by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday April 26 2007, @12:07PM (#18887135)
If she doesn't allow her daughter to give a deposition, she'll face another charge but if she exposes her daughter to lawyers, she'll definitely face negligence charges!
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday April 26 2007, @12:43PM (#18887731)
I just read some sad news at the Register. Anonymous Coward, long-time Slashdot poster, has passed away at the tender age of 15 from RSI. He was undoubtedly the most prolific poster on Slashdot by a wide margin, a record which will no doubt live on into eternity. Even if you didn't appreciate his endless posts, flames, frist prosts and wide range of viewpoints, there's no denying his contributions to the Slashdot comment sections. Truly an internet icon.
If you don't have more indy bands, go get their stuff!! Pay artists directly! Why support RIAA by buying their music, when they are using YOUR MONEY in a way that is morally wrong?
Well that's the point, isn't it. How much of a failure do you call it, when in a commodity market you create a movement of customers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods?
As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's
computer without her consent. Is this not a criminal offense? Has a criminal
complaint been brought?
As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent.
That's what Andersen's lawyer alleges, but I can't find anywhere that the RIAA says so. My understanding is that the RIAA simply tracks IP addresses and then sues whoever was using the address at that time. It was the Settlement Support Center that made it look like they had more than that. Their arm twisting tactics certainly made it sound like the RIAA had broken into Ms. Andersen's computer. But, if they had done that, they would have known she wasn't downloading any files.
What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
As part of this campaign, these record companies (...) retained MediaSentry to illegally investigate and purportedly invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against perhaps 30,000 citizens. ... Since February 2005, Tanya Andersen has been trying to get the record companies to do one thing: look at her home computer so that t
Claiming that sniffing around the P2P network by a non-legit peer is somehow an action that requires consent... I'm not buying it. Especially not the concept that it's illegal pretexting.
Further, if Ms. Andersen never had Kazaa installed, how could MediaSentry have trespassed upon her computer?
Or is there some fine legal point which allows one to sue for something that (according to Ms Andersen) could never hav
Really. I can accept making a 10 year old testify as a witness in a murder case, to prevent the killer from striking again. But in a civil copyright case, in which she, as a minor, is not even accountable? Give me a break! The lawyers and executives involved should be charged with attempted harm to a minor.
There's nothing special about children that prevents people from having them testify in legal proceedings. So long as they, like anyone else, are able to understand that they need to tell the truth, they can testify. Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.
Also, minors can be found liable for copyright infringement. There's nothing special about them in that regard either.
How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?
As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.
As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.
Actually one very big one. Copyright, where in the parents have no legal requirement to pay. All that has to be done is the copies destroyed and thats it. The RIAA redefined that one due to "digital rights" though.
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote?
Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!
"So long as they, like anyone else, are able to understand that they need to tell the truth, they can testify. " yeah.. sadly minors often consider telling someone what they think they want to hear is the same as truth.
Putting a minor on a stand has to be looked at very carefully because of many issues such as reliability, the idea of consequences can be foriegn, and many other issues.
Finally, a minor should not be tried for copyright infringement, except under certian exception, determined on a case by case
I'm not sure the GP poster was arguing about the legal status, but rather the ethical one.
On the one hand, someone too young to understand that something is wrong and the negative consequences of doing it clearly should not be punished for their actions. On the other hand, the older person responsible for them who does understand should not be giving them the freedom to do damaging things. If, as a result of the responsible adult's negligence, a child causes harm to someone else, then while the responsibl
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA:P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.
Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not? Whether or not this is a good way to go about catching illegally pirated music, that does not get rid of the fact that pirating music is illegal. Whether or not you're seven years old. Drunk driving is illegal at age seven, pirating music is illegal at age seven. Typical laws don't change based on your age. Punishment might, and culpability might to some degree, but it's not like you have to be 21 or older to illegal pirate music. Copyrights apply to minors.
While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music. I happen to be a musician (well, composer) and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own, taking royalties or sales or whatever you like. Enforcing copyrights is something we have to do, we can't rely on "good human nature" because that fails quite a bit, regardless of your particular anthropological views.
The difference between the two cases is the difference between criminal and civil law. The RIAA lawsuits are a matter of civil law. Civil law treats minors very differently than criminal law. For one, minors can't be held to a contract, because it is illegal to make a contract with a child (but, interestingly, the child can hold you up to your end of the contact, but not the other way around). Similarly, you can't sue a minor, only the minor's parents. You can't typically subpoena a minor in a civil ca
The difference between the two cases is the difference between criminal and civil law
I haven't honestly been paying much attention, but are they alleging criminal copyright violation as well?
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Although this must be a civil case, I just want to raise the point that a minor could indeed be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. Illegally selling a copy of one song is a criminal act. Or distributing more than $1,000 worth of copyrighted materials in a 180 day period, of which there are only two and a bit in a whole year. That wouldn't be particularly hard.
I do have to wonder how the calculation of value works on a bittorrent network. If I distribute 5% of a copyrighted work, do they count that as a full distribution? Or am I only liable for 5% of its value? I can only imagine what the RIAA would ask for, but what has actually happened in court?
"It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA:P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
No, she should not be prosecuted specifically because she was 7. It is not reasonable to think she is able to make that distinction.
In your example there are many people who should be prosecuted, she is not one of them.
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA:P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
(I know you're being rhetorical.)
I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say tha
...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you can
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
The problem with your whole argument is that you accept the RIAA's statements as fact when they are in dispute. No one would disagree with you that pirating music is illegal and the fact the girl was seven years old when the pirating allegedly took place. The issue in this case as in many others is whether the RIAA has engaged in illegal behaviors to pursue those who pir
Barratry [ceb.com] is a criminal offense in California.
From the California Penal Code: [ca.gov]
158. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless
judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000).
159. No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon
proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least
three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and
annoy.
Barratry prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there was one in 1988 in California and it was affirmed by an appeals court. The RIAA's activities seem to qualify. "Exciting groundless judicial proceedings" - check. "At least three instances" - check. "Corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy" - requires proving intent, and in this last case, that can probably be shown.
Seriously. It's already been brought up many times that finally, here's someone who's taking a stand and counter-suing the RIAA. What did you expect the RIAA to do? Roll up in court and say to the judge "Actually, your honour, they're quite right, we're a bunch of misguided nutcases"?
Of course they're going to challenge the counterclaim - and they'll challenge it with everything they can think of because if they lose, suddenly there will be substantially more lawyers prepared to take on defense cases at a
These things are front page news because they have the potential to define the future for media and, more importantly, technology related to the internet. These RIAA actions can and probably will have a very big impact on exactly how data can be accessed across networks, draw lines in fair use, define or rewrite copyright as it pertains to electronic media, and maybe even have internet laws written/rewritten as a byproduct. DRM, anyone? I find many of the big stories have little nuances that may very well effect different segments of the above mentioned.
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
Besides: If you're not interested, it's as simple as not clicking on the article.
Is every procedural hiccup in these cases "newsworthy"?
For one thing, not every case the RIAA is pursuing is being covered here. While I can not authoratively state that every motion in this case is being reported here, I would highly suspect that is the case, however every motion filed in a lawsuit is important, though to varying degrees and those degrees sometimes not known till the outcome of the case. Though this is not to say that an important motion won't be ignored or tossed out by the judge or preju
They are trying to set a precedence that runs in their favor.
This will affect everyone in the United States, even you. If you don't live in the US, I'd still be worried if I were you. We've all seen how the US "exports" it's policies (Pirate Bay, anyone?).
In some ways this is a simple case of stopping the idiocy now.
Last week I swear there was a "story" about a routine DISCOVERY order. ..
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition [blogspot.com] with less than 24 hours notice - and on a school day, no less - a "routine DISCOVERY order?"
Slashdot may be giving a lot of attention to these stories, but the corporate media is virtually ignoring them, or presenting them from the point of view of the recording industry. If you think the RIAA challenging the counter-claim is not news, fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us are not interested.
Why is it people feel they need to complain when a story they don't think is "worthy" appears on Slashdot? Are you paying by the bit or what? I scroll past plenty of articles I am not interested in. Sometimes, I even visit other sites.
Dear Mr. Coward, this is extremely important because the outcome of this motion could determine whether the RIAA can afford to keep on harassing people or not. If these counterclaims hold up... or even some of them... the RIAA is dead meat, because almost everything that happened to Ms. Andersen happened to most of the other RIAA lawsuit victims, and all of the present and future defendants will begin asserting similar counterclaims.
A second reason that it is important is that Ms. Andersen was the first person to seriously interpose aggressive counterclaims against the RIAA based on the RIAA's own misconduct.
If Tanya Andersen wins this round, the RIAA will be on the defensive all across the country.
... a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability...
How is her condition relevant to the case?
She claims her disabling medical condition was worsened by the stress imposed due to the illegal actions of the RIAA's agents. As a result, rather than being able to return to work she is now worse off physically than before.
This is central to the amount of the damage awards she is seeking. Also, in at least one of her claims the dollar value of the amount of damage sought must pass
What a Catch-22! (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA put its foot in a trap. (Score:2)
Re:RIAA put its foot in a trap. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Anonymous Coward, dead at 15 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
RIAA says, "Mission Accomplished!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Fear anything that is not authorized or offered to you by the media conglomerates.
If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"I'll try the death by chocolate...oh, wait, the tort of outrage looks yummy!"
Parent
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"I'll try the death by chocolate...oh, wait, the tort of outrage looks yummy!"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If Dave Barry were here . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then, there's the torte made with Limburger cheese: the torte of public nuisance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... you said death first!
Oh, alright. Give him "tort of outrage"
Just be glad I'm not Church of England.
Consider Your Music Library (Score:5, Insightful)
Why support RIAA by buying their music, when they are using YOUR MONEY in a way that is morally wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Consider Your Music Library (Score:5, Funny)
Only on Slashdot....
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Naaw.. i thought they'd just sit back and take it. (Score:2)
If someone accuses you in civil court and you stand to lose more from the judgment than you would from the defense, you defend yourself.
I dont know anyone who would do any different.
what is important is what is yet to come, the result of the counterclaim case. That will be newsworthy either way.
criminal charges? (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent. Is this not a criminal offense? Has a criminal complaint been brought?
Re:That's not what it says. (Score:5, Informative)
What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
Parent
Say what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a pic of the explanation:
http://i17.tinypic.com/352g7jp.jpg [tinypic.com]
Claiming that sniffing around the P2P network by a non-legit peer is somehow an action that requires consent... I'm not buying it. Especially not the concept that it's illegal pretexting.
Further, if Ms. Andersen never had Kazaa installed,
how could MediaSentry have trespassed upon her computer?
Or is there some fine legal point which allows one to sue for something that (according to Ms Andersen) could never hav
thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about having no money? "Blood from a stone (or turnip)" and all that?
But kidding aside, I can't see why a child could be liable for laws they have no say in. I'm sure there's a legally great reason, but not a morally good one.
The luckiest of all is the child who was never born.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that children can kill people at will because they don't get to vote? How about convicted felons who can't vote either, do they get a free pass? Legal and illegal aliens?
As to the monetary issue, parents are responsible for the financial debts of their minor children with few exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:thinkofthechildren (Score:4, Funny)
Totally, man. Then I'll send my army of immune child assassins to clean up Slashdot. Then the world! I'm king of the world, and there's nothing you can do to stop me with my tiny army!!!! Mwuhahahhahahahaha!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. sadly minors often consider telling someone what they think they want to hear is the same as truth.
Putting a minor on a stand has to be looked at very carefully because of many issues such as reliability, the idea of consequences can be foriegn, and many other issues.
Finally, a minor should not be tried for copyright infringement, except under certian exception, determined on a case by case
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure the GP poster was arguing about the legal status, but rather the ethical one.
On the one hand, someone too young to understand that something is wrong and the negative consequences of doing it clearly should not be punished for their actions. On the other hand, the older person responsible for them who does understand should not be giving them the freedom to do damaging things. If, as a result of the responsible adult's negligence, a child causes harm to someone else, then while the responsibl
Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't honestly been paying much attention, but are they alleging criminal copyright violation as well?
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Although this must be a civil case, I just want to raise the point that a minor could indeed be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. Illegally selling a copy of one song is a criminal act. Or distributing more than $1,000 worth of copyrighted materials in a 180 day period, of which there are only two and a bit in a whole year. That wouldn't be particularly hard.
I do have to wonder how the calculation of value works on a bittorrent network. If I distribute 5% of a copyrighted work, do they count that as a full distribution? Or am I only liable for 5% of its value? I can only imagine what the RIAA would ask for, but what has actually happened in court?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, she should not be prosecuted specifically because she was 7.
It is not reasonable to think she is able to make that distinction.
In your example there are many people who should be prosecuted, she is not one of them.
Re:Legal or Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
(I know you're being rhetorical.)
I can't see how it would serve to benefit society at large to prosecute a 7 year old for drunk driving, or even for driving, since I doubt that drunkenness would make a 7 year old's driving any worse. At some point, a prosecutor and judge would have to say tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
No, but for the most part you cannot be held responsible for doing them. There is a relationship between responsibility and rights that seems sadly overlooked by our educational system. If you do not have legal protection for freedom of speech, then it is unethical to hold someone legally responsible for whatever speech they make. If you don't have the legal right to go where you want and buy a car if you want and apply for a driver's license and legally purchase and consume alcohol, then legally you can
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with your whole argument is that you accept the RIAA's statements as fact when they are in dispute. No one would disagree with you that pirating music is illegal and the fact the girl was seven years old when the pirating allegedly took place. The issue in this case as in many others is whether the RIAA has engaged in illegal behaviors to pursue those who pir
Time for a barratry prosecution against the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Barratry [ceb.com] is a criminal offense in California.
From the California Penal Code: [ca.gov]
158. Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).
159. No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.
Barratry prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there was one in 1988 in California and it was affirmed by an appeals court. The RIAA's activities seem to qualify. "Exciting groundless judicial proceedings" - check. "At least three instances" - check. "Corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy" - requires proving intent, and in this last case, that can probably be shown.
Do we need to know every time the RIAA farts? (Score:2)
What did you expect the RIAA to do? Roll up in court and say to the judge "Actually, your honour, they're quite right, we're a bunch of misguided nutcases"?
Of course they're going to challenge the counterclaim - and they'll challenge it with everything they can think of because if they lose, suddenly there will be substantially more lawyers prepared to take on defense cases at a
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
Besides: If you're not interested, it's as simple as not clicking on the article.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Most Slashdotters don't have any trouble not clicking on the articles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For one thing, not every case the RIAA is pursuing is being covered here. While I can not authoratively state that every motion in this case is being reported here, I would highly suspect that is the case, however every motion filed in a lawsuit is important, though to varying degrees and those degrees sometimes not known till the outcome of the case. Though this is not to say that an important motion won't be ignored or tossed out by the judge or preju
Because. (Score:5, Interesting)
This will affect everyone in the United States, even you. If you don't live in the US, I'd still be worried if I were you. We've all seen how the US "exports" it's policies (Pirate Bay, anyone?).
In some ways this is a simple case of stopping the idiocy now.
Parent
Re:Because. (Score:5, Insightful)
The site was not offering anything illegal, nor were they providing anything illegal.
Where they are(were?) located what they were doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL.
They had ALL THE MORAL GROUND there is, what ground did the *iaa have to persecute them ILLEGALLY?
The RIAA demonstrated they know little about how bitTorrent works.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
So you consider requiring a high school student to give a deposition [blogspot.com] with less than 24 hours notice - and on a school day, no less - a "routine DISCOVERY order?"
Slashdot may be giving a lot of attention to these stories, but the corporate media is virtually ignoring them, or presenting them from the point of view of the recording industry. If you think the RIAA challenging the counter-claim is not news, fine. That doesn't mean the rest of us are not interested.
Why is it people feel they need to complain when a story they don't think is "worthy" appears on Slashdot? Are you paying by the bit or what? I scroll past plenty of articles I am not interested in. Sometimes, I even visit other sites.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
A second reason that it is important is that Ms. Andersen was the first person to seriously interpose aggressive counterclaims against the RIAA based on the RIAA's own misconduct.
If Tanya Andersen wins this round, the RIAA will be on the defensive all across the country.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is her condition relevant to the case?
She claims her disabling medical condition was worsened by the stress imposed due to the illegal actions of the RIAA's agents. As a result, rather than being able to return to work she is now worse off physically than before.
This is central to the amount of the damage awards she is seeking. Also, in at least one of her claims the dollar value of the amount of damage sought must pass