RIAA Going After a 10-Year-Old Girl 510
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)."
Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA always suprise me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
(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?)
These stories... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
RIAA will keep on going (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Think of the children (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:These stories... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you have lost faith in yourself. I think that's what they're after.
Always remeber faith and religion are not the same thing.
Soko
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
They're pretty dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't get that in virtually anyone's eyes, a 7 year old is an innocent. They really can't do stuff wrong.
And most decent human beings will come to the aid of a 7 year old when they're being attacked by a big bully.
The record companies should have just dropped this with a "warning letter" and moved on. They're really idiots.
Strange ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
give it a rest (Score:1, Insightful)
grow up.
Re:Strange ... (Score:2, Insightful)
The system itself is broken - there is no free market where you could choose another vendor - so what we're seing is a big civil disobedience movement. Mostly unconcious, but that's what it is.
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Prosecuting children (Score:3, Insightful)
its why a mentally handicapped adult can't be sentenced to death(though a recent ruling may have change this, I'm a bit behind now that I'm abroad).
btw, I'm using minor to distinguish it from child since most people do not call a 17 year old a child any more and using the word child blurs what the law actually says.
Re:Strange ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not see why or how the system would prevent artists from selling their music through other channels, or prevent investors from creating an alternative infrastructure for marketing and selling music. Or prevent customers from using those alternatives.
My suspicion is that people just take the stolen music and run and any alternative that would require people to buy instead of steal music would not be that much more attractive than the traditional system.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:3, Insightful)
Untrue. In England and Wales*, you can be prosecuted if you are 10 years old, or older, provided it can be shown that you knew what you were doing was seriously wrong. Obviously that wouldn't apply here - nobody would put copyright infringement in the "serously wrong" category - but as has already been pointed out, this isn't a prosecution in any event. From the age of 14 there is no need to show that the defendant knew what they'd done to be seriously wrong.
* I believe a LOWER age limit applies in Scotland, but could be wrong about that.
Re:International treaties (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is hardly unique in having a federal system. That's no real excuse.
Aritcle 29, Clause 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:1, Insightful)
Bankruptcy doesn't clear court rulings (i.e. imaginary debts) and I suspect that they would also be inherited when you die (i.e. if the RIAA gets a $10M settlement against you, your descendents for the next 200 years will be paying it off).
So, again, a year in jail or 'just' a financial ruling from a civil court?
Re:Think of the children (Score:1, Insightful)
Not yet, but the "Christian" Right are working on it. We're already executing people with mental retardation. Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped. They are also fond of displays of the 10 Commandments in their courtrooms. You seeing a pattern here?
Just as long as you don't kill them before they're born, anything goes.
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA will keep on going (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
COPPA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aritcle 29, Clause 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:International treaties (Score:3, Insightful)
There would be little point in having a federal government if it didn't have the power under some set of circumstances to tell the individual states that they will do as they are damn well told.
Re:These stories... (Score:2, Insightful)
The girl was 7 fucking years old at the time she was ALLEDGED to have downloaded the music. How the hell do you expect a 7 year old to understand the laws concerning copyright infringement?
So what if she's on social security (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So what if she's on social security (Score:3, Insightful)
However it is curious that, of the hundreds (and probably thousands) of cases of copyright infringement the RIAA is probably aware of, this is one of the cases they choose to pursue.
Re:International treaties (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong; I don't support the state-sovereignty argument myself. I'm just trying to make the point that there are conflicting legal principles involved, and that U.S. voters are somewhat divided on whether local or international standards should take priority. That is, the reason the U.S. hesitates to commit to international treaties such as the convention on human rights cannot be entirely attributed to simple hypocrisy. Because of the conflicting interests of state and federal governments, there's a lack of political will to see the treaties ratified.
Now, what's really inexcusable in my opinion is that on one hand my government can't commit to signing and ratifying the treaty, and on the other hand it seldom hesitates to condemn other countries' human-right records. They should put up or shut up.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:3, Insightful)
Absentee parents and a lack of discipline will induce this kind of behaviour, and having the cops solve it is just a cop-out. Then turning around and trying to blame the cops for mis-handling it... well, I have nothing to say.
Re:They're pretty dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely that kitten deserved to die!
So, how did you stop the boy? Did you beat the crap out of him? Or did you ask him how he thought the kitten must feel as the wrench penetrated its skull?
Title it 'Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old' (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait till they finally sue a real nutcase (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:1, Insightful)
My point is that some kids recognize and some kids don't recognize the "evil" in tehft and physical damage, but no kid 7 years old REALLY understands why copyright violation is "evil". Hell, there are adults LIKE MYSELF that can't quite figure out some of these issues beyond the fact that "the law says so" (similar to "mom said so"). We simply recognize the consequences a bit better.
Apart from that minor detail that small kids can't recognize copyright infringement as truly being "bad", I agree with your post. It shouldn't ever be more than a slap on the wrist.
Re:Title it 'Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Ol (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Title it 'Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Ol (Score: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.
Why do people pirate music? (Score:3, 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.
Re:Serves them right (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children (Score:2, Insightful)
You're an idiot if you think this has anything to do with the Christian Right, and your bias shows. GWB may be the face of executions for the misrepresented in this country, and many people are Christian, but those prosecuting teens or less are supported mainly by those who favor law and order, irrespective of their party or religious affiliation. YOU are just selecting viewpoints that fit your political or anti-religious viewpoint. You don't want to know how many new "criminal" laws are introduced by liberals, much like most Dems refuse to believe the DMCA was passed under Clinton and focus only on the Republican Congress at the time. Hell, my state had a budget shortage, raised taxes, went after businesses, tries to reduce population flight away from the state, has high property taxes, and is increasing their police force instead of economic incentives, all under a Democrat for a governor.
Anyways, idiot, because you believe in the classification, the party, the group dynamic that GWB has you playing more so than ever; you're a SUCKER for the game GWB put forward pitting people against each other, making them impotent to the larger plan, and this plan has bee in place for, what, 5 years now and YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT. You want to fight against something, fight against stupidly long prison terms, exchanging economic aid for larger police forces, stupid laws that makes yelling pissy shit a "terrorist threat." You'll find a hell of a lot of more moderate Republicans like myself watching to see what you do and how you act, so labeling us "Christian Right" without differentiation in your views simply alienates us, much like Bush has alienated moderate Dems completely (case in point, this is why the Dems finally have a clue, seeing that Obama is getting support versus Hillary Clinton).
After all, if you attack people's beliefs all in stereotype, you are just the small GWB version of the anti-Christian coalition. Wake up--you don't win people by playing the polarizing game, but by finding the common ground and showing them the way.
btw, the youngest to possibly face murder on adult charges was 11-12 years old. Unsure if he was prosecuted as such through. Case was in Minnesota I think.
Re:RIAA will keep on going (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point I was not to be born for just short of another seven years. Of the top ten I recognize the titles and know the songs of seven of them, own several of them and I am not a big music fan. I had a look at the chart for five years ago this week, and I recognized one song, 12 months ago I recognized the names of some of the artists, the songs I have no idea. Not exactly exactly scientific, but does sort of illustrate the point that modern music is rubbish. In fact to call much of it music is a bad joke.
My goodness, mod parent as flamebait please! (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your plug about the 10 Commandments, they're a useful moral code for running a country. Why people would have problems with something that says murdering other people is bad, or that you should love your neighbor as yourself, is beyond me. If our country followed even half of them we'd be far better off. Divorce? You just made your child's future a very, very painful one. Covetting someone else's newest and greatest toy? Since when did this make you happier? But I guess it would be understandable that people who lie to promote an agenda (see first paragraph about you) might not think murder is bad, and might not be interested in being nice to their neighbor-- they might be looking to stir up anger and disent for some odd reason. Keyboard courage for the win yes? Anyhow, likely your problem with the 10 Commandments being in the courtroom lies with the "Love the Lord your God" clause and the "Have no other Gods before me"? You know I've always wondered how many people would object to displaying something from the Koran in a courtroom. Would they post trolls about how the Muslims execute mentally retarted people (we could mention that they execute perfectly normal people and are willing to blow themselves up to do it; yes the Koran condones this; go read it yourself if you think otherwise)? Or how they're all in a giant conspiracy (your wording references these events as such) to kill the retards and post Korans in the US courtroom? Probably not, which is why I have a problem with you doing so over only the 10 Commandments and the "'Christian' Right".
Parent should have been modded troll or flamebait faster than you can say "biased". Why does Slashdot put up with this kind of garbage? Not to mention mod it insightful.
There was once a time when you could have a rational, straight discussion on Slashdot.
where is Dateline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does someone being ten years old or someone being disabled and on social security make their behavior any different?
Being 10 years old definitely makes your behavior different. Worse yet the girl was only 7 when the alleged infringement occurred. There is no way the girl even had any idea the implications of her behavior.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Reasonable Copyright. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [slashdot.org], 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.
Re:Reasonable Copyright. (Score:3, Insightful)
The current situation is a little different... 90% of our population are engaged in non-productive make-work projects. For example, a cashier is nothing but a watchdog... necessitated by the inherent flaws of capitalism but producing nothing. Most white collar work fits this category as well.
There is no need to pay for intellectual works. There is no need for incentive. If you don't want to do it, don't fucking do it, we don't care, someone else will, and they'll do it for the sheer joy of it.
Want to deal with the "keeping secrets" thing? Easy. Secrets and lies are offenses. Intentional and malicious secrets and lies are capital offenses.
Fixed.
Re:Teach them Stealing is WRONG early on (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a stickup, pure and simple, by conscienceless ghouls.
Re:Lots of factual problems here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firing off a lawsuit before even doing a simple age check, that just screams competence to me...
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, since when can you sue a 10 year old? Aren't there legal protections for children in that backwards little banana republic?