    Chill the fuck out.

    -The Oklahoma Hippy

    by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:00:48 PM PDT

    •  Ooops! (none / 0)

      Are you sure ? The folks at Good Morning Silicon Valey seem to think so. Maybe I just put a pic of the wrong part of the suit.

      Do you mind looking at the 34 page pdf file and double checking it ?

      http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/chan3.pdf

      The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

      by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:03:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Checked... (none / 0)

        All this says is that someone is going to be appointed to represent the interests of the minor in court for the purposes of this legal action.

        Everyone take a deep breath.  It's OK.

        -The Oklahoma Hippy

        by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:07:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks a million!!! (none / 0)

          I added an UPDATE with your comment. Did I get it right ?

          The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

          by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:19:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really... (none / 0)

            The minor cannot be sued directly.  The minor cannot hire a lawyer directly.  The court appoints a Guardian Ad Litem whose job it is to explain everything to her, to make sure that decisions that are being made with her legal counsel are in her best interest.

            The job of the GAL is to be completely neutral in all aspects except the best interests of the minor child.

            This is very common in legal actions involving minor children.

            The court is not pitting the daughter against the mother.

            -The Oklahoma Hippy

            by SenatorX on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:24:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The court is not, but the Record Company is (none / 0)

              IMHO, because they say that her mother admitted her daughter's guilt by admitting to the daughter's online name.

              Sure, the GAL will explain all to the girl and hopefully they will settle and live happily ever after but that was a pretty low thing to do to a 13 year old!

              Even if she swapped songs online. Have you yourself never tapped songs from the radio or movies from TV  and shared with your friends when you were her age ? Haven't your friends, relatives, kids ?

              The only thing different Brittany did was use digital format for copying, which makes the quality of the copies too good for the Record Company's confort.

              The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

              by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:46:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      Though, that said, I wouldn't put it past a record company to do something like that.

      by metal prophet on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:04:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (none / 0)

      I'd also add parents are responsible or at least should be for their children.  If you don't know what your children are up to when they are on the internet?  That is your fault for being a crappy parent that doesn't monitor what they are doing.

      It's not like it is some huge secret that downloading huge numbers of songs is going to get you busted.  

      As a parent of five children?  I am so sick of those who don't have a frickin clue as to what their child is doing on the net or in real life.  Parents need to parent.

      We don't remember days only moments

      by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:04:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kids are clever. (none / 0)

        It's not - and never was - terribly difficult for teenagers to keep secrets from thier parents.  Millions of teenagers have managed to hide their stacks of Playboys over the decades.  And if a teenager wants to hide his or her online activities, it's not difficult.

        Plus, it's not so much downloading songs that gets you in trouble, it is allowing others to download them for you.  

        It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

        by A Citizen on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:12:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pretty low if you ask me (none / 0)

        It is still pretty horrible that the Record Industry is pitting mom against daughter and forcing the kid to treat her mother as the villain who accused her, when it was them who did it. What's next, compell Britanny to sue her parents ?!?!?

        The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

        by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:19:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah because (none / 0)

          theft is okay?

          sheesh and we wonder why our kids end up screwed up?

          I have five children, I always knew what mine did on my computers and I still do.  It's my job and to be brutally honest if more of these parents actually parented?  Most of this shit would never even happen.

          We don't remember days only moments

          by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (none / 0)

            Technically, copyright infringement isn't "theft".  They're two different things, and the difference matters.

            I agree with you that parents should keep track of what their kids are doing online.

            by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:31:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's theft (none / 0)

              Try to wrap it up in a nice package but it's still theft.  Just like a white lie is still a lie.  There are legal ways to download songs and then there are illegal ways.

              People seem to think it's okay because they believe they are screwing an industry that over charges, yet in the end?  It's still theft, and one the rest of us who still buy cd's and movies pays for.

              If I went out and hooked up a line to my neighbors house to get free cable because hell he was already paying for it so why should I have to pay for it too, the majority of people would agree that was theft.  

              For those that have an issue with file sharing they need to get the law changed and until then?  Either pay for it or don't be suprised if you get busted.

              We don't remember days only moments

              by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:38:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I take it you have never taped a movie (none / 0)

                From TV, or taped a song from radio when you were a teenager. It was theft too.

                The only differnce is that Brittany did it digitally, i.e. the quality of the copy was too good for the Record Company's taste.

                A counterfeiter is still a counterfeiter if his fake bills are not good. A thief is still a thief if his copies from movies or songs sound like a scratched vinil record playeng during a thunderstorm.

                The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

                by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:52:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have not (none / 0)

                  Except when it was allowed for personal use.  What she did as far as putting it out there for others was not personal use.

                  There is a difference and to pretend that this was merely copies for her own personal use is rather silly.

                  We don't remember days only moments

                  by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:02:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Was it allowed for personal use ? (none / 0)

                    I don't recall seeing that disclaimer on any broadcasted movie or radio song.

                    Even for personal use, unauthorised copying is theft.

                    The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

                    by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:37:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  No, it isn't (none / 0)

                "Theft" is a defined crime.  "Copyright infringement" is, too.  The main difference is whether or not deprivation of physical property is at issue.

                Calling it what it is doesn't make it right, nor does it make it legal.  However, calling it "theft" is clearly intended to confuse the issue, making people forget issues like "fair use" and other limitations that specifically apply to copyright.

                by Jonathan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:46:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, and... (none / 0)

                People seem to think it's okay because they believe they are screwing an industry that over charges, yet in the end?  It's still theft, and one the rest of us who still buy cd's and movies pays for.

                As I've noted elsewhere in this diary, there's simply no evidence that copyright infringement through filesharing has cost the industry (and hence, you) a dime.  In fact, what evidence there is indicates the opposite may be true.

                If I went out and hooked up a line to my neighbors house to get free cable because hell he was already paying for it so why should I have to pay for it too, the majority of people would agree that was theft.

                That's because what you're talking about is another defined crime: "theft of services".  It involves a real, physical something that you're depriving the cable company of: namely, an electrical signal.

                Again: this is not to say copyright infringement is "just fine".  But the difference matters.

                by Jonathan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 04:01:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  You're right... (none / 0)

      ...but I think it's just about the only thing about the ongoing saga of multi-billion-dollar corporations using lawsuit threats to extract money from largely defenseless people that's not outrageous.

      by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:04:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's no implication here that (none / 0)

      her mother is unable to represent her daughters interest.  Since when is this ok to just push a parent aside because the recording industry doesn't like their response?

      by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:11:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Watch yourself (none / 0)

    If you criticize Hollywood around here, some of their vocal supporters will come out and flame you.  It's happened on a few threads I've been a part of.  I truly suspect some of the MPAA/RIAA member corporation employees or lawyers post here.

    I don't see what this lawsuit is trying to accomplish by doing that to the kid.  :-/

    Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

    by Viktor on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:06:23 PM PDT

  •  guardian ad litum (none / 0)

    Only means someone is appointed to represent the minor.  Happens in legal cases and custody cases when there is a chance that the best interests of the child might not be represented by the parents.

    It is not the same as attempting to take custody. It's the courts way of making sure that the child has adequate legal representation.

    We don't remember days only moments

    by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:08:15 PM PDT

    •  is this business as usual (none / 0)

      or something extrodinary in this case?

      by YetiMonk on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:13:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Still stinks!!! (none / 0)

      Pitting mother against daughter.

      BTW, I posted an update with your and Senator X correction to my error

      The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

      by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:21:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Granted... (none / 1)

      But why did the company switch the focus to the child when the parent refused to deal?  Souldn't they then go after the parent as being responsible for the child?

      I think they're looking for another checkmark in the win/settlement column.  They don't want to go after the parent or even have the parent defend the child because they've already determined the parent won't deal.  I think they're betting the child's representative (effectively a public defender, right?) will be more willing to capitulate.

      by xeju on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:24:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are exactly right (none / 0)

        While I do think the RIAA intends to make some money off their "settlement" efforts (basically, scaring people into coughing up thousands of dollars instead of defending themselves in court), it seems fairly clear that one thing the RIAA isn't trying to do is stop the actual high-traffic infringers directly.  

        Rather, they're using the legal system as part of a PR campaign.  The goal is to rack up impressive numbers of people "successfully sued" (as far as I know, no one has actually been taken to court by the RIAA and lost) and use that to try to scare people into staying away from illegal file sharing.  And if they simultaneously scare people from legal file sharing at the same time, well, that's icing on the cake.

        by Jonathan on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:30:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Too bad the poll (none / 0)

    didn't offer "There's obviously too much lead in the US water supply."

    "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

    by fishhead on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:48:48 PM PDT

    •  I can't correct the poll (none / 0)

      Scoop doesn't allow it

      The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

      by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:54:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No but (none / 0)

        You will leave a diary up that gives the wrong impression that a 13 year old is going to be taken away from her mother.

        We don't remember days only moments

        by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:05:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please read (none / 0)

          http://lawnorder.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/7/0576/83863/42#42

          The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

          by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:12:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  big woop (none / 0)

            I am so sick of people who write diaries than end up not being accurate that rather than delete them try to find some justification to keep them up.

            If everyone here acted as you just did?  This place would be swamped with bullshit.

            We don't remember days only moments

            by psyche777 on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:18:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree (none / 1)

              I believe that wrongheaded diaries are useful because they avoid others from commiting the same mistake.

              Heck, I'd rather delete it! I'm ashamed of my mistake and don't need 57 comments and a diary to remind me of it. Sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened so I can pose as someone who never commited a faux pas in life, like you.

              But the peple who commented here went through the trouble of reading my diary and answering my poll and did a good job of clearing up the innacuracies of my report. It is due to my respect for them that I won't delete it unless they prefer me to do so.

              The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

              by lawnorder on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:35:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  of course you do (none / 0)

                because you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong

                You were wrong, not only did you misrepresent what this case was about but did not even bother to do basic research into what a guardian ad litum even meant.

                Then when after discovering you were wrong?  You still did nothing.

                People like you with this ego seeking OH LOOOK AT ME diary bs suck.  If you care so little about this site that you cannot be bothered to do even a small amount of research before you post?  Then you sir?  Suck.

                We don't remember days only moments

                by psyche777 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:06:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  further.... (none / 0)

                You really think anyone would notice you deleted this?

                Talk about a major self-importance issue.

                Diaries should be for important issues that are researched before posted here.  Granted I should write a diary about diaries but I do not want to move important ones off the page for something all of us should know.  

                I have my own blog and I have only posted ONE diary here in the months I have belonged only because I saw it was not discussed.  I lurked here over a year before I even signed up. You may not believe in quality not quantity but I do and frankly?  Alot of you should just realize that you are wasting our time.

                We don't remember days only moments

                by psyche777 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 12:12:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm... (4.00 / 1)

                  You really think anyone would notice you deleted this?

                  Talk about a major self-importance issue.

                  Then why call for its deletion?

                  I think it's a good idea to leave the diary up.  Even though the main original premise was wrong, the issue itself is important.  Copyright infringement has been treated more and more like "Murder" around the world, mainly at the behest of multi-billion-dollar corporations who have pushed through legislation that significantly expanded copyright beyond its original intent (as put down in the Constitution) and common sense.  The result is less and less creative material available to the commons, and more and more ideas roped off permanently from society.  In a Democracy (especially one that's heavily dependent upon scientific and technological advancement), this is not a good thing.

                  by Jonathan on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:54:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  On deleting diaries (none / 0)

                I agree with  Maryscott O'Connor and others that it is really frustrating to have the time you spent commenting on a diary and answering other posters destroyed.
                My Left Wing :: Welcome to My Left Wing!: "Offences That Are SO Not Cool, They Might Just Get You Banned:

                 (Or not; some are WAY not cool, some are just dumb. Pay attention and I'm sure you'll spot which is which...)

                * Deleting diaries: Accidents are one thing but getting in a huff and deleting a diary full of other people's comments is SO not cool."


                I believe some diaries should be deleted: for being duplicates, old news, innacurate, too many for a given day, etc.. I have deleted some of my diaries, but only after warning the commenters that the diary would "self destruct after 10-15 minutes". And only if the diary had less than 10-20 comments as I, like MSO, consider the height of disrespect to delete someone's comments just because I feel embarassed of my diary or because someone else is having a tantrum about it.

                The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

                by lawnorder on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:12:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Permalink | 68 comments