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)."

Comments

Disturbing anyone?

[micpp]

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?

Re:Disturbing anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is disturbing and the judge should make sure that everything possible is done to protect this child and make sure that the RIAA gets the bill for it after they lose the case. Let us see what measures might be necessary:

Guardian Ad Litem perhaps?

Child Protective Services?

Psychologists?

Each of the above could probably add others to the list, but really, why don't the judge just do as many others have done and have a semi-private chat with the girl after reading submissions from both sides and then making a decision on whether arguements should be heard on her testifying or if the RIAA should just take a flying leap. If either side brings in professional testimony as to the child's ability to testify it could take forever and add up to incredible sums of money.

If anyone reading here is associated with or knows someone associated with an Oregon law school, please make sure they know about this case as some free legal research and Friends of the Court filings might be beneficial to the young lady. Wouldn't hurt to let the highest possible elected officials and press to know they should follow the case as well.

Just in case it isn't obvious enough from my post, IANAL.

Re:Disturbing anyone?

[dunkelfalke]

well, normally such a question isn't even worth an answer. but in this case, i make an exception

no, he isn't right. the riaa at partly run by sony bmg, which is half japanese half german. while there are some jews in germany, they are pretty non-existent in japan. so his first claim is wrong.
there are kibbutz communities in israel, where jews actually do quite a lot of manual labour. so his second claims is wrong.
his other claims all base on these two wrong claims and thus are also wrong.

is your question answered now?

Prosecuting children

[asninn]

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?)

Re:Prosecuting children

[Carewolf]

It's in the international human rights convention (I think, or an extension dealing with childrens rights).

Of course USA is the only western country that hasn't signed the human rights convention.

Re:Prosecuting children

[rolfwind]

I have to disagree, some children know exactly what they are doing at a young age (talking about malicious acts here). That there are little consequences for them does not improve matters.

I agree that children under 14 should and can be prosecuted for certain crimes - albeit with a lighter sentence with a nod to maturity, maliciousness and other factors. Now, I am talking about murder, arson, etcetera with direct harm to other people.

Copyright Infringement is an abstract matter with a real but indefinite (but limited) financial harm involve. It should be accepted downloading music may have deprived the copyright holder of about $.99 for a single track or $15-20 for a CD. Let the punishment fit the crime - it should involve a slap on the wrist. It should not involve bankrupting parents or dragging them through endless court proceedings.

It should be accepted that by having the court involved that this sort of thing is costing society more than it is worth - that these cases should simply not be accepted. Go to small claims court to get back small claims. Do not claim 100K in fantasy damages to make one person the example to hold up to others. That is not justice.

That, imo, is a greater violence to the children. Just imagine some father or mother, having lost everything, taking it out on the children - physically or emotionally, after such an event. It doesn't even have to be intentional, just in the background. Or the knowledge that you caused your parents financial ruin growing up as a kid. The way this crap the RIAA pulls can destroy lives is criminal.

Re:Prosecuting children

[iminplaya]

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?

For the simple reason that there's money to be made. You're not looking for any moral basis, are you?

Re:Prosecuting children

[jrumney]

Of course USA is the only western country that hasn't signed the human rights convention.

The way you put that makes it sound like the US keeps good company with non-Western nations. Even that is not true. The only other country that hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is Somalia (the US did sign under Clinton, but Bush has failed to ratify almost every international treaty that Clinton signed up to). In Somalia's case, they don't have a government to sign it.

RIAA will keep on going

[rolfwind]

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.

Re:International treaties

[gravesb]

Actually, the Supreme Court addressed it in Missouri v. Holland, 252 US 416 (1920). Its pretty clear law that Congress can ratify a treaty, and it has the rule of law as long as it does not explicitly violate the Constitution, for instance by infringing on free speech. Infringing on States' rights are perfectly acceptable.

Warner Music Group

[IMustBeNewHere]

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.

Title it 'Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old'

[$pace6host]

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.

What's the worst thing you could be told?

[twitter]

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.

Political Opportunity here

[Simonetta]

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.