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."
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
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-
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?
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
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".
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."