Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Suit Rejected With Prejudice
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."
When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it is a lot easier for the defendant to countersue for attorney fees, which I suspect they will in this case. The award is not automatic, but likely.
The OED cites a law dictionary from 1959: "A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to defend an action or other proceeding on behalf of an infant.. or a lunatic or idiot not so found.. who is defendant or respondent to a proceeding in the court."
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent,
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
what tripe
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
i'm sure you are aware that downloading pirated music online deprives no one of property, only POTENTIAL PROFIT.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
So, in other words, every parent needs to be omnicient otherwise they are "bad parents", your priorities are seriously misplaced.
I'm not even sure that the RIAA can afford so many lawsuits. Sure, they're a multi-billion dollar "co-op" organization "defending" artists
Do you honestly believe that they are "defending artists"?
They are defending a profitable business plan IMO, talk of "for the artists" is just bs meant to sway opinion.
I guess all those "pirating music is THEFT" commercials were effective on you
It makes me sad.
The case was dismissed aginst the mother with prejudice but they're still free to refile and sue the child if they want.
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
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Last time I checked, music pirates primarily used Windows only tools like Kazaa, most probably running on pirated copies of Windows. People who earn their livings using Linux, every single copy legitimately licensed I might add, are much MUCH less likely to participate in music and software piracy. Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp. Last time I checked, my GPLd software did not grant me ownership of any of the itellectual property within the codebase.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/211
This is a more comprehensive report on that case.
No idea why this isn't set by default, but here's how to disable flash popups in Firefox:
1. Type about:config into the Firefox location bar.
2. Right-click on the page and select New and then Integer.
3. Name it privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins
4. Set the value to 2.
The possible values are:
* 0: Allow all popups from plugins.
* 1: Allow popups, but limit them to dom.popup_maximum.
* 2: Block popups from plugins.
* 3: Block popups from plugins, even on
whitelisted sites.
I'm a Guardian ad Litem, and at least in Florida I'm not allowed to do anything except observe. I cannot recommend, suggest or direct any child or adult. What I can and do is give recommendations to the judge.
The judge I work for told me that if anyone gives me a hard time, they are giving HIM a hard time and to let him know immediately. In other words he's not at least interested in having anyone mess with his GAL's. I can see why the judge did not grant it.
Indeed a GAL is protected from lawsuits at least in Florida.
The RIAA is one hapless bunch who will run themselves out of business as soon as any viable solutions comes up.
In MN, it's perfectly legal to make a shoplifter pay for the item PLUS an additional $50.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
It is interesting that the judge basically refused to award attorney fees because the mother used legal delaying tactics that are fairly standard in litigation. Normally delays are in the best interest of the defendant, and I suspect she may have been worse off having let the case proceed quickly.
Actually, no. The court dismissed the suit "with prejudice" against the mother, Candy Chan, but they dismissed the suit "without predjudice" against anybody else. The second order denied the RIAA's motion to amend the original lawsuit to add the daughter as a defendant. Only the motion to amend was denied - the RIAA can file a new lawsuit.
In fact, the second sentence of the second order 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-
No, the RIAA did not lose. The RIAA sued the parent because that's who "owned" the IP address. When they finally got the parent to 'fess up and admit which child had done the deed, they asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, with prejudice, against the mother and amended to name the child. The mother objected to that, so the judge had to make the decision. The real score? The RIAA won one (the case was dismissed with prejudice), lost one (they didn't get amend their original lawsuit) and the mother lost two (she gets to pay for her attorney and her daughter is still open to a new lawsuit).
/. story that links to a blog linking to a blog is probably a pretty inaccurate way to get the straight story. The real news is in the actual court documents.
Dunno if the RIAA is right or wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a
-h-
IANAL, but doesn't that mean they can no longer sue the child?
No, it means that they cannot amend the existing lawsuit. The judge's opinions stated that they can always file a new one if they want to.
-h-
No they're still free to sue.
All that said was they can't shortcut it and change the current case's defendent from the mom to the daugther.
And the ONLY reason they can't do that is because the lawyers messed up and dismissed the case before they added the daugter as a defendant.
So basicly the story here really is, The RIAA has bad lawyers.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
In a very short summary:
RIAA: this woman shared our files on p2p
MOM: no I did not, it was somebody else, maybe one of my children.
MOM: yes it was Brittany, not me.
RIAA: Ok, get the Dumb cow off the list
MOM: No, I want my legal costs paid.
Judge: nope, you should have turned in your kid sooner, so no money for you. But RIAA wants you off the list, so there you go, it has been decided.
Now what was so funny about that judgement?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Fwiw, I downloaded and listened to Justin Guarini and the next day my cat died. Dude, seriously, don't take the chance.
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
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.
Should there be a Law?
No, they would sue to attach her future wages and to make an example out of her.
Chapter 7 is your friend.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The mom was sued as the owner of the ISP account. During discovery, everything points to the daughter so they drop the charges against mom with prejudice. Since they have made a "best effort" to sue the right person, each side pays court costs. I think the judge was a little pissed at the mum for making the court go through formal motions just to establish this, and feels she should have simply informed them of the circumstances.
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/211/
The defense attorney comments on the case a little ways down.
It won't stop the RIAA, but it will crimp their style.\
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Is it possible to have any type of civil suit against a minor?
Yes.
Since a minor can not enter in to a contract then can minor violate a contract?
Minors can enter into contracts. It's just that since they can often void the contracts at will, other people don't usually like contracting with minors.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As a rule, parents are not liable for the torts of their children. Once you have the judgment against them, you can wait for them to be able to afford to pay.
Bankruptcy is an option, but not all debts can be discharged from bankruptcy, including some torts. It largely depends on the situation, however. Plus, you can only get debts discharged in bankruptcy so often. Been a while since I've looked at bankruptcy law, however.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Guardian ad lidem? That means they wanted the court to remove the parents' legal rights to the child
See what happens when you get your legal education from watching reruns of Law & Order:SVU? the appointment of a guardian ad litem has nothing to do with the parents' legal rights to a child, its a recognition of the fact that the child is not merely an extension of the parents but a person in her own right, and therefore has interests which are not always the same as those of the parents. A guardian ad litem doesn't tell the kid when to go to bed, what shows she can watch, or what to wear to school (not that most parents take that much responsibility these days either). the role of the guardian is SOLELY to make decisions for the child with respect to a single court action.
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".
The extension Flashblock works pretty good to keep this from happening.
I am not a bankruptcy lawyer either, but I did ask one where I could find the list of "non-dischargable" debts:
You'll find it here: TITLE 11 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > 523. A more verbose discussion is available here, which you might find interesting, if not exactly light reading.
I'll summarize (skipping the irrelevant subsections):
A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (19) that-- (B) results from-- (i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding; (ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or (iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor.
So pretty much, if any court orders you to pay something, or you agree to a settlement, you're SOL as far as declaring bankruptcy to discharge it goes. And unlike some of the other subsections, which have "outs" for things like inability to pay, or the benefit to the debtor outweighing the benefit to the creditor by discharging it, that section has no outs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In Germany, which has a loser-pays system, most people carry legal insurance, which picks up all the legal fees if you get sued or if you sue.
I wonder why there is no popular movement to review this specific legislation so anyone can defend him/herself against corporate lawsuits without fear of losing everything to the lawyers on the way to reclaim Justice.
Because it works the other way too -- if a person is injured by a product made by some company, you want them to be able to go and try and get compensation from the company, without the fear of being bankrupted by having to pay the other side's attorneys fees should they lose. No case is a guaranteed winner or loser, so there is alsways some risk involved. Plaintiff's lawyers often work on contingency -- a piece of the winnings, if any -- while defense lawyers get paid by the hour or the case. Under the current system, if an individual sues a big company and loses, their lawyer just doesn't get paid, and the plaintiff is no worse off; under a loser pays system, the plaintiff now has a huge legal bill presented to them. For many plaintiffs, that simply would be too big of a risk, and the result would be that big companies wouldn't need to fear getting sued by consumers.
Of course, you could put some sort of cap on "reasonable" expenses, but even those fees might be too much for many injured plaintiffs to risk.
And finally, even though this may seem like heresy to the slashdot crowd, chances are not all of the RIAA's suits are meritless -- and who wants to try to stand up to the RIAA when, at the end, they not only get hit with damages, but the other sides' legal fees as well, plus their own legal fees? Like I said, no case is a certain winner or certain loser -- there is always risk. At least if you are paying only your own legal fees, you can manage the risk to some extent.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli