Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."
Hmm... they want to be able to meet with a ten-year-old girl in person. Now I may have been around the seedier sides of the internet a bit too much, but does that sound a little disturbing to you?
I'm always amazed that it's even possible to prosecute children in the USA at all. In Germany, for example, the age at which you start to have a limited legal liability for your actions is 14; if you're 13 or younger, you can't be prosecuted for anything you do, period. (Of course, your *parents* might, and you might end up in foster care or so, too, but you can't get put on trial or sent to prison or so yourself.) I'm not sure about other nations, but I imagine that it's similar elsewhere, too.
(And it makes sense, too: when someone isn't old enough to vote, drive a car, drink a beer, smoke a cigarette or have sex with their girl-/boyfriend, why should they be old enough to be put on trial?)
butter the donkey
Does anyone NOT wonder when such outrageous stories come up? I for one do not!
This is exactly what RIAA wants, to instil a belief that they are evil and they will sue anyone, and they will win, because they are right. That they didn't care when it was granny or a child. PR does the later part of the job.
There is only one way to fight this: in court we win.
Or "democracy" but somehow I have lost faith in it.
Okay, first off, let us stop pretending the RIAA cares about it's image - it doesn't. For their current strategy - it's actually beneficial to be despised, hopefully feared. It's the front man for several big music companies and as long as their names (Sony, BMG, etc) are out of the headlines, it is doing its job.
I just wonder if it will ever backfire - in that the Politicians stand up to them. But under what circumstances? Enough bad publicity? Who haven't they paid off? I'm cynical enough to believe it isn't happening. No matter what regime - political parties themselves are machines of corruption. Always have been, always will be.
CD sales are down, but that could be due to people buying the single digital tracks they want instead of entire albums. Other than that, the demograhic with the time and money to waste on music - teens and 20 somethings - just don't care. Now, I'm talking about your typical person there - not all of them. The reason is the majority of people like to believe they will never get caught. Like speeding tickets.
Artists - this will probably be the only weak point but that means they jump from one master to another, like iTunes. Still, some have rocked the boat, I hope others join in.
I believe nothing will change for a long time though I hope otherwise. I won't shed tears when the racket dies, but don't forsee the internet killing them off for a good long while.
What I find strange about the whole music marked situation is that despite the evilness of the RIAA, despite the high CD prices, despite the fact that there is still no user friendly way to buy music cheap and effective without getting locked in to some vendor and/or deprived of even the most minimal rights -- despite all this, people are NOT turning to alternatives. There is practically no significant market that would show how to make it better. There is no significant number of users who would simply ignore the RIAA and go for artists who directly sell their music or other channels. Except piracy.
In my opinion that says more about the customers than about the RIAA. If people are too dumb to exploit the weakness of the traditional music market -- both as customers or as startup companies -- they deserve exactly this RIAA.
That is not much different from people in a democracy deserving their Bush or Berlusconi. I never quite understand why all the people then go and blame Bush or Berlusconi instead of the idiots who voted for them.
So -- why blame the RIAA instead of all the people who keep them in power by STILL buying their stuff and abide by their rules?
I do agree with you on the fascistiod charges, but the rest of the worls were no better in past times. For instance, what about those guys that gave fascism its name: Italia in the 1920-1930, but sadly that ideology has spread to other parts of the world, or people have independently invented their own form. It is hard to tell wether the US has derived their fascim from the Italian/German version (influences in the 1930 that have not been eradicated) or that this is a more recent invention that just emulates it. Given the time between them, it hardly matters.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Everyone over 10 has realized that the RIAA is a decaying corpse and (I sincerely believe) would boycott them completely if it were made easy.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Frankly, just the fact that the RIAA hired some company to crack into her computer should be enough to get this case thrown out and charges filed for illegal wiretapping on the RIAA and their paid crackers. Once the crackers had access there is no way to prove they did not do the downloading themselves. Her ISP should file for theft of services too, after all the cracker used the defendant's connection to download their software.
The above of course is just from a relatively ignorant AC, any network security professionals here care to add some facts or ideas? Just in case the defendant's technical advisor(s) happens to read here, heck Ray might even find it fun reading even if he sees nothing new to him in it.
At the risk of drifting off-topic, there is a reason for the United States' lack of participation in international agreements of this sort, and the reason is not (usually) a casual indifference to human rights. It has to do with the autonomous legal systems of the individual states, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. So even if the U.S. were to sign a (perfectly reasonable) treaty restricting how its courts could operate, one could argue that the federal government lacks the authority to tell the state courts how to operate.
The counter-argument is that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to sign treaties and that should trump the state courts' sovereignty in certain situations. However neither argument is rock-solid; both sides have a point. So the way things usually pan out is that Congress doesn't ratify the treaties because the Congresspersons (who nominally represent the interests of their states, remember) don't want to sign anything that imposes a burden of treaty compliance on the state courts.
As far as I know this issue has never been put to test in the U.S. Supreme Court, so the status quo is that no one really knows how far the federal government can go in telling state courts how to operate.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I would not sign on to that either. In other words it says, "And if people decide that they don't like where the UN is going, tough shit, your rights and freedoms mean nothing in that case."
Everyone is rallying against RIAA as a whole, but there is only a single RIAA member behind this lawsuit: Warner Music Group, which owns Atlantic Records.
Warner is the very same company that gave the children of late Mr Scantlebury 60 days to grieve before they would be sued. (Warner v. Scantlebury) They only dropped the suit after it got media attention.
Warner also owns Elektra Records that is suing a woman with multiple sclerosis. (Elektra v. Schwartz) MS is a disorder that can worsen rapidly if the sufferer is put under stress.
And, apparently it did: In a March 2 letter to the judge, her lawyer basically writes that she is now so sick that she can no longer defend herself. Guilty or not, Warner Music has shortened her life just the same. I guess "compassion" is a foreign concept to them.
what has the mothers disability or income got to do witht he rights and wrongs of the story? Either they are guilty or not. disabled people can be guilty too. This is the worst example of tragic slashdot riaa bashing ive seen in a while.
grow up.
Yeah, because 10 year olds and their disabled parents on social security really deserve to be traumatized and possibly have their lives destroyed *for downloading a few friggin' tunes*. And yet you talk about ethics.
I sincerely hope you get busted and send to jail for jaywalking, copying your CD's to listen them in your car or accidentally downloading copyrighted material some day.
In the midst of all the outrage over the RIAA's choice to drag a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand, I think we're overlooking the extent to which the legal system is working to the benefit of the defense (the girl's mother, Ms. Andersen).
The defense is entitled to a trial by jury. The defendant is also counter-suing claiming (among other things) that the RIAA's case is based on evidence that was obtained through unlawful computer intrusion.
It gets better: in the U.S. we have a concept called "punitive damages," which means the court can award additional damages (money) if the party who was in the wrong behaved "outrageously." When I sat on a jury and the subject of punitive damages came up (in Middlesex County Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts), the judge said to consider punitive damages separately, and that the amount should be chosen large enough to deter future outrageous behavior. That is, when it comes to punitive damages, the amount of award is set by how much of a financial penalty would really, really hurt. :-)
So the RIAA is insisting on hauling a 10-year-old girl onto the witness stand to testify against her own disabled mother. How stupid can they get? I doubt that will play well with a jury. Also, if the RIAA loses their case, they're subject to punitive damages for committing computer crimes in order to obtain their evidence.
Yes, it's rotten that the RIAA is abusing its right to force the 10-year-old to take the stand, but the defense is making full use of its own rights in this case. If you read the list of complaints Ms. Andersen is making in retaliation, it sure looks as if the RIAA has a lot more to lose in this case than it stands to gain.
IANAL but I can't imagine why the RIAA's attorneys would take the dire risk of bullying a ten-year-old in a jury trial.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Lets stop opening with "RIAA" -- hardly anyone outside of /. seems to have any clue who that really is. Instead, name the actual RIAA members that are responsible, and list a few of their high-profile artists. People should know who to boycott if they're outraged. When "average joe" sees a story about the RIAA suing a kid, he thinks "those bastards!" and then he picks up a CD at the FYE in the mall. To "average joe", there's little connection. Make the title something like "Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old". In the article, clearly explain that Atlantic Records, the label representing artists like "Matchbox Twenty" (list a few more from their website), in conjunction with their RIAA partners is engaged in a lawsuit against a 10-yr old girl. Explain that by purchasing music by these artists, one is supporting this kind of behavior, even though the artists themselves may not direct the actions. Encourage the artists to speak out against their label and its dubious tactics, suspect methods, and arguably coercive behavior. Help "average joe" understand what continued support of these labels through their artists enables. Don't let them wear one face in the mall and a different one in the courtroom. Let the artists feel the negative side of having the RIAA represent them. Maybe some day in the future artists will stand up and reject the RIAA because its tactics hurt their image. Maybe some day the RIAA labels will have trouble signing new artists because association with the RIAA will hurt their career prospects. That day will never come if people don't associate the artists with the behavior of the RIAA.
And this is what happens when you sue people at random. You are likely to get grandmothers, little girls and even dead people. None of which is good press at all. Worse, it is only a matter of time before the RIAA picks on the wrong guy, like some psycho who will find one of their offices or affiliated law firms, march in with a rifle and have at it. Or worse.
Given their "win" record so far, which is mostly people who have settled, they are obviously not making any money compared to the cost of sending lawyers to every corner of the US to sue people at random. If I were a shareholder for the companies who fund and back the RIAA, I would be wondering why they are gambling with my money. Eventually they are going to come up snake eyes and there will be a big incident. And then they may start finding it hard to find lawyers willing to take on random cases for fear they will target the next nut.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
It's really 4 big record companies, Universal, Warner, SONY, and EMI, who are doing this whole RIAA thing.
I have absolutely no conceptual problem with your idea.
Off the top of my head, some logistical problems present themselves to me:
-there are also a number of other plaintiffs who are labels owned by those 4,
-oftentimes the list would include 6,7,8, or more plaintiffs,
-Slashdot allows very little space for headlines
-the list would make boring reading to most.
But you make a very valid point. I should try to make sure that people do know which labels are behind each case, so they can know which labels not to buy from. And which artists need to fight on behalf of their fans.
Perhaps the answer is to name the first one in the headline. And to provide a list of labels at the end of each story.
Hmmmm.... you've really given me something to think about. Thanks.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.
Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.
And if you know of any recording artists on those labels, write to them and let them know what is going on.
Thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Still trying to come to grips with this question, the following just occurred to me...
When I was young, there was a fair grounds not far from where I lived. It wasn't a complete stadium, but it had a full set of bleachers set up and a fence around it. Occasionally there were concerts where you had to pay to get in the gate. Sometimes my friends and I would go and listen outside the fence. Though we couldn't see, and lacked the comfortable seating, we either couldn't afford the entrance fee, or didn't feel it was worth the expenditure. I am absolutely certain that nobody would ever dream of accusing us of 'stealing' music as we listened outside the fence.
Times have changed. Today, with modern technology, we can have a telepresence at a performance in much the same way. A performance can be heard around the world without paying for it thanks to the digital media and the internet. Perhaps for some this is no different than me listening outside the fence? If you pay the entry fee, you get the CD in the jewel case and the inset with the words to the songs, but if you can't afford it or consider it not worth the price, and least you can hear the music while listening outside the fence as a telespectator.
COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) was overturned, not COPPA (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act).
And neither should be confused with the Copa, Copacabana, the hottest spot north of Havana...
I don't get it though, there has to be another side to this. ... Is there anything we're not being told?
What's the worst thing you could be told? That the mom is a dirty bad pirate, someone who had the nerve to download gangsta rap? Would that justify any of this? I don't think so. Don't stick your head in the sand!
What you are left with is the slimy reign of terror that Rogers and Beckerman describe. Thousands of people have been threatened this way. They face the loss of all their possesions, livelihoods and jailtime. Many if not all are innocent. They turn to next of kin when one victim escapes to promote further terror: we will get your kids next! The very tactic proves they don't know who really did what they accuse. It's ugly because extortion is always that way. It's horrifying because huge companies should not act like gangsters. The reality is so horrible that people want to reject it outright rather than believe they live in such an ugly and threatening world. That fearful denial is one of the greatest assets of any tyranny.
The publishers behind these suits are not really interested in infringement, they want to control the internet itself and shut down all possible competition. The RIAA is a shell organization for the incumbent media companies, publishers, broadcasters and others dinosaurs that want to maintain their current monoply position. They want you to be afraid to share and they dream of charging you for every trivial enjoyment of your own culture. These lawsuits lay bare the true nature of non free publishing, perpetual copyrights, monoploy broadcasting and owned culture.
It is time to make copyright reasonable again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That ended five years ago:
Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty. Atkins v. Virgina,Atkins v. Virginia
Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped.
Of the 44 mentally retarded in the U.S. executed since 1976, nine were in Texas, five in Virgina, only four were executed in states outside the southern Confederacy in the American Civil War.
Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States
There have been 387 executions in Texas since December 1982. The youngest was 24 in 1985. 17 when he killed a clerk for a six-pack of beer in a convenience-store robbery. There has been almost nothing the like of that since. Executed Offenders
Someone could take advantage of the madness of the RIAA. First issue a press release that if elected, you will support the review of the copyright laws. Then watch closely for the the RIAA/MPAA to donate money to your opponent. Then come out swinging and don't stop: "My opponent takes money from people who want to put you (or your kids) in jail for moving songs from their CDs to their iPods." "My opponent takes money from organizations who sue 10-year-olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars!".
Be a real pit bull. Have many copies of the affidavits, etc... ready to hand out at press meetings and political rallies. Keep on message: Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! (don't forget to get those 18+ year olds registered to vote!)Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers! Sue the children! Imprison the teenagers!
People really do hate the RIAA when the learn what this organization is actually doing. You have a good chance of winning the election by taking the anti-RIAA stand instead of just blindly supporting them.
I wonder where Dateline is during all of this? I mean Dateline likes going after predators, and the RIAA is one due to their actions. You would think Dateline would be all over a story like this one.
Do you feel it's fair to "teach someone early on not to steal" by cutting off their hands? How about torture? Putting a 10 year old child in front of a judge, jury and the world is not only extreme, I can't imagine what it will do to this poor child emotionally and psychologically. This is reminiscent of the Middle Ages...
I cannot conceive of any "reasonable" modification of copyright law that could pertain to this, however. Can you clarify?
You will have to ask my favorite copyright lawyer, Lawrence Lessing for real advice. I don't mind sharing what I think because the law is supposed to reflect the moral sense of the governed. Right now, it reflects the best interests of a few powerful companies and that needs to change. The large list of changes required shows just how far into negative territory things have sunk.
In short, my opinion is that:
Copyright is a created right that's supposed to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment. The creation clause of the US constitution was reasonable at the time and it's spirit offers good guidance today. Copyright is supposed to be temporary and government is not supposed to be a burden or anti-competitive tool. Works of merit should become public domain while they are still current and valuable to society. With electronic publication, it may be that the best way to encourage the spread of knowledge and entertainment is to eliminate copyright.
Penalties for any violation are supposed to be proportional to the offense. Few members of the public believe that someone should lose their house and livelyhood because they shared their music and movie collection. Indeed, most people believe in public libraries and that sharing is good. Decades of industry propaganda have not and will not convince people that copyright violation is the moral equivalent of theft and murder, nor has it convince them that jailtime and $250,000 penalties are justified where physical equivalents carry no such penalty.
As the jib jab fiasco proves, copyright should not be nebulous. It is in the public interest to establish a database of copyrighted material and it's owners. Right now, it's difficult to share because the presumption is that everything is owned and the copyright owners say that you can't.
Finally, recorded history needs to be liberated. It is outrageous that so much of the world's recorded history is owned by so few companies. A copyright database won't really facilitate use and reuse of commercial works if there's only one owner who can charge outrageous fees. Copyright extensions have robbed the public of what they rightly expected to own when the works were created. The owners have used the profits to strengthen their position and rob the public further. The DMCA must be abolished and digital restrictions should be abandoned because they extend copyright beyond the law in a way that deserves no public protection.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.