Dear All,

For many it might be a matter of pride their young Kid Sining or dancing on Stage or T.v + it's a matter of Brining money for them!
Since watever the Child gets Belongs to the Parents if the child is below 18.

But doesn't it ever occur in your Mind that This is Child Labour!

A kid needs to play and attend school NOT studio!

The problem also with us that we Buy and support such kind of Acts, If there won't be any demand Than there wudn't be any Supply!

I think all of you shouldn't Buy album like BABA FEIN! (Free Baby) and those who have Bought it's really very sad!

very interesting topic musicman.

i agree with you to an extent however most studios insist on education for their young acts and it's done with the agreement of the parents.

and lets not forget that children (+14) do part time jobs on holidays.

if my memory serves me right i have only purchased the following albums of 15 year old artists or younger.

1. Brandy (first album)
2. Aaliyah (age ain't nothing but a number album)
3. Mario
5. Jackson 5
6. Monica (first album)

Even the Hansons nad that french girl who sang"Je nu Taxi"


I n Europe it is illegal for a person to sing below 18!

oh i forgot Tevin Cambell and Usher first albums.

I think most of the singers started in a young age…I mean if they

have the talent why to stop them?

Originally posted by Qoloob
I think most of the singers started in a young age…I mean if they

have the talent why to stop them?


Very Good Point!


But tell me does a 7yr-12yr old child know wat is right for him or Not?

Even micheal jackson was forced to sing and dance against His Will!!! - His father used to Beat and Abuse him.

And Whatever a Kid earns BELONGS to the parents at Minor Age!

yah true,most of the singers and actors started real young.
Im sure they have a way or another 2 get the education they need and all their needs. Obviously they wont b leading a normal life with all the fame but u know , $hit happens!
I dont find it sick buying their albums whatsoever.
I mean their parents r ok with it. They r ok with it.
Imagine this was their dream. What if this is what they really enjoy doing and want to do and build a future from,, why ruin that?!

Originally posted by MusicMan
Very Good Point!

But tell me does a 7yr-12yr old child know wat is right for him or Not?

Even micheal jackson was forced to sing and dance against His Will!!! - His father used to Beat and Abuse him.

And Whatever a Kid earns BELONGS to the parents at Minor Age!

But that was the case with Michael Jackson…u can’t generalize…I know that parents can be driven by money and fame …but what the use of education if u can earn $$$ !

Im sure they have a way or another 2 get the education they need and all their needs

I do agree with homeless…I think they get some kind of education..may not go to public schools…but akeed they do have private teachers.

Originally posted by Qoloob
But that was the case with Michael Jackson…u can’t generalize…I know that parents can be driven by money and fame …but what the use of education if u can earn $$$ !


$$$ cannot by the love, care and a childhood in a playground!

Originally posted by MusicMan
$$$ cannot by the love, care and a childhood in a playground!

it can...just look to Micheal Jackson..

Originally posted by Qoloob
it can...just look to Micheal Jackson..


Lol.... You see He didn't had a Childhood SO at this Age He is Having One!

As defined, child labor is forced and consists of manual labor within hazardous conditions, as well as low pay, if at all. Though some parents might force their kids to go into acting or singing, more often than not the child usually enjoys what he's doing, and rarely does the industry put child actors into hazardous conditions. And to its credit, the industry does pay child artists very well. So there is really no case of child labor as defined by the U.N.

Your post was not precise!

And who is gonna explain to E.U that it's ok to work below 18.

No, I don't have the actual U.N. resolution regarding child labor, but then what I outlined is the basic points of child labor as how the U.N. defines it. Again, since the industry in general does not put child actors and artists under the conditions as defined by the U.N. to be child labor, then there is simply no case against the industry against it. The salient points are undeniable: there is both parental and child consent on what's being done, and that the children working in the industry are well compensated for it, as well as made sure they are not working in situations that might put them in danger. With those basic points followed, there is then no case of child labor, or more properly termed as child exploitation.

The Basic Fundamental Right that is Giving to a Child under the "UNICEF" Authority is for a Child to Study and go to School and EARNING is living for a person below 18 is An Act of Violation!


Every Kid has the Right to Education!

Every parent should therefore encourage their child to Grab Pencils not microphones!

I hope that the you Know what UNICEF is try to build worldwide!

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
As defined, child labor is forced and consists of manual labor within hazardous conditions, as well as low pay, if at all.


This is called Exploitation!

Originally posted by MusicMan
The Basic Fundamental Right that is Giving to a Child under the "UNICEF" Authority is for a Child to Study and go to School and EARNING is living for a person below 18 is An Act of Violation!


Every Kid has the Right to Education!

Every parent should therefore encourage their child to Grab Pencils not microphones!

I hope that the you Know what UNICEF is try to build worldwide!

You might be glad to hear that most in the industry do encourage studying as well, and there are programs available for home studies for children who are tight on their schedule. The UNICEF only forbids forcible child exploitation, and the children having no access to education. Again, under such terms, most in the entertainment industry are following UNICEF guidelines, or else the U.N. would have looked into the entertainment industry a long time ago. See, you have really no basis at all, as most in the industry strictly comply with U.N. regulations.

Can you please name a Single European Movie that has a Child as Star?!

Only One!


The U.S is not a Signatory for the treaty that Bans pupil less than 18 to do Jobs!

U.S see it's interest and that is Making money, The Entertainment Industry is one of the Biggest contributor to the U.S economy!

Movies like The Lord of the ring, Kid spy, gameover , and many many more..... Has to be produced to pump in money!

like Kids in U.S selling Lemonade in the gardens! - You don't see that in Europe!

Originally posted by MusicMan
Can you please name a Single European Movie that has a Child as Star?!

Harry Potter. Yeah, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and the guy who played Ron Weasley are British, and so European, last I checked.

The U.S is not a Signatory for the treaty that Bans pupil less than 18 to do Jobs!

I would think that since the U.S. is the one keen on pushing such a resolution, then it would be a signatory. I would think that many countries who are signatories in it have children who are in the industry as well. I would think many Asian countries are signatories and yet they employ children to work in the industry. Again, it's because the industry obeys and follows the guidelines set by the U.N. See, you really have no case at all in this one.

like Kids in U.S selling Lemonade in the gardens! - You don't see that in Europe!

No, because many governments in Europe are more into the welfare economy--their emphasis is that the state can take care of the citizens, so it promotes less entrepreunership than the U.S. does. America was built by people who believe that they can make it themselves, and this is the underlying factor on why child rearing is different between Europe and the U.S. It's more cultural than political, really.

and dont 4get that the english kids who sing, like Lil Bow Wow... is already a millionare....and his songs are really nice

unlike FREE BABY...they SUCK BIG TIME!!! 3ad ma songs mal dala3
those are real children

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Harry Potter. Yeah, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and the guy who played Ron Weasley are British, and so European, last I checked.



[font=comic sans ms]I would think that since the U.S. is the one keen on pushing such a resolution, then it would be a signatory.




And In Which studio was Harry Portter produced?!

Guess:

1- Sony Columbia (us)
2- Warner (us)

And so shud you check about the others! - My case is as solid as a Rock!

I am not talking about Nationality of the actors!

An american can work in Bangladesh for a salary of us$1, 24/7 no break!

But never ever a Bangladeshi will be allowed to take up a quarter of that Torture in America!

----------------------------------------------------------------


So than Why doesn't U.S signs the Anti-Landmine Treaty?! - can u please shed some light here!


Thank you!

Originally posted by haso0on
and dont 4get that the english kids who sing, like Lil Bow Wow... is already a millionare....and his songs are really nice


It's not about Nationality!

Lil bow is working with Epic records U.s! in U.S.

thats my point
who ever has a talent of singing, acting, etc and lives in the U.S...becomes rich

Originally posted by MusicMan
[B]And In Which studio was Harry Portter produced?!

Guess:

1- Sony Columbia (us)
2- Warner (us)

Doesn't really matter--the point is, they were children under 18, lives in England, which is a part of Europe, and should be under the European Union's laws. The fact that they were able to work shows that the EU allows children to work in films and TV. Let us not forget the many who work in TV ads as well--I would think there are baby ads in Europe. If there are, then that's more than enough example for children under 18--they're even under 5! So, you can see that your point is baseless--Radcliffe and others were able to work, was not even questioned by the EU, which shows that the EU agrees that they can work and indeed, children can work in the industry. The point then is closed.

My dear I think that you are confused Between working and Just appearing!

In Germany you can't even enter a theater if you are below the Rated age! - Recently an Iranian Film director was stopped from entering the Theater to watch her own Produced movie by Italian Authorites!

Why can't you accept the Facts?

Originally posted by MusicMan
My dear I think that you are confused Between working and Just appearing!

Radcliffe and company didn't just appear; they were the lead stars of Harry Potter. It wasn't simply a matter of a walk-on part that we're talking about, but major roles. Do try again.

In Germany you can't even enter a theater if you are below the Rated age! - Recently an Iranian Film director was stopped from entering the Theater to watch her own Produced movie by Italian Authorites!

That has little to do with children being performers. The first case is about film ratings--even in the U.S. films that aren't for minors bar them from entering. The second one is more political than anything else, so it has little to do as well with this discussion.

Why can't you accept the Facts?

I've given you an example, and yet you can't accept it. You gave me examples that have little to do with the topic--anyone reading this thread will see that. So you're losing very badly. And I ask you again--if there are baby ads on TV, then more likely than not the EU accepts children as performers. Even in such cases as theatre, for instance, we see it, as there are child roles in such musicals as "Les Miserables" (particualrly the parts of Cossette and Eponine, as well as Gavroch). See, it's not only on TV and movies, but even onstage as well, that there are children. Or what about children's theatre, which employs children to work in musicals and plays? You know very well your case is lost.

"Radcliffe and company didn't just appear; they were the lead stars of Harry Potter" Quote:MP


I said to you that this is a American Production in America! - So it's tottally out of European Jurisdiction!



"That has little to do with children being performers. The first case is about film ratings--even in the U.S. films that aren't for minors bar them from entering. The second one is more political than anything else, so it has little to do as well with this discussion."

Ok Fine!


"I've given you an example, and yet you can't accept it. You gave me examples that have little to do with the topic--anyone reading this thread will see that. So you're losing very badly. And I ask you again--if there are baby ads on TV, then more likely than not the EU accepts children as performers. Even in such cases as theatre, for instance, we see it, as there are child roles in such musicals as "Les Miserables" (particualrly the parts of Cossette and Eponine, as well as Gavroch" Quote : MP



Your Example is not good enough to back your theories!

Yes Johnson and Johnson can make Ads but they are Tiny little Babies!

If a minor IS appearing on t.v in european produced channels and companies and that is only a ONE TIME PAID appearance! - THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS AND MANAGERS FOR THE CHILD!


Well than why Charllotte Church cannot sign up a Contract in a U.K opera House!

Why She is making $$$ only!

Originally posted by MusicMan
I said to you that this is a American Production in America! - So it's tottally out of European Jurisdiction!

Nope--as British and as members of the EU, they are still under EU regulations. The same is true of the production company--they hired European actors, so they are liable to EU regulations. The fact that the EU didn't even flinch speaks for itself.

Your Example is not good enough to back your theories!

On the contrary it did. You can't even show me anything to oppose this.[

Yes Johnson and Johnson can make Ads but they are Tiny little Babies!

And they're younger than 18. Heck, they're younger than 5. The fact that they're babies and more vulnerable should be taken into consideration, don't you think?

If a minor IS appearing on t.v in european produced channels and companies and that is only a ONE TIME PAID appearance! - THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS AND MANAGERS FOR THE CHILD!

And we have not even covered TV sitcoms and series, which are as prevalent in Europe as it is in the U.S.

Well than why Charllotte Church cannot sign up a Contract in a U.K opera House!

That's because Charlotte isn't interested in doing an opera. She likes to sing opera (actually she doesn't--she's more into pop, but she became popular singing opera songs), but she isn't going to do a full opera production.

"Nope--as British and as members of the EU, they are still under EU regulations. The same is true of the production company--they hired European actors, so they are liable to EU regulations. The fact that the EU didn't even flinch speaks for itself"


No this is NOT True at all what u Saying! - We don't pay taxes in Dubai for american goods. Reason is that we don't have the law and rule for paying tax.

So Now you know that it depends on the Countries Legal system only.

Another Example: You can Smoke Marijuana in coffee shop back in Holland. Why can't a Dutch do the same in Germany? - Isn't it E.U.


"On the contrary it did. You can't even show me anything to oppose this"


Read Above statement.



"And they're younger than 18. Heck, they're younger than 5. The fact that they're babies and more vulnerable should be taken into consideration, don't you think"



Actually I never came across an European Produced Add. also Europe doesn't have the Skill, sp. effect technology and the talent to create Cinema Magic like the American Counterparts!
Any European Channel I tune into It's all American Series and Movie DUBBED DISGUSTINGLY AWFULLY in french/german/italian.

For example: The nanny the entire concept of her voice is killed by the Italian Voice over artist.



"And we have not even covered TV sitcoms and series, which are as prevalent in Europe as it is in the U.S."



Referr to my above statement.




"That's because Charlotte isn't interested in doing an opera. She likes to sing opera (actually she doesn't--she's more into pop, but she became popular singing opera songs), but she isn't going to do a full opera production"



Now what is this suppose to mean? - By the way are you the secretary of Church by any chance?