Slashdot Log In
RIAA Suit Rejected With Prejudice
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 26, 2005 04:49 PM
from the one-for-the-good-guys dept.
from the one-for-the-good-guys dept.
yfarren writes "According to cdfreaks.com the RIAA has lost the case against the mother of a 13 year old girl accused of file-sharing violations." From the article: "The case was dismissed with prejudice, which prevents the case from being advanced against the defendant. Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
More appropriate title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Insightful)
Were they going to sue for lunch money??
Parent
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Funny)
but maybe that's just me.
Parent
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the second sentence of the second order [riaalawsuits.us] is pretty clear: "The court also ruled that the plantiffs were not prevented from bringing an action against anyone else, including Brittany Chan, the minor child of Candy Chan."
So, all that's happened is that mom has managed to shift the blame from her to her daughter. Mom gets to pay her attorney's fees and the RIAA gets another crack at the family through the daughter.
-h-
Parent
the girl can't be sued? (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request. IANAL, but doesn't that mean they can no longer sue the child?
It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem in this case is the mother therefore they can't sue her.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM [ncwc.edu]
FalconPhrase meaning "For the Proceeding" referring to adults who look after the welfare of a child and represent their legal interests; usually volunteers who are also officers of the court. If the GAL is not an attorney, they must hire one for the child, but some states are starting to allow GALs to do the actual legal work. GALs are also responsible for medical care of the child.
Parent
Re:More appropriate title (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, in a "loser pays" system, the loser only has to pay "reasonable costs", not all the costs incurred by the other party. Usually, countries that use this system set up a table that, based on the type of lawsuit, gives the "reasonable cost".
Parent
Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Mwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heeee heeeeeee wheeeeeee. *SNORT* Bah ha ha ha ha *wheeeeeze!* *snicker*
In principal I agree that music theft is bad and in all honesty, none of my music is pirated, but you gotta realize that stuff like this just makes you guys look bad. Bad as in $#!theads, not bad as in cool.
Karma goes around and it comes around, so i'd say this is due.
Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's possible that the court overstepped its authority, but would any judge want to issue such a judgement against a 13 year old who, quite honestly, is hardly a reckless tearaway. Any sane judge is going to be more lenient towards the kid than the multi-million dollar trade organisation.
Parent
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to
Not only is he trying to put himself out of business, he's trying to directly oppose the law of supply and demand. Granted, it's been argued that the S&D laws don't necessarily apply to intellectual property and the like, but charging a premium for a high-volume item is a recipe for disaster.
If anything, it's the rare live recordings that should be priced more agressively. Why would we want to pay a premium for a song that's played frequently on the radio?
I could possibly see something like 'Buy 2 songs from this EP and get the 3rd for $.50' -- which would be a win-win for consumers and the labels. Consumers get a cheap song, and the labels still make a profit on it because chances are, without the discount, the person wouldn't have purchased the song.
The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot.
Parent
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
Is this really something that should be discouraged?
Parent
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this really something that should be discouraged?
Yes! Because the RIAA is also trampling all over our rights. Guess where the bullets are going to end up?
This post brought to you by Overstretched Metaphors, Inc.
Parent
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open memo to the RIAA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Because if the industry's failing, it's a lot easier to blame it on copyright infringement than poor business decisions, because copyright infringement is defined and illegal but poor business decisions are just poor decision, and it's difficult to prove either bad faith by the execs or that copyright infringement has no effect. And you can get a lot more money by suing people than by playing with a fair market (especially one with IP, which has zero marginal cost and the customers realize it).
Parent
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Huge mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
But good news for everyone else.
Oh joy! (Score:5, Interesting)
The **AA - 3247923874932749782365926323
We're catching up!
Seriously though, I hope these rulings keep coming. Although it is wrong to pirate music and other media, you shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars in fines.
It seems odd to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
"While the case was dismissed, the mother had to pay legal fees as the Judge refused to award her attorneys fees. The reason is that the plaintiffs' lawyers had taken the appropriate steps in trying to prosecute the mother and that the mother used tactics to obstruct the Plaintiff to efficiently prosecute her."
So it's dismissed, but she still owes somewhere between a couple thousand and a hundred thousand dollars? She's fucked regardless.
RIAA's still making it's message heard: Either roll over early, or we'll fuck you for life.
How much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because your innocent does not make it all right for you to not obey the law to the full. It is something an awfull lot of people seem to forget and it is a judges job to remind them.
Pity the article does not make clear exactly what she did. but the message still remains clear, obey the law. You have some leeway and big company's can't just steamroll you but neither can you steamroll the law.
Parent
Fucking hell (Score:5, Insightful)
What company wants to sue children? We were all kids once, we probably commited minor crimes (stole a chocolate bar or whatever). But you never hear a shop keeper going "lets sue the little kid! He's a right fucker him!", they slap them on the wrist, tell their parents and keep a closer eye on them.
I didn't like the RIAA before, but when they start to sue children.. you've crossed a line no adult should even think of crossing.
Guardian Ad Lidem (Score:5, Insightful)
The parents' of this kid aren't fit because they won't let the RIAA sue her? They want a new legal guardian (again, only for legal matters pertaining to this case) appointed purely for the purpose of suing a child the parents' prevented you from suing?
These people are INSANE.
Parent
Re:Guardian Ad Lidem (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They just have no soul.
Parent
Maybe there should be a new Pepsi/iTunes ad... (Score:5, Funny)
Liability questions (Score:5, Interesting)
precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)
if i get an extortion letter form the RIAA for $36,000 because i downloaded Kelly Clarkson, can i play stupid in court and win?
"honest your honor, i didn't know that anyone could connect to my WiFi connection and use teh intarweb"
"honest your honor, i didn't know what my dumb cousin vinny was doing on the computer all night"
"honest your honor, i didn't know that that program is for illegal music"
do clueless soccer moms get off scott free? or anyone who challenges the RIAA and plays stupid?
serious question: can anyone plead ignorance in court and win against the RIAA extortions now?
i personally think that would be wonderful if true, because you can say what you want about the immorality of downloading pirated music, but the extortion the RIAA is pulling against average folks of limited financial and legal means is a greater form of immoral behavior
someone who is a lawyer speak up: has the RIAA's extortion mill been effectively shut down now?
please say yes
Re:precedent? (Score:5, Funny)
Downloading Kelly Clarkson is the surest sign of stupidity.
Parent
Cool, but she still had to pay costs... (Score:5, Insightful)
We need some corporate anti-terror legislation to stop corporations from acting to terrorize citizens. We already have too much historic and current legislation running the other way around. Of course, we used to just call it organized crime when applied to corporations, but terror as a political label is in fashion these days.
Ryan Fenton
fun with popups (Score:5, Insightful)
Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.
I really think
And when the hell is Firefox going to get functionality to block flash-based popups?
Re:fun with popups (Score:5, Funny)
The site has popups?
Why aren't you using a better browser?
-jcr
Parent
And then... (Score:5, Funny)
This doesn't change.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Entertainment mega-corps still win big because they strike fear into the hearts of consumers. The message is simple, "don't steal our music." The underlying assumptions that many
2. It looks to me like they lost on procedure, not so much on the theft issue. The woman's got to pay anyway and that works out great for the RIAA.
3. No one cares that they are going after minors. The US has a criminal courts system for them too. Again, the underlying assumptions about the control of the music are not even on the table.
I really don't see how anything positive comes out of this story.
Here's what really happened. (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can make out with my legal knowledge (which is more then person that wrote the summary I'd say but I'm not a lawyer) here's what really happend.
They sued the mom, who had the ISP account.
They found out that it was really the daugther who was the sharer.
They asked for the case to be dismissed aginst the mom.
They then asked for the case to be changed to the daugher after the judge issued his judgment.
The judge said nope and did what they asked and dismissed the case.
So basicly I think this was a mistake on the lawyers part for asking the case to be dismissed before they got the defendent changed.
This is more of a technicality win then a real win aginst the RIAA
Collective funding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there already such site?
Misleading slashdot spin... (Score:5, Informative)
The other motion was to continue prosecution against her child as the same case. The court basicly said "That's just as much work as starting a new case, you'll need new court reservations, a Guardian Ad Litem = lawyer to represent the child (as the mother and child could have conflicting interests in this case) and so on anyway, and it's not cheaper either". The RIAA wanted to sue a 13yo girl. They will probably refile to sue a 13yo girl, because it was the mother's case that was "dismissed with prejudice". If they are really nasty, they will completely refuse to settle the second case just to make an example out of them. How this is a victory eludes me.
Kjella
The curse of digitization (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what they like to say many, many people do not believe that copyright infringement is the same as theft.
Combine this with a media format that can be copied in seconds and you have a problem.
How did the poor recording industry end up in this mess? Greed and shortsightedness.
They had a format that could not be copied easily. Vinyl was the clearly superior sounding format of the day. For music lovers a tape copy simply would not do. People could not afford to create their own records. Even the inferior tape copies could only be created from the vinyl in actual time. So people bought the original. They weren't buying the "rights to the song", they were buying the media!
Enter the CD. Better sound quality but people did not have the capability to copy it perfectly - at first. The CD came out at a price that was a PREMIUM over vinyl. Why? Because the format was BETTER QUALITY, we were told. The recording industry was happy to be selling "media format" when it suited them. We the consumers were told that the price would drop as the production costs of CDs came down. Well, I can produce a CD for about 25 cents in my house now. So why am I paying at least 50 times the price that I could produce the thing for? Where is the price reduction that was promised? It never came.
So now the RIAA have a problem. The media is now worth squat and we can make our own perfect copies for virtually nothing. Plan B - copyright violation and suing 13 year olds.
Great idea guys, sue your user base. Worse still, sue the user base who couldn't afford to buy the stuff now anyway but may be inclined to in the future IF you hadn't completely soured their musical experience when they were young by taking them to court for listening to Jay-Z.
Get a clue. Reduce your prices. Encourage artists to make money from concerts (wow, imagine, performers, performing!). Find a superior format again and make it worth buying. You are trying to contain a product that can be perfectly reproduced in seconds, from anywhere in the world, to anywhere in the world, for free. People find it hard to believe it's stealing. Good luck with your business.
Re:First intelligent thing a court has done to RIA (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody, cross your fingers and hope this sparks a trend - it should at least set some sort of precidence that other's can use to their advantage.
Parent
Re:Defendant still lost in a way... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Since this was Federal court, does anyone know if this makes precedent that will force the RIAA to change tactics (i.e., start going after the kids directly)?
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
One critical difference -- do you demand the parents pay for the goods stolen, or do you demand the kid's entire college fund?
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Dunno if the RIAA is right or wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a
-h-
Parent
Re:Am I Correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to review the cases where the RIAA has acted this way and see if they pick cases where the parents may not be of means or legal savvy to fight the way this woman did.
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
If that happens, the child is dealt with by officers of the court, who are supposed to have some sense of proportion. That is to say, they don't try to get a fine of tens of thousands of dollars as a punishment for stealing a one-dollar soda.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No it is not ok.
You've just made the common mistake of replacing "copyright infringement" with "theft". In this case they become quite different. A theft from a store takes a tangible good from the store, something that might be sold to someone else. Downloading a song online does not prevent the sale to someone else.
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there have been very few (if any) RIAA lawsuits that have actually gone to court and reached a verdict. From what I gather, the RIAA has set up a telephone call center via which defendants can pay setllements in order to call off the lawyers. This costs them practically nothing: they just mail out threatening letters and wait for the money to roll in.
I think this is one of the first major defeats the RIAA has suffered so far in relation to its sue-the-customers scheme, and we can only hope that it will bolster more people into challenging the RIAA's suits instead of settling out of court via their hotline. The problem is that anyone who challenges the RIAA and wins will have to then pay their own lawyers' fees, so many people decide that settling is cheaper and less time-consuming - which is exactly what the RIAA is gambling on because they want to brag about how many people their goons have scared settlements out of so far.
Parent
Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we call it even?
Parent
Re:Easy Targets (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much pedophilia... It incredibly commonplace for any hunting animal to target the young or the weak, those who cannot fight back or run. In this case it seems most unfair. As others have pointed out, minors do not have credit cards and thus cannot buy music online, and the parents are often quite clueless. Anyhow, this doesn't help the prejudice that lawyers == sharks.
Parent
Re:Easy Targets (Score:5, Interesting)
The weak, maybe, but targeting the young is often a huge mistake. There are few things more ferocious than a mother protecting her cubs - most predators that fail to realise this don't pass on their genes.
Parent
Re:In defense of the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent