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."
RIAA beaten by 13 year old girl.
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
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
...I for one welcome our new bullshit-lawsuit-quashing overlords.
They shouldn't have let it go to the court.
But good news for everyone else.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.
My ZooLoo
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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."
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.
I like muppets.
Now if only we can get the judges to terminate with extreme prejudice these RIAA bullies...
... with a rendition of "I fought the RIAA and the law won."
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?
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Repeat after me:
/. should make a point of not linking to sites that are just that shitty. Maybe the site owners will get the point.
Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.
I really think
And when the hell is Firefox going to get functionality to block flash-based popups?
Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
...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.
the RIAA's strategy.
/.'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.
1. Entertainment mega-corps still win big because they strike fear into the hearts of consumers. The message is simple, "don't steal our music." The underlying assumptions that many
2. It looks to me like they lost on procedure, not so much on the theft issue. The woman's got to pay anyway and that works out great for the RIAA.
3. No one cares that they are going after minors. The US has a criminal courts system for them too. Again, the underlying assumptions about the control of the music are not even on the table.
I really don't see how anything positive comes out of this story.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
In a very short summary:
RIAA: this woman shared our files on p2p
MOM: no I did not, it was somebody else, maybe one of my children.
MOM: yes it was Brittany, not me.
RIAA: Ok, get the Dumb cow off the list
MOM: No, I want my legal costs paid.
Judge: nope, you should have turned in your kid sooner, so no money for you. But RIAA wants you off the list, so there you go, it has been decided.
Now what was so funny about that judgement?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
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
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.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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."
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.
"The Internet is made of cats."
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.