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)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Disturbing anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Explanation is clear and simple. Most of the people who do music piracy fall in early-teen age group. RIAA is making a statement by going after that girl. This is a business decision. That's it.
They don't care if they look like bad evil guys. In fact that's the point.
I am sure that they will make sure this news gets enough publicity, and then they will let that girl go with minimum trouble.
If after reading a story, you have to believe that things took this course because somebody was inherently, incorrigibly evil, you are probably wrong. We live in a world where conflict of interest cannot be avoided even if everybody is good person.
K
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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?
It's their new target market (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there anything we're not being told?
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
At least now a days, they have the decency to lie about dolphin being in your tuna...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to explain how the RIAA is evil, though, and why it's really THAT BAD to support them, when people won't listen, and they're like, "if I like this music, I'm going to obtain it anyway."
(FWIW, the person in question was anti-paying for music - but I was attempting to use the listening base argument - look at Microsoft - users violating copyright is why they're successful)
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Read the news, but make sure you keep your grain of salt with you at all times.
What's the worst thing you could be told? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I cannot disagree with the overall sentiment of your post, I have a difficult time imagining what you're intended us to understand with this last sentence. The RIAA's techniques are plain and simple barratry -- abuse of process, really, an attempt to use the legal system as a system of threat and intimidation. I cannot conceive of any "reasonable" modification of copyright law that could pertain to this, however. Can you clarify?
C//
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: (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 i
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
A nervous-looking man wearing a conservative suit and carrying a briefcase enters an ordinary suburban home. He hears the "ten year old" he's arranged to meet call that she will be down in a minute as soon as she fetches her MP3 player.
He is startled when Chris Hansen [msn.com] enters the room...
Honestly though, I'm starting to feel like some sort of devious anti-industry genius has infiltrated the RIAA and is brilliantly coordinating a devastating bad-publicity campaign.
Political Opportunity here (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Disturbing anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a stickup, pure and simple, by conscienceless ghouls.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These people have lost all sense of reason, decency, and perspective. They've become the worst sharks anyone in our society can become, and they actually think their behavior is *appropriate*! It's time someone kicked them in the nuts to show them otherwise.
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?)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course USA is the only western country that hasn't signed the human rights convention.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One could argue that the US doesn't have a government competent enough to sign it ;)
Ryan-Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Problem is that that fact speaks volumes to the collective IQ of this country.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:4, Informative)
So, you see, you are incorrect, as you apparently failed to read your own reference. The President can negotiate a treaty, but a 2/3rds vote of the Senate is required to ratify.
International treaties (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:International treaties (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is hardly unique in having a federal system. That's no real excuse.
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:International treaties (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of factual problems here... (Score:3, Informative)
2) Even in civil suits, minors are legally incompetent to be parties to lawsuits. I'm sure that if you look a little closer, if the RIAA is suing a minor directly, then it can only be because they did not know the person's age. They will either have their case dismissed, or will amend their complaint to sue the child's parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Firing off a lawsuit before even doing a simple age check, that just screams competence to me...
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the USA will execute an adult for an offence they comitted as a child.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Major major major major (Score:2)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Funny)
For the simple reason that there's money to be made. You're not looking for any moral basis, are you?
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:4, Informative)
of course, with respect to the lunacy of your last line, its very simple why they should be old enough to be put on trial: The moral obligations of a person in most societies is taught and understood at a much younger age than anything you mentioned. The mental maturity to consume alcohol in a manner that does not molest or harm others is generally lacking even in people older than 21 in the US, but more pervasively lacking in children. Cigarette smoke has been shown to be detrimental to development of the human body and laws regulating its use are generally in place to attempt to remove smoking completely as it creates a large financial burden on society. Sex with a girl/boyfriend is not illegal if the age difference is small enough. too large, it becomes statutory rape.
on the other hand, do not steal or hurt someone else are ideas that are taught at very young ages and are internalized at a very young age and even at the age of 12, the willful breaking of these laws is seen as disregard for known laws, not ignorance of a more subtle connection with society.
keep in mind I did not refer to copyright infringement. For a 7 year old, its hard to explain why its illegal to borrow a friend's video game and put it on their computer(or download music in this case) and as such, should be relegated to seeing a 9 year old driving a car: an unfortunate incident of a parent not being able to control every minor thing their child does, followed by a punishment in line with the damages(in the case of the car, a bit of a scolding from the officer that sees it, in the case of copy right infringement, maybe 2$ per track downloaded(assuming a 10 track, 20 dollar cd which is way over priced). the parent can then easily discipline the child by making them work this money off.
Now, the way these cases are being handled is actually , I think, an artifact of it being a civil matter and not a criminal one.
I feel in some ways our criminal system is becoming flawed with 14 year olds treated as complete adults, but then again, the crimes are generally not of a complex nature. Killing someone is wrong and if you are trying to argue that someone shouldn't' be tried for murder just because they haven't quite made it to 18, you'd have to defend to me why such a blanket exoneration should be given (as compared to the current method in the US where it is taken case by case and the mental state of the child is first determined before a judge orders the type of trial to be held).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case the RIAA has a lot of money so no judge in the country is going to smack them down for suing children. In fact the judges are going to rule against the child in a summary decision because the kid can't afford a lawyer and will not show up in court because nobody gave them a ride.
Remember SCO v IBM? Yea, just like that.
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prosecuting children (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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:Prosecuting children (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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
Execution of retarded - executions in Texas (Score:5, Informative)
That ended five years ago:
Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty [deathpenaltyinfo.org]. Atkins v. Virgina [cornell.edu],Atkins v. Virginia [wikipedia.org]
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 [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
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 [state.tx.us]
My goodness, mod parent as flamebait please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My motto has always been: "If you can do the crime, you can do the time". Sure, children shouldn't be locked up with adults but the penalties should be the same when the crime is the same, and if the punishment is the death penalty so be it, even for the retarded.
Why? - Because the crime was the same. If you kill someone, that someone is dead regardless of the age and mental maturity of the murderer.
It might be that we need to discuss the responsibilities of the guardians - shou
Obscure reference (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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:PR Campaign (Score:3, Interesting)
Is being right worth the cost of the PR problems of being an unreasonable bully? Have they measured the growing movement to boycott anything major label? Have they done anything to respond to claims of being a cartel with fixed high prices?
I hope they have their PR campaign funded a
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.
Re:Another backlash link... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope... Here is more..
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/cd_sales_2 005.html [mp3newswire.net]
"For the first time since Thomas Alva Eddison began selling wax cylinders, the music industry is having to deal with an informed customer (NOT consumer) base whose constituents can, and do, communicate with each other via blogs, emails, IM, chats, text messaging, and so on.
And what they're saying is: We have a choice, and we're exercising it.
If the record labels think their persecution of online customers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is why we need to start putting these names in print! We need to start makeing the RIAA's image one and the same with its member organizations. If you want to restrict how they can behave that is the way. Obviously you should try and list the member owning the media the the suit is over but these articals should always mention the RIAA something like this.
The RIA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason is the majority of people like to believe they will never get caught. Like speeding tickets.
Uhh.. no. The reason is that they feel they have the right to copy whatever the hell they feel like with their own copying equipment and to hell with people who say they can't. Most everyone I know has burnt something onto a CD or DVD that copyright law says they cannot and none of them feel they have done anything wrong. Young, old, 20 something, 50 something.. Copyright law is fundamentally distant from the social intuition of fairness.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point I was not to be born for just short
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who has raised kids or lived around them knows your view is naive at best, but plain wrong, period.
I agree with your last sentence.
Re: (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?
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?
Re: (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: (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 tradition
RIAA Crackers (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Warner Music Group (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [ilrweb.com] 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.
Re:Warner Music Group (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Warner Music Group (Score:5, Interesting)
- Atlantic Records (owned by Warner Music Group)
- Priority Records (owned by EMI)
- Capitol Records (owned by EMI)
- Universal Music Group
- Bertelsmann Music Group
So, the big four [wikipedia.org] are all part of this lawsuit.Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
By the time she reaches 18, it will no longer be reported by credit bureaus, and I suspect the judgment will expire by then.
So why would they even bother deposing the child? Maybe they want to see if the mother is just using her to get out of the case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also you happen to be offtopic. There isn't the slightest intimation that this child, who was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, has any involvement whatsoever.
The system is working (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Title it 'Matchbox Twenty's Label Sues 10-yr Old' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
where is Dateline? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I won't buy CDs anymore. (Score:3)
This was an offensive litigation strategy when it started - and it's loonier still years later. I simply will not buy this cartel's product. I want them to fail and all of their shareholders to lose every single nickel they have. My bet? I will live to see that day.
And maybe not too far off, either.
This is great news!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Simple my friend. It means in 10 years there will be a blanket lowering of the bar for how much cash you must have to get a quality piece of ass. I used to be against the RIAA because the laws like the DMCA they push for affect technology and software development and since that impacts every industry and form of production used in industrialized nations those laws literally set mankind back by decades.
Now? Who gives a fsck how soon we colonize the moon; cure aids; develop a way to join a global mental collective, bring on that easy and quality next generation ass!
Time to be Ashamed (Score:3, Interesting)
Fight terror with terror (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, no it wasn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:give it a rest (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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.
And... (Score:3, Interesting)
about the contents of her machine from off of a closed network, using an unauthorized client
is hacking. That's a violation of several state and Federal laws on the subject. And, it's the
only way they could have concievably known about anything on her HD. It gets even worse for
RIAA, MediaSentry, and the labels. MediaSentry's in trouble for doing the hacking they did- even
if they never really hacked her machine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You say COPA, I say COPPA... (Score:3, Informative)
And neither should be confused with the Copa, Copacabana, the hottest spot north of Havana...