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."

Comments

More appropriate title

[dtfinch]

RIAA beaten by 13 year old girl.

Re:More appropriate title

[Laz7]

host that video file on the P2P networks and see what happens to you ! *smile*

Re:More appropriate title

[turtled]

the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child

Were they going to sue for lunch money??

Re:More appropriate title

[MoreNoiseThanSignal]

i think an even more appropriate little would be "LOL PWND".
but maybe that's just me.

Re:More appropriate title

[vsprintf]

host that video file on the P2P networks and see what happens to you ! *smile*

The MPAA would poison the torrent with old interviews of Jack Valenti.

Re:More appropriate title

[scooby111]

No, they would sue to attach her future wages and to make an example out of her.

The RIAA has never been above scare tactics to get their way.

Re:More appropriate title

[HardCase]

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-

Re:More appropriate title

[poopdeville]

OMG i wish I had teh mod points. You'd get a +1 Inciteful. :-)

Re:More appropriate title

[HardCase]

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-

Re:More appropriate title

[SlayerofGods]

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.

Re:More appropriate title

[Shakrai]

No, they would sue to attach her future wages and to make an example out of her.

Chapter 7 is your friend.

Re:More appropriate title

[/ASCII]

I am not a linguist, but I think he may have meant 'loser'.

Re:More appropriate title

[Kadin2048]

I agree, that would be a better system. It would really cut down on the junk lawsuits.

However it might also make it easier for the RIAA and other corporations to bully people around, because they have extremely expensive lawyers, and that would just make the bill that they'd threaten people with even more catastropic if they should lose. It would create a situation where the RIAA could say "If we lose, we'll pay your lawyer's fees, we've got millions. But if you lose, then you have to pay ours. Hope you have a box down by the river picked out to live in, peasant."

The way it works in current U.S. jurisprudence is that the assignment of legal costs can be done retroactively, through a separate lawsuit, by the defendant of the first one if the original suit was obviously frivolous. Judges tend to be fairly cautious in allowing this though, so it only happens when the cases are really frivolous (and sometimes not even then). Guess they're afraid it might have a "chilling effect" on lawsuits...(wouldn't that be a shame).

Re:More appropriate title

[AxelBoldt]

However it might also make it easier for the RIAA and other corporations to bully people around, because they have extremely expensive lawyers,

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".

Re:More appropriate title

[citog]

How do you know his surname is Moran?

Re:More appropriate title

[AxelBoldt]

because even when you have a good case, you occasionally lose, and a lot of people would not be willing to take that risk.

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.

Re:More appropriate title

[killjoe]

All we really need is judges with balls enough to throw silly lawsuits out the window. See IBM v SCO for an example. Any fucking two year old would have been smart enough to ask SCO "which code did they steal"? But they judge has let this suit go on for three years without once asking that question.

Re:More appropriate title

[YetAnotherLogin]

Well, aren't you a cunning linguist

Open memo to the RIAA:

[BWJones]

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 .99 cents and raise the prices on the popular tracks? Was not this what you were trying to do when that pesky price fixing scheme was discovered back when you were at Universal? Are you guys *trying* to put yourselves out of business?

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[91degrees]

Indeed. This was pretty heavy handed of the RIAA.

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.

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[moosesocks]

Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to .99 cents and raise the prices on the popular tracks? Was not this what you were trying to do when that pesky price fixing scheme was discovered back when you were at Universal? Are you guys *trying* to put yourselves out of business?

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.

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[Thuktun]

The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot.

Is this really something that should be discouraged?

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Are you guys *trying* to put yourselves out of business?

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).

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[Haeleth]

> The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot.

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.

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[MassacrE]

I just think they should aim higher

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[Alsee]

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

Yeah right, like there's any EP with a third song that would be worth fifty cents.

-

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[mc_barron]

The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot.
Is this really something that should be discouraged?

It is when they're the ones standing on our backs.

Re:Open memo to the RIAA:

[shark72]

"You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to .99 cents and raise the prices on the popular tracks? Was not this what you were trying to do when that pesky price fixing scheme was discovered back when you were at Universal?"

Kind of, but not quite.

This is how the price fixing thing went down:

1. Best Buy and Wal-Mart started selling CDs at or below cost as an incentive to get customers into the stores (where they'd ideally buy higher priced, higher margin items -- the CDs are what's known as "loss leaders").
2. A few music retailers (TWE and Tower Records among them), which did not have stores full of consumer electronics, clothing or groceries to sell, could simply not match the loss-leading prices posted by Wal-Mart and Best Buy. So, they went to the record companies for help.
3. The record companies set up MAP ("minimum advertised price") programs with TWE and Tower. The record companies would help fund the stores' ads (called "program money" or "co-op money") as long as the ads didn't list prices that went below the MAP. Tower and TWE could sell CDs for whatever prices they wanted; but they couldn't advertise them below the MAP. MAP programs, by the way, are prevalent in many, many industries, including the PC peripheral industry.
4. Best Buy and Wal-Mart, which were getting no program money from the record labels, went to the government.
5. The court, in turn, smacked the record companies and told them to stop their MAP programs. They did... and meanwhile, MAP programs continue in many other industries.
6. Wal-Mart and Best Buy continued selling CDs at or below cost. Tower Records filed for bankrupcty.

The price fixing judgement was a win for Wal-Mart and Best Buy. The big losers were not the record companies (as the MAP programs did not affect the price at which they sold records into distribution), but indie record stores, which can no longer get co-op money from record labels. It's also a loss, indirectly, for people like me who remember and cherish indie record stores. They're a dying breed.

Let me be the first to say...

[conJunk]

...I for one welcome our new bullshit-lawsuit-quashing overlords.

Huge mistakes

[fembots]

They shouldn't have let it go to the court.

But good news for everyone else.

Re:Huge mistakes

[fembots]

Because digital piracy has always been a grey area. Is it theft? Does the industry really lose sales? If so how much?

And traditionally, people are afraid of going to the courts because of uncertainty of the outcome, and more importantly the lack of experience to act and react in a courtroom.

Why do people so scared of doing bad things? Because somehow they thought that they might be going to hell when they died, and that uncertainty is enough to keep most people on track.

Now imagine if someone went to hell and back, and told everyone that it's actually not that bad, and he's publishing "The Bad People's Guide To Hell" telling you which road to take to avoid demons and punishments.

Re:Huge mistakes

[Gewis]

It was a lawsuit. Of course it was going to go to court.

That's where lawsuits go.

Re:Huge mistakes

[Copperhead]

Not if the defendant settles, which is what people have done so far.

Re:Huge mistakes

[Stephen Samuel]

Technically, no precedent. The judge just allowed the plaintifs to dismiss their lawsuit -- with prejudice. It is, however a nasty slap across the back of the hand of the RIAA, and a signal to other parents that they may have good cause to resist RIAA lawsuits.

It won't stop the RIAA, but it will crimp their style.\

Easy Targets

[fragmentate]

Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.

Re:Easy Targets

[penguinoid]

Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.

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.

Re:Easy Targets

[TheRaven64]

It incredibly commonplace for any hunting animal to target the young or the weak, those who cannot fight back or run.

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.

Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[dada21]

While I feel this court ruling is fair, the opinions in the article are a bit off...

In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.

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?

more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don't understand what's going on.

And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.

I agree that the RIAA's suit was unfounded, in this case. I also believe the RIAA has lost their battles and will only be wasting time and money on additional lawsuits (that will cost them, in the long run, far more than they will 'save' or 'gain' in judgements).

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, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.

The reality, though, is that they likely won't stop suing, and if they even win 1 out of 10 cases, it will likely cause them to fail even more.

So I say, sue away, RIAA.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[flanksteak]

Agreed. The RIAA lost mainly because they tried to sue a parent over the actions of the child. The court said, nice try, but if your beef is with the child, then sue the child. Either the RIAA was suing the parent to get the extortion money to keep paying for the lawsuits, or suing the parent to avoid the unpleasant reaction that would probably ensue for going after a thirteen year old. Both seem plausible. Haven't other parents paid up in other suits that weren't contested like this?

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)?

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[fanblade]

And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.

In those cases where a warning isn't enough, then sue them. I think the idea of warning them first is a very good solution, actually.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[dada21]

I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops." In fact, I've CALLED the cops a few times to arrest the kid, and the parent pays up, in front of the cops, and I've never been arrested for extortion.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[jcr]

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

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[einhverfr]

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?

Fair enough, but for an intangible like copyright, I am not sure what sort of damage one can allege.

Oh that's right.... It is damage because the parent didn't pay for the intangible, not that it caused a demonstrable loss. Right....

The problem is that copyright infringement is not like theft any more than tresspassing is.* If I go into your back yard and pitch a tent and sleep there, technically, I am not stealing anything from you. And you can't exactly prosecute me for theft. You can prosecute me for tresspassing, but that doesn't have the same ring.

* I am deliberately omiting arguments you might want to make about being able to steal your property legally via adverse posession and historical use laws. These activities are legal, however, and basically state that if you don't object within a certain time period, you can't suddenly stop me from using your land (and in some cases, I might be entitled to title). These are more similar to fair use in copyright law than they are to theft.

(IANAL, etc).

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Asgard]

I suspect the difference is that you probably didn't require the parent to pay 2x the cost of the item as a penalty.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[size1one]

"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?"

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.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[zakezuke]

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?

It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Shoplifting is a crime. As with all crimes you would need evidence to prosecute. There is an actual loss that you can measure. With copyright infringement, there is no physical loss and flacky evidence.

And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.

So a person is a bad parent if they don't know how to operate their PC? IIRC we are talking about a single mother and like it or not a single parent can't be everwhere at once. And we are talking about an issue that someone who was childless in the 80s and 90s that doesn't think this is a big deal. And actually, a number of artists encourage p2p distribution... and there is presently no way your average end user could know if it's OK to share the music.

What we need to learn is the concept of respecting the rights of the copyright holder. To assume all sharing is bad in it self is a serious violation of the rights of copyright holders.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[HunterZ]

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, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.

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.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[NMerriam]

I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops."

One critical difference -- do you demand the parents pay for the goods stolen, or do you demand the kid's entire college fund?

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[flanksteak]

Hard to say. The RIAA is suing over piracy, not a contract violation. If a kid tried to rip an encryped disk, they're violating the DMCA and not any license agreement that may have come with the disc.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Bodysurf]

"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, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing."

They care afford it.

Most of these attorneys are on a contingency basis. The xxAA hire (or the "big gun" attorneys hired by the xxAA turn over the inital wave of defendents to) low-quality, inexpensive, local attorneys who file "boiler plate" lawsuits against defendents in their area. They get a list of potential infringers are told to "Sue away" and anything they get is theirs. It's just like carpet-bombing or trying to catch tuna with dolphin-unsafe nets. The vast majority settle upfront. Those that don't settle (very, very few) and want to fight it in court have costly "big gun" attorneys (from the local council) with a lot of experience take over.

The xxAA makes no money on these suits and aren't making any pretenses that they are.

Their goal is simply this: Scare as many potential pirates as possible into not pirating their product. Make it tremendously painful to those that get caught. Reduce piracy to an acceptable level. A few geeks trading music on IRC via XDCC and the Usenet is acceptable. Everyone and their Grandmother NaPsTeRiNg and BiToRrEnTiNg music a la carte with a click of the mouse is not an acceptable level.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[austad]

In MN, it's perfectly legal to make a shoplifter pay for the item PLUS an additional $50.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[radish]

OK. So what if the child walked into a record store, picked up a CD, opened it, stuck it in his/her laptop and ripped it. Then carefully put the CD back in the case, back on the shelf and walked out. Is that OK? Is it more or less OK for a child to do that than an adult? Personally I'd say it's not OK for anyone to do it, regardless of whether they can afford the CD or not.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[jmv]

...replacing "copyright infringement" with "theft". In this case they become quite different.

Of course it's the same. After all, if people copy 100 billion CDs, then it really does cost the RIAA one trillion dollars.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I now own a GNC franchise and you simply would not believe the number of young teenage boys--and, occasionally, girls--who have tried to steal protein powders, creatine, etc., from my store. Generally, I catch them and hold them for the cops and their parents who can pay for what they stole.

What I *don't* do is follow them home and then sue their parents for many times the cost of the item.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[dada21]

Great point. It is a problem I've repeated often in the past, thinking back. How do I get out of that habit, though?

Copyright infringement seems like such a antiquated law now that information is so freely available. Why does it stick around when a more proper venue for information should be performances that can't be copied easily? Live bands can never be captured well if their performances are tangible. I've openly recorded shows I've been allowed to (using great equipment, too) and just can't listen to a lot of those shows.

Thanks for the slap on the wrist regarding my use of "theft" I'll make note for future posts.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[HardCase]

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).

Dunno if the RIAA is right or wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a /. 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.

-h-

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[canadacow]

Oh oh! I have a better example. What if a child walked into a store, sat in the home theatre demo section and watched a whole Disney movie they hadn't seen before. Is that OK? Is it theft then too?

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Deanasc]

And the parents aren't facing a possible $150,000.00 per stolen item civil penalty which amounts to the threat behind the threat of extortion.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Achromatic1978]

I'd love to see that. Walk into HMV and watch a kid on his laptop, ripping CDs from the shelf (discounting the fact that most actual discs are kept behind the counter).

"It's not theft!"

Yes, I know the example was silly. Just recounting the image that came to mind.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[markass530]

I got popped for taking some jerky out of a jar when I was 12, my mom had to pay like a 100 bucks on top of the cost of the jerky, Not sure what the 100 bucks was for, but now I am curious how they could do that.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Sj0]

That's ok. Through lobbying, both media lobbies have effectively stolen fifty years of the public domain.

How about we call it even?

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Sj0]

I think, in a grand corporate tradition, we have to ask:

"Is it our problem? If we tell you to go fuck yourselves, will it come back and bite us?"

It's funny that corps want *US* to live by human morals, while *THEY* try to sue 13 year old little girls. Sorry folks, two can play this game.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[ohsoot]

It's a civil demand. Basically a legal form of extortion. Basically better for everyone though, you don't get a record and the owner gets compensated a little extra for the people he didn't catch and security costs.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[iamlucky13]

Well, some of these kids probably have (at $1/song) the equivalent value of an 4-year (public) university education on their computers. I know several people who do. Now one could argue that if all the music is deleted, the goods have been returned, but then again, you face the fact that after listening to the latest Green Day CD illegally 100 times in a row, little Johny might not be as anxious as he was to have his own copy, so the music might be consider "used" in that sense, but how the heck do you place a value on that. And of course, there's always the issue of court costs, and only the finest, most expensive lawyers will do for an important case like this....blah blah blah...you get the point: placing a value on this is no small task.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Kadin2048]

Sure, but a university education at $1 a song is only about twenty-five bucks off of allofmp3.com ... :)

Actually, I'm surprised that the RIAA hasn't taken any notice of that particular site. It seems to be coasting in just enough of a grey area (or be kicking back just enough money to the right people) to have stayed off the RIAA's hit list.

Frankly I think if a person in the U.S. did get sued for using it, you could build a pretty strong case for plausible deniability of the fact you were doing anything wrong -- if in fact you are doing anything wrong under U.S. copyright law, which I'm not sure of. You're effectively legally purchasing something in Russia, but then importing it into the U.S. I don't know whether there's a limit on the dollar amount you can 'import' like there is with foreign-bought booze or what. But where it's hard to tell a judge with a straight face and your hand on the Bible that you really thought downloading that Britney Spears song off of Kazaa was legit, I think most people could say that about allofmp3.com. Plus it's not banned at most Universities either, so it doesn't have that aura of illegitimacy that surrounds P2P.

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[TheLink]

You are confusing plagiarism with copying. They are not the same thing. Plagiarism involves _lying_, copying doesn't.

Depending on copyright laws, copying _may_ breach a granted limited monopoly over copying and distribution.

BTW extending copyright reach/scope is closer to stealing - since it restricts access. Whereas copying increases access (it _may_ reduce access to money but that's not really proven yet and it's a different matter).

Re:Lose, lose situation for RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking for your own case to be dismissed with prejudice is NOT a "win." At best it is a dumping of a bad strategy. They may have filed a case that they realized was flawed, or figured out midstream that it was going their way and tried to adjust (which did not work), but there is no way to categorize it as a win.

It is like saying a General in desperation sends some troops on a diversionary suicide mission. Then when the main attack and the diversion are slaughtered it is a partial victory because at least one thing went according to plan?

Oh joy!

[Brandon K]

13 year old girls - 1
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...

[Spytap]

...that such a strong dismissal would also include this part:

"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.

Re:It seems odd to me...

[Pac]

I always found this is one of the strangest features in the US Justice System - that the loser does not automatically gets to pay both sides fees in a civil complaint. After all, if you bring a lawsuit against me and I am proved innocent, you still get to bankrupt me on legal fees (or force me to surrender whatever you wnat without trial because I can't afford it). It is not only unfair, it (probably intentionally) tilts the balance of Justice in favour of corporations and against the consumers or the common person. 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.

Re:It seems odd to me...

[Macadamizer]

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.

Re:First intelligent thing a court has done to RIA

[MrMista_B]

Not sure about intelligence, but sanity, certainly.

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.

Re:Defendant still lost in a way...

[pete6677]

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.

ad litem defined

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Fucking hell

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck".

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.

Some victory...

[Jordan Catalano]

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.

The lesson learned: the RIAA needs to drag the cases out longer to overwhelm the accused with legal fees.

Extreme Prejudice

[Suzumushi]

Now if only we can get the judges to terminate with extreme prejudice these RIAA bullies...

Maybe there should be a new Pepsi/iTunes ad...

[RetrogradeMotion]

... with a rendition of "I fought the RIAA and the law won."

Liability questions

[solarlux]

Practically speaking, is there much difference between suing the 13 yr old vs suing the parent? Let's say the RIAA successfully sues the girl and pins her with a $1,000,000 settlement -- who's liable? It's not like the girl has any assets they can seize. Can they then go after the parent's assets? If so, is there really much difference in whether they sue the mom or the girl?

Re:Liability questions

[surprise_audit]

Let's take that scenario a little further - suppose the RIAA is awarded $1,000,000 damages and, as other people have suggested, that judgement simply sits around waiting for the girl to get her first paycheck, then the RIAA gets a slice forever after. How would this 13-year-old deal with that kind of doom hanging over her?? What percentage of her paycheck would the RIAA get?? If she earns $30,000 per year, pays out roughly 1/3 in taxes and medical insurance, and if the RIAA got the remaining $20,000, it would take 50 years to pay off. I don't imagine a court would be stupid enough to not leave her *some* money to live on, so it will take far longer to pay off. BTW, would that $1,000,000 debt accrue interest??

I'm sure we've all seen news stories about kids being bullied in school, or taunted, or simply being rejected by another boy/girl and that kid then goes off and commits suicide. I wonder if the RIAA is prepared to deal with the kind of publicity they'd get if they *did* successfully get a $1,000,000 judgement against a child, and that child chose to exercise that final option, to escape from an intolerable situation.

I sincerely hope there's at least one smart person in the RIAA with enough leverage to stop that from happening.

copy vs steal

[sacrilicious]

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?

If a child makes a photocopy of a book he/she can't afford, then I think the described leniency should apply.

precedent?

[circletimessquare]

IANAL, but does this mean soccer moms have nothing to worry about from RIAA pressure tactics or does this mean EVERYONE has nothing to worry about?

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?

[tktk]

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?

Downloading Kelly Clarkson is the surest sign of stupidity.

Cool, but she still had to pay costs...

[RyanFenton]

She still had to pay her defence costs in this case - hardly unusual, but very much a threat against those who don't want to settle. Yes, they can use this case as precident, but the costs of any court case just won't be acceptable to most of the people here in the U.S., who are living in a constant state of debt. This leaves the threat of bankruptcy as a legitimate tool of terror in the hands of the content distribution organizations, and any other corporations that decide that preying on the weak to settle is a legitimate financial strategy.

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

Prejudice

[Tufriast]

Now, with prejudice in the bankruptcy world only means they can't refile for a 160 day period. I am wondering if the same thing applies here? Does the record industry merely have to wait in order to get another crack at it? I'm not up to snuff on my legal code for law suits.

How much?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Exactly what kinda attorny do you think she got? The message here is simple, the court WILL spank both sides if they misbehave. She tried apparently to pull something that was not to the courts liking so the judge send a message by making her pay her laywer. Had she not obstructed the case then the RIAA would probably have had to cough up the dough to pay her lawyer. Idoubt the bill comes to more then a couple hundred bucks. This was not a long complex drawn out case.

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.

fun with popups

[jaxon6]

Repeat after me:

Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.

I really think /. should make a point of not linking to sites that are just that shitty. Maybe the site owners will get the point.

And when the hell is Firefox going to get functionality to block flash-based popups?

Re:fun with popups

[jcr]

Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.

The site has popups?

Why aren't you using a better browser?

-jcr

Re:fun with popups

[Silkejr]

The extension Flashblock works pretty good to keep this from happening.

Child abuse sucks

[node357]

The RIAA should be slammed for emotional abuse.

Guardian Ad Lidem

[MBCook]

No kidding. Guardian ad lidem? That means they wanted the court to remove the parents' legal rights to the child for the purposes of this case (ostensibly because the parents weren't looking out for the best interests of the kid) and have an officer of the court take over.

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.

Re:Guardian Ad Lidem

[moosesocks]

These people are INSANE.

No. They just have no soul.

Re:Guardian Ad Lidem

[Moridin42]

Actually, the mother wouldn't be in a conflict of interest, since the case against her was dismissed with prejudice. So if the RIAA files a lawsuit against the child, and the judge finds in favor of the child.. the mother is not open to further attack.

Now.. whether the mother can adequately represent her daughter's interests is another question.

Re:Guardian Ad Lidem

[tongue]

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.

And then...

[anandamide]

...they tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to roll over the child's cute,fuzzy puppy with a hella gnarly steamroller, which the judge granted.

Re:Don't start into this filesharing = stealing cr

[dada21]

File sharing is theft, IMHO. But I do believe that the current market for music and movies is dying and that the RIAA and MPAA need to find ways to convert P2P into a new motivation tool for artists and consumers. I don't have a good solution, and I don't think lowering prices will really decrease P2P that much. I know that I buy more music and movies because of P2P, but I don't actually pirate music or movies, just trailers and samples.

On the other hand, what if the RIAA (and MPAA) required that every consumer of a CD or DVD signed a contract saying "I agree that I am borrowing this medium for $9.99, and that any data contained on this medium is priviledged and I am not able to disclose or copy the data to any individual, network, corporation, or entity under penalty of law" and you had to sign the contract in order to get the CD or DVD? Would that be acceptable? Is this an option where the **AA organizations only allow specific companies to push their product?

When I buy a CD or DVD, I understand that I am buying a license to listen/view/use the data in the privacy of my home for just myself and my family. I know I don't own the music or the movie, just the physical medium that the data is carried on. That's fine. If I want to own a song or movie, I'm sure I'd be happy to pay whatever it costs to create it so that I can distribute it.

FYI, I don't agree with the RIAA or MPAA tactics or system. I do believe information wants to be free, and I am more than willing to switch to a "direct to the artist" payment system.

This doesn't change....

[mpapet]

the RIAA's strategy.

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 /.'ers dislike are strongly reinforced. What's worse is a dissenting view can easily be positioned as at least disreputable behavior if not outright criminal activity.

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.

justice is not for the poor

[timmarhy]

the needs to come where the cost of defending your rights in court isn't trumpted by the fact you can't afford it. you can bet your ass if the RIAA found a multi millionare on limewire swapping music the won't proceed, since he won't just fold.

Here's what really happened.

[SlayerofGods]

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

Re:In defense of the RIAA

[molarmass192]

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.

Re:Don't start into this filesharing = stealing

[91degrees]

As an artist, I decide how I want to whore my creations -- not you.

Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.

Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us. the "uniqueness" is just selfishness. A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost. It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.

At What Point?

[DumbSwede]

At what point does the RIAA become so seemingly repugnant by trying to sue 13 year old girls, that the very piracy they were trying to discourage becomes a common form of political dissent and protest?

Re:Am I Correct?

[flanksteak]

You can sue a minor, you just have to follow special procedure. Part of which is the appointment of someone of age to represent the minor (in addition to the lawyer). The interesting thing about the case is that after the RIAA lost on the technicality they asked for permission to represent so they could follow the rules. The judge said no, which strikes me as a recognition and rejection of the overall end-around tactic.

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.

Guardian ad Litem

[unixfan]

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.

Re:In defense of the RIAA

[Incadenza]

Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp.

Well, it took me some time to understand that sentence. At first I thought these BSD guys/girls were anti-intellectual, and had a lot of property. How odd.

Collective funding?

[Spy der Mann]

Guys, I thought of an idea. How about donating to a special fund for "Victims of the RIAA" so the we can pay for the defendants' attorney fees? Something like "music taxes", but instead of paying the corporate monster, we'd help support the innocent victims of a corrupted system. This way, when a mother is told: "Pay us thousands of dollars, or see you in court!", we can tell her: "Don't settle! We'll pay for the legal expenses!"

Is there already such site?

Re:Collective funding?

[darnok]

If this is going to attract MY money, I'd like the group (EFF?) to select a (probably small) number of test cases to contest, rather than have a free-for-all system where everybody signs up to be defended against Sony et al.

Why? I've got no problem with the RIAA (and its equivalents worldwide) suing people for:
- massive copyright infringement involving zillions of songs and zillions of copies
- selling illegal copies of infringing content

On the other hand, I've got a big problem if/when the *AA goes after:
- 13 year old kids, and by proxy, their parents (who generally have little to no idea that things such as Limewire even exist)
- people who download a couple of songs for their own personal use i.e. not loads of stuff, and not to distribute further
- people who download copies of songs they've already purchased on CD, but which they can't copy to e.g. their iPod because of copy protection restrictions on the CD
- people who download a TV show which has already been shown on non-subscription services
- people who "pirate" content that is so old that common sense says it should've been out of copyright years ago (e.g. old "I Love Lucy" episodes). The concept that copyright can effectively be extended forever just defies common sense, particularly when you see Hollywood waiting for vintage content to become public domain, then releasing "their" take on it and claiming copyright protection on intellectual content that someone else invented 50+ years ago
- suing people for e.g. $100k per downloaded song, on some bogus principle that they COULD have given it to the 20,000 others. In that case, the onus should be on the suing party to come up with the list of 20,000 others, with verifiable documentation to support it

Re:Defendant still lost in a way...

[pete6677]

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.

GALs represent children, not help them get sued.

[cenonce]

I wish the website wasn't blown off the net by being slashdotted.

In PA, where I practice, a GAL is appointed to be an "interested adult" in instances where a child doesn't have a parent or guardian, where the parent may have an adverse interest to the child, or where the Court determines that a GAL is necessary (such as when two parents are fighting over custody).

GAL stands for Guardian ad litem, which basically means, "guardian for the particular matter at hand". So a GAL appointed for custody can't represent a child for a civil action.

In some cases, such as when a child is dependent (i.e., without proper parental care or control) a lawyer is appointed as both the attorney for the child and the GAL. In other matters, such as juvenile deliquency (i.e. minors charged with criminal offenses), a GAL may be appointed as an "interested adult" while the Public Defender or another attorney represents the minor.

In all cases, however, the GAL is there to look out for the minor, not help them get sued by an abusive organization.

Alleged copyright infringement is the issue here.

[jbn-o]

Your post would have been better if you knew the difference between theft and copyright infringement—the RIAA threatens and pursues copyright infringement lawsuits. Judges and RIAA lawyers know the difference, but the RIAA public affairs uses the wrong language.

You did not read the judgement, did you?

[nietsch]

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?

Re:You did not read the judgement, did you?

[KarmaMB84]

Their only legal recourse is the PR disaster of filing a completely new lawsuit naming a 13 year old girl? Up until this point, they've been trying to just sue whoever had their name on the IP address. If this trend continues and the RIAA tries to sue hundreds or thousands of children, the public might be enraged to the point that Congress would be forced to make changes to the laws that make the RIAA's witchhunt possible.

We let a lot of kids off with less punishment for accidentally killing another child than the RIAA wants from these kids for sharing music (and possibly unknowingly at that since the p2p apps are configured that way...).

Re:You did not read the judgement, did you?

[digidave]

"Congress would be forced to make changes to the laws that make the RIAA's witchhunt possible."

Yes, Congress will make it possible to sue the parents. What, did you really think Congress was on your side?

Are they shooting themselves in the foot?

[jbn-o]

Given the political power they and their friends are amassing, I not only don't agree with you, but I think that the public had better get better organized around what copyright law ought to say and how it should work so that we can better insure our needs.

the girl can't be sued?

[falconwolf]

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
Phrase 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.

Falcon

Misleading slashdot spin...

[Kjella]

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

Irony...

[cnerd2025]

Is it ironic that the judges, those who the citizens do not directly elect are the ones most on consumers' sides? I thought about it and reallized that judges don't have to worry about huge campaigning bills and therefore can "afford" to be honorable. Even though we know that elected officials could be honorable too. But then the media would have to get off of its fat lazy ass and begin working. I think it has forgotten how to spell "Kosovo."

Re:First intelligent thing a court has done to RIA

[lordofthechia]

"consumers should be able to download music to have a listen before they buy; perhaps someone needs to form an association similar to the RIAA, but that embraces the concept of worthwhile content that can be used without restriction. Maybe just a recording studio that does it?"

Did you mean something like magnatune?

They have no isue with people downloading their full albums in *high* quality mp3 format so you can make up your mind wether or not its worth buying. Then to boot you get to choose how much you want to pay ($5 minimum). The artist gets HALF of that!

Then there's always allofmp3.com , but you gotta wonder how legitimate they are...

Legal !== Ethical

[groovemaneuver]

I think it's important to keep sight of the fact that what is legal is not necessarily ethical (and vice versa). While it is perfectly legal for the RIAA to sue a single mom or her children, it seems rather sketchy in the ethics department.

I don't think that it is ethical to infringe on copyrights, and I doubt most people would disagree. At the same time, I think it's also unethical that an organization like the RIAA can pretend to be acting on behalf of artists that they routinely abuse. I think people are really starting to understand that buying albums doesn't really support the artists ($.01 - $.03 dollars to the artist vs. $12-$25 to the RIAA and retailers). Because so much money goes to this seemingly ethically devoid entity, people have no conscience dilemmas when downloading.

Every artist signing a record deal is gambling: chances are they're going to lose, but every once in a while someone makes it big. I'm much happier as a consumer and music fan when I purchase music directly from an artist. F*ck the RIAA.

Re:Am I Correct?

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:The RIAA is pathetic....

[tabbser]

Although your tone is one of anger, your methodoloy has stood the test of time.
Simply put, if you don't like the service or can't take all the terms and conditions then you take your money elsewhere.

I have a relatively short list of companies I will not do business with. Some because they are sleazy (paypal) and some because they drive me nuts (albertsons - incessant chatter from the new 15 inch "in store media network") and some because they do things I find really low-down (geico - they donate radar detectors to cops on the basis they use them to frequently bust people for speeding so that they might charge more for insurance) and incredibly rude and stupid people (TigerDirect.com)

I know that my business probably doesn't mean much to these companies, but I also let other people know my feelings about the companies of shame list and it does rub off on people.

I personally know already that I have cost paypal over $2k in business just because I have made my horror story public. Albertsons is $100 / week, Geico is over $3k a year from me (I drive a Porsche 911 C2, own a harley and insure my house and jetski all through the same people), TigerDirect, shees, well, I only ever once ordered from those people.

I do happen to agree with the RIAA though. The kids are stealing and that's not right. If you don't like the CD's then don't buy them.
You can't claim you don't like the CD's (so you're not buying it) and then still download the tracks.

Nice try. But no.

[Kadin2048]

I don't think that you can get yourself out of court-imposed debts through bankruptcy. Otherwise you'd have deadbeat dads, drunk drivers, and other scum doing it all the time to avoid paying up. I'm not sure exactly what kind of legal language prevents you from being able to do it, but my recollection is that even if you declare bankruptcy, that satisfies only PRIVATE debts -- as soon as you start making money again, the courts will garnish your wages to pay off the PUBLIC ones.

OT: The other interesting place they'll do this is if you owe a financial debt to the Military, e.g. for college tuition, and then skip out without paying or render yourself unable to serve. You can go bankrupt for as long as you want, but the second you start making any real money they'll come and take it to start paying off your debt. I don't know if it works this way for government-backed standard school loans or not, but I'm positive that it's this way with military scholarships.

Re:Nice try. But no.

[Shakrai]

I don't think that you can get yourself out of court-imposed debts through bankruptcy. Otherwise you'd have deadbeat dads, drunk drivers, and other scum doing it all the time to avoid paying up. I'm not sure exactly what kind of legal language prevents you from being able to do it, but my recollection is that even if you declare bankruptcy, that satisfies only PRIVATE debts -- as soon as you start making money again, the courts will garnish your wages to pay off the PUBLIC ones.

There are specific debts that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Drunk driving fines, child support, fines for criminal activity, etc, are virtually impossible to discharge.

IANABL (bankruptcy lawyer) but I am in the middle of a Chapter 7 myself and everything I have read on the subject would lead me to think that you _could_ discharge a judgment owed to RIAA. Typically judgments are dischargeable unless they stem from criminal activity/fraud/child support.

I don't know if it works this way for government-backed standard school loans or not

Student loans are pretty hard to discharge in bankruptcy. The only way to do it is to prove that paying them back would be an undue burden. Pretty much the only way you can pull that off is if something really bad happened to you and you have little or no prospect of working again/having income.

As for your thoughts about the military you are probably right. I have a friend who was forced out of USAFA after she testified in the ongoing sex abuse scandal. She had the choice of paying them back for the education she had received or doing two years enlisted to make up for it.

Re:Nice try. But no.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Nice try. But no.

[tsm_sf]

Yah, it's easy to forget that "honor" has a very specific meaning within military culture, and even within different branches. Flexible word, really.

Re:Nice try. But no.

[Shakrai]

As this post points out that section isn't one that we are overly worried about here.

I know for a fact that judgments are dischargeable because I'm in the process of getting them discharged! If judgments couldn't be discharged then all credit card companies would have to do to stop you from filing bankruptcy (or getting any advantage out of it anyway) would be to get default judgments against you for the amount of your credit card debt.

They can pretty much do that regardless of you showing up to court or not. And once they have a judgment they can start draining your bank account or garnishing your wages. Bankruptcy does discharge civil judgments. And if you don't have any non-exempt assets (equity in your home is exempt in many states, your IRA is exempt, cars below a certain value are exempt) then they don't get a dime of money out of Chapter 7.

Re:Nice try. But no.

[Shakrai]

That's absolutely disgusting. Any chance she could sue under whistle blower laws?

Perhaps. In her situation I think she's just glad to be done with it. If she had stayed at USAFA she would probably still in the service today. Which doubtless means she would be somewhere "over there" getting shot at right now.

In her particular case she was assaulted and tried to work within the system to get it addressed. When that failed she went outside the system. You thought what you've seen in the news media about the scandal there was bad? They don't know the half of it.

The curse of digitization

[skingers6894]

The RIAA are attempting to contain the uncontainable - and it's their own fault.

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:The curse of digitization

[shark72]

"We the consumers were told that the price would drop as the production costs of CDs came down."

Are you sure?

"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?"

You're confusing the act of duplicating a CD, with the process of recording, engineering, producing, marketing, and distributing an album. Nobody -- not the artist, the engineer, the person who ran the register at the record store, or the dozens of other people involved -- does this for free. Nobody.

"Where is the price reduction that was promised? It never came."

What, have you been living in a vast network of caves? When CDs came out in the mid-80's they were $18. That's about $32 in today's dollars. If your theory were correct, we'd be paying $32 for our CDs now. The reality is that CD prices are in freefall -- the average price of a new CD is down to $13 and change.

Really, I can't believe you wrote that. Don't they teach people about inflation in high school nowadays? This isn't even Econ 1A stuff, guys -- you really should be smarter than that.

"Get a clue. Reduce your prices."

Irony!

"Good luck with your business."

I don't think they need it -- Apple recently sold their 50 millionth track on the iTMS and the online music biz is still growing.

Re:The curse of digitization

[skingers6894]

No I'm not confusing the act of duplication with original creation. My point was that there did use to be value in the media itself, now there is not.

A fair point about the inflation but my original point still stands. The Music industry chose the path of digitization because it offered a premium over vinyl. In fact initial CD prices were closer to $20! (See http://www.azoz.com/riaa/pr/CDValueStudy2002.pdf ) when Vinyl was about $8. I'm not sure I would call the CD in "freefall" but you are right that it has decreased in real terms. Probably to the point of what Vinyl would be today which at the time of CD release was around the $8 mark. In real terms that would be close to $13 by now.

The thing is the price of creating digital music has been in freefall too. In 1983 virtually no one could digitally create a professional album in their home. Now almost anyone can create a DDD master with a PC or Mac!

No, these guys saw a chance to charge more for digital format and they took it. They let the genie out of the bottle and now want the law to protect them from this shortsightedness. It would be like displaying your content in the sky and expecting people not to look up unless they had paid. It's digital, it's virtually in the air.

Yes, thank goodness for Apple who has shown them that there is a better way, notice that the geniuses at the record companies want to change the pricing model for greater profits now.

Re:The curse of digitization

[Jon_A_Mnemonic]

Ultimately, the artists have most of the power here. They just don't realize that, collectively, they could charge anything they want for their work, if they act as a unified whole (think: the Major League Baseball Players Union).

Let's say all artists get together and say that they are going to charge 5 bucks a song, and they hold the line on that, *and* do not let their masters go *anywhere* until they have presold 1 million copies. That is, until they have been paid 5 million bucks, nobody anywhere gets that song in anything higher than 64kbps mp3 format. Since at that point, the song only exists in one place in lossless format, the public (as a whole) then has two options: 1) forget the song and nobody ever gets it; or 2) fork over the bucks. That's it, those two choices. No going to a P2P site and downloading it, no getting a friend to buy it and making a copy, all those choices gone, out the window.

Now think if every artist did this. Society would then collectively have those same two options. Forget any new music, or start forking over the money, and the product isn't released in any quality format UNTIL the money's been paid. E.g., you pay for the goods, and you pay first BEFORE you get the goods (other than 64kbps mp3s). In the past it's been, release a product and see how many you sell. Digital duplication could force artists into a new model: don't release a product (other than low quality trial format) until there's enough guarnateed money to make it worthwhile to allow society to have access to it. It's not like society could argue that point -- the creators have the control.

Take it a step farther. Artists decide to only sell their new music (or books, paintings, whatever) to ONE customer, for, say, $100k per song (book, whatever), and those who buy it are not authorized to release it, duplicate it, sell it, just to listen to it (read it, view it, whatever) for their own pleasure. New music suddenly attains scarcity value, and the rich (being the only ones who can really afford new music) become the ones who support what is left of the music industry, by establishing personal collections. Much like wealthy patrons of the past supporting and contracting sculptors or painters, before copyrights existed, for personal works. In this case, the public as a whole is left out of the picture entirely, except for the wealthy elite, who have their own personal private collections which they might trade among themselves. And really, once they've paid that much for something, why would they *want* to lower its value by reducing its scarcity? Rich people like rare stuff. If all musicians wanted to act cohesively, they could simply revert back to the ways of old, and have the wealthy of society be the benefactors, and sole beneficiaries of their work. Again, the public would have no choice in this matter.

If the artists act as a cohesive collective whole (which may not and probably will not ever happen, however possible it is), then really nobody has power equal to theirs, in terms of control over their products. Not the RIAA, not the public, not anybody. He who can destroy a thing has complete power over that thing, and when an artistic item exists in only one form (e.g. before it is digitally mass duplicated), it is the artist who created it who has that ultimate power.

If artists become so beleagured due to digitization and mass duplication of their works, they might just become such a cohesive whole, at which time they can decide their own destiny, regardless of what the RIAA or the general public thinks or wants. It would be interesting to see it get to the point where that happens. Unfortunately, I'm not one of the wealthy, so I might have to make due with stuff that's already available, and nothing new, but I'd still have the ability to *become* one of the wealthy benefactors/beneficiaries at some point and then partake in new books/songs/whatevers, and trade with other members of the wealthy elite.

Re:WHY????

[Jaime2]

Some of what you have said is true. For example, WiFi leeching will deprive your neighbor of available bandwidth and bypassing your electric meter will put more load on the power company's generator but give them no revenue. But the others are infractions other than stealing. The unemployment and insurance examples were fraud. With fraud you go to jail for lying, not for taking.

However, getting free cable and free music is another form of crime. It is copyright infringement. It is a system put in place to make sure that the business of creating non-physical property will continue to be a viable business. Laws are created with that in mind and only that. For example, if you rip the next Harry Potter book to PDF and sell it on the Internet, you are guilty of copyright infringement. However, if you rip The Great Gatsby and sell it on the Internet, you are not doing anything illegal. If it was cut and dried theft, why isn't the second illegal? If you want to get really weird, the US is working on agreements where a person can copy something in Germany that was produced in the UK, sell it to someone in China and be extradited to the US for a crime. It seems that shortly, you may have to follow the copyright laws of hundreds of nations simultaneously.

The way you seem to think this country works is that a bunch of smart guys make laws and we follow them. Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Our laws are made by a feedback system designed to make sure the people get what they want. Some people are artists, some are music execs, and some are neither. When the people think the laws are tipping too far in one direction, we have a few choices. One, we can vote. However, you only get to vote for four nationally influential positions (President, your two Senators and your Representative). Also, sometimes there is not a clear cut good choice or you win on some issues and not others. So, voting isn't a perfect system. If things get out of hand, we can lodge some type of protest. The only way to directly get a law changed is in court. So, you have to break a law that you believe is unfair and defend yourself until you're blue in the face. Really, that is our responsibility as citizens. However, don't do it on a whim or you'll end up in jail pretty quickly.

Those who are going to court against the RIAA are essentially soldiers in a campaign to put a little more sense in intellectual property law. They are brave souls risking very high stakes. Every time they lose, it's like taking a bullet for their cause. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would be proud of them. Those taking the settlements are draft-dodging to Canada. If I were sent a letter from the RIAA, I'd probably settle. But that's because I'm generally a play-it-safe kind of guy.

So please, get off your high horse and realize that these are real issues and that American law is always being adjusted. Also realize that CDs cost what they do because of a massive price-fixing system that is being protected with our own court system. With the Internet, the middle man really isn't that useful. Instead of making themselves useful in a new economy, the RIAA's members are trying to scare the new economy out of existence.

Think about this -- if there were a law on the books that 30% of the country regularly broke, would you think that the country was suddenly tranformed into lawlessness, or would you think that the law simply doesn't fit the way we live? If it doesn't fit the way we live, why is it our law?

NO the girl can't be sued.

[infonography]

that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem implies that neither can the Girl as the child's GAL is her mother, and it would be a loop.

RIAA sues girl, GAL is mother, mother has immunity due to Dismissed with prejudice. Lawsuit against the girl is a defacto lawsuit against the mother. The Judge chopped that one off with an axe. There was much gnashing of teeth at RIAA HQ.

Worse yet, since the kid is under 18 they can't wait it out. Actions under the age of 18 are except in certain extreme circumstances, deleted at age 18.

Re:YES the girl can't be sued.

[HardCase]

You may want to read the judge's ruling. He clearly states that the RIAA can certainly sue the daughter. Also, the guardian ad litem is not necessarily the mother - the court appoints that person - but even if she is appointed by the court, it doesn't matter that her case was dismissed. Mom's not the one being sued.

-h-

Re:First intelligent thing a court has done to RIA

[jessecurry]

That is a lot of waffling, huh? It's a strange situation, though; both sides are right... to a point. I know that people aren't going to download the songs that they don't want, but taking just the songs that you like from an album without paying for them is somewhat analogous to walking into a grocery store, grabbing a box of popsicles, taking only those flavors that you enjoy out, and leaving without paying for them. Sure, the manufacturer should've made a box that had only those flavors that you enjoy, or at least offer to sell them individually, but they didn't. Then again, when downloading music there is no "real" loss; it's not like with the popsicles where your theft actually creates a product that can't be sold.

With both sides being partially correct the major problem comes in that neither side is willing to give a little up. Now that there are avenues from which to purchase individual songs(ITunes Music store, et al) there is no reason to still be pirating music, but people are still downloading without paying. The original defense for the pirating of music was that the content was lacking, that the albums only contained one or two good songs, that we'd pay for the songs that we like. If this were really the case, no one would be pirating music any more, but people still are.
As I said before, it's a really strange situation; from the outside one can see the merits of both side's arguments, but once you align yourself with either side you become almost blind.

Street Justice

[0x0000]

Well, since you would be a criminal, you might not be able to draw welfare (actually, is there still any such things as welfare? I thought the neo-cons put an end to that?).

No, I think that since the RIAA are demanding the criminalization of file sharing behavior, the file sharers should oblige them - deal with the RIAA in terms they can understand: Gang fo thugz to gang of thugz.

E.g. Form an IP Theft Crime Syndicate and respond to each lawsuit with a couple drive-bys at some RIAA member corporate offices. There are more of you than there are of them, and they are highly visible wiht a lot to lose - right out there in the open. Vulnerable.

For the financially disadvantaged (those who can't just dash out and buy a tech 9 or mac 10 or whatever they're called - toss a couple of gasoline bombs thru their plate glass (wait til everyone has gone home if you're squeamish about offing the bastards - but a more useless bunch of dickheads I really have trouble imagining) - show them what "losses" are really all about...

And speaking of fininancially disadvantaged, hasn't anyone noticed that the RIAA/MPAA thugs only pick on middle-to-low income citizens? They seem very careful to avoid going after anyone who has the real financial oomph to give them a real legal fight. This Michigan decision is not too bad, but the war is far from over, and the people are losing.

The RIAA/MPAA will no more be stopped by legal means than any other group of entrenched gangsters.

If the courts and law enforcement won't stand up for the citizens' rights, the citizens have to do it themselves.

This girl's mother could obviously afford a lawyer, and was willing to take the chance - what about all those other one-paycheck-from-the-streets victims who are having to balance next a paying couple months rent in protection money to the RIAA thugs against the possility that if they give a similar amount of money to lawyer they *might* not get stuck with an even larger fine?

I figure if the RIAA/MPAA thugs had their families threatened in the same way - to the same degree - they are threatening the families of their victims they might at least begin to understand what's at stake.

Regardless of what protestations and representations the RIAA/MPAA thugs might make, file sharing as we know it is not illegal. The fact that they have purchased legislattion supporting the pretense of its illegality doesn't change that. To those victims without sufficient funds to purchase legislation to protect themselves from unjust action under the color of Law, force becomes the only possible response.

It's a rigged system. It's ime to shut it down and start over.

Re:No, that section applies to securities judgment

[Shakrai]

Thanks to BAPCA I'm an ex "debt relief agent" :p, but the provision you quote only applies to judgments for securities fraud. This stems from the S&L crash days. Butfor the exceptions noted one post above, judgments can in fact be discharged.

Very informative! I found it very hard to fathom that normal civil judgments couldn't be dischargeable. What would be the point of even having Bankruptcy laws then?

Until Oct 17th, and then all the new shit hits the fan.

I don't even think the BAPCA would change this. It doesn't modify Chapter 7 too much -- just makes it a little bit harder to qualify for one. In this case I think a 13 year old girl with no income wouldn't have a hard time qualifying.

The means test part of BAPCA doesn't really do anything anyway. If you make less then the median income in your state you are automatically assumed to be able to file Chapter 7. If you make more then that you need to justify your expenses. This was all going on anyway -- most Trustees would convert your case to a Chapter 13 if you had so much disposable income anyway.

There's also some sections of the BAPCA that will provide a benefit to smart consumers. The way they calculate your wages for the means test (six month average) would give an advantage to somebody who was unemployed and recently returned to work. Factor in the fact that secured debts always take priority (think: your house) and the credit card companies still wind up getting screwed for the most part.

The bad parts (from the consumer perspective anyway) of BAPCA are the parts that place more liability on your lawyer -- which means he is going to have to charge you more money for your case and there will doubtless be more paperwork. There's also the requirement for debt counseling -- which I find rather odd since most debt counseling agencies work for the credit card companies. In any case the bottom line is that it will cost more to file bankruptcy under the new laws -- but the end result for most people will be the same.

Going really OT here I would say that the real solution to the perceived bankruptcy problem (like the credit card companies are really hurting that badly) would be for the credit industry to stop issuing as much credit and encouraging the culture of living beyond your means that has invaded this country on every level (look at the Federal budget). As it stands right now they will continue to issue you credit until you owe so much money that you'll be paying the interest for the rest of your life. It's legalized loan sharking and that's the real source of the problem.

But that's just my humble opinion.