RIAA deliberately sues 14-year-old

[BoyOfDestiny]

Occasionally someone likes to stand up for the RIAA and their ilk... Someone tell me it's worth it. I dare you.


http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/riaa-deliberately-sues-14-year-old.html

[skoal]

Yeah, I'll bite. As always, you need only peel away the layers from the juicy fruit to get to the core...

1. Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution. Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.

-> 829 x ~$16 = $13,264 = Grand larceny (on the scale of auto theft)!

2. Judge Zatkoff declined to award Ms. Chan attorneys fees, holding that in his opinion plaintiffs' lawyers had "taken reasonable steps to try to prosecute this case and litigate against the proper defendants" and that "[t]o the extent Candy Chan has incurred legal fees in this action, such fees are primarily the result of tactics designed to imped the ability of Plaintiffs to prosecute this action in an efficient manner" and because "Candy Chan has not agreed to fairly simple mechanisms which would accomplish the same objectives that the filing of motions has accomplished."

-> In other words, the Judge found merit in the RIAA's (plaintiff) case (since the registered IP was under her name), her lawyer tried to impede (and obstruct) the progress of this case, and therefore, did not award Ms. Chan legal fees associated with her defense.

3. The Court dismissed the case "with prejudice" (which means that it could never again be reinstituted against the defendant).

-> The plaintiff's (for various reasons, but none of which I could gauge from any of the PDFs) decided to dismiss their case against the mother. It's not really hard to take a guess though. Their are such things as juvenile courts afterall. The plaintiff's initial target was probably not well thought out at first, and only going by the fact the IP was registered to the parent.

4. Subsequently, the RIAA plaintiffs made another motion. They asked the Judge to amend the judgment to allow them to continue the lawsuit against the 13 year old daughter through a guardian ad litem.

-> Ok. So what? Big deal. Just more judicial wrangling and legalese to be worked out. The primary reason the court gave here was that it was the RIAA (plaintiff's) initial request for dismissal with prejudice from 3 above. Also, the judge is pretty slick here. Saginaw county must really love his modus operandi. The judge basically said, "hey, why try this girl now under the same initial case when I can charge you guys another $250 for a new one". That's what "judicial resources being conserved" basically implies. I bet that judge lines his Beamer with plush rawhide leather at tax payer expense as a Saginaw County kickback.

A guardian ad litem (literally interpreted as, "guardian for the lawsuit") will be appointed for this new case to be held at a latter date. Stay tuned...


Moral of that story: Parents watch your kids on your computer while it's on your tab.

...Go get 'em RIAA. Booyah!

\\//_

[BoyOfDestiny]

revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution. Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.
-> 829 x ~$16 = $13,264 = Grand larceny (on the scale of auto theft)!

This part of your reply bothers me. I assume 829 digital music files means something like an mp3 not an iso.
Is each song 16 dollars (is that iTunes from hell?) A tad odd.
2ndly. if something is made "availible", it requires someone else to download it if it's distributed.
Anyway, my biggest problem with the case is the length they are going to wring money from this kid and her family. I can only imagine how scared this kid is. I think a warning would have sufficied.
Maybe for you going after a minor for commiting a crime (that many would consider merely defrauding...) is ok.

The snowball effect is that it scares people, and can somehow damage peer to peer as a technology (although truly anonymous p2p would be something incredible...)
To think it's ok to get pushed around by these folks (please don't say they make an honest living, they are price fixing leeches)
She commited a crime. Yep. However what I find strange, is that this crime is "socially acceptable". So what should be changed here?

[skoal]

This part of your reply bothers me. I assume 829 digital music files means something like an mp3 not an iso.
Is each song 16 dollars (is that iTunes from hell?) A tad odd.
oops. You're right, of course. I should have clarified that a bit. The $13,264 could _potentially_ reflect that revenue lost assuming each of those 829 songs were _unique_ and the ~cost of a CD is $16. It's important to understand that from an RIAA's perspective, in order to understand their motives here, IMO. And with iTunes what, a dollar these days?, you can use these estimates then I suppose:

~$829 to ~$13,264

...but every business _always_ looks at the highest margins on a capital lost - aka, worst cost estimates.

Either way, in my state of Texas, I believe grand larceny (which is a felony) is anything over $500 and in other states I think it's as little as $200.

I agree with just about everything else you made in your reply, especially the inference that they are making an example of her.

To think it's ok to get pushed around by these folks (please don't say they make an honest living, they are price fixing leeches)
I really make no judgements about Industry in general. Why? It's a free market. No one is "putting a gun to your head" to buy anything, although some seem to think so with Windows, et cetera. I wish I had those consumers in my prior business, since they apparently lack a "free will", and I could have become filthy stinking skunk rich off 'em! Stinking rich! Rich I tell ya!

I would agree with "price fixing leeches". How many times have you heard a cool tune on the radio, plopped down $16/album just to get that song, and have ~10 other songs on there which are pure crap. That's why way back when, I started buying singles instead at around $4/CD. Now, we have $1/mp3 with iTunes. I don't attribue that drop in price as a reflection of RIAA's response to p2p demand or abuse either. Rather, market response to a more convenient format, mp3's, and the associated reduction of cost in manufacturing and supply.

She commited a crime. Yep. However what I find strange, is that this crime is "socially acceptable". So what should be changed here?
I dunno. Great question! Personally, even though I joke about it sometimes, I recenlty had my own moral epiphany based on "Thou shall not steal" and wiped clean some ~1000 songs I had downloaded at one time or another, and tried to justify through prior "price fixing leeches!" objections or by owning most of those songs on CDs at one time in the past. That's just me though. I'm 99.9% fully legal now, and really only listen to Czech Polka music these days, which is quite hard to find on any P2P client. What's up wif dat?! You mean more people prefer NSync and Britney Spears to good 'ole fashioned grab your lady and hop around like bunnies polka music? I don't get it. muahaha...

Anyways, I guess to each his own. It's a good case by the way. Thanks for the unique and refreshing post and discussion.

\\//_

[weasel fierce]

Well, if the kid breaks her piggybank, she might have 8 bucks or so. Only a few thousand more to go!

[skoal]

By the way, I am in no way am implying that this girl is guilty. I pass no judgements here, but just how I interpret this case as a matter of law (as I understand the case) and it's implications...

I wish this girl well.

\\//_

[xequence]

I HATE the riaa so much. I am sure that 99% of the filesharers out there, if they got a cease and desist letter from the RIAA, would stop out of fear. No need to even take anything to court. The other one percent are the people who own torrent sites and hardcore 10Mbit uploaders.

[openmind]

....Lots of innacuracies, and general BS snipped....

...Go get 'em RIAA. Booyah!

\\//_
What a Bunch of crap! Apart from being so quick to jump on these sharks' bandwagon that you overestimate the value to the tune of 1500% or so, other innacuracies and propaganda are rife in your ill-thought out post.

To prove theft (Let alone "Grand Larceny":rolleyes:) someone must prove that something (some THING) was stolen, not profits potentially lost. Would this Fourteen year-old have bought 829 songs on CD without access to them on the net? Probably not. So did they "Lose" that imaginary money? (Wherever it is!). No, the word "Theft" is used by the Plaintiffs for propaganda purposes (It evokes emotion and attaches a serious label). And is used by others (You) because they are blindly following The RIAA's lead. This case and all the others are being used as a deterrent by the Big-Money RIAA.

We should all be aware of the fight going on over DRM right now in courts all over the world. A Member of Finland's Government has said that playing OUR (Bought and paid for) Cd's on OUR (Bought and paid for) computers is a privilege, not a right, and so presumably could be removed at any time. If you transfer YOUR (Bought and Paid for) iTune to YOUR (Bought and paid for) Stereo you are breaking EXACTLY the same law as this teenage girl was.

Theft? Yeah right.

Wake up and smell the corruption, or go back to preparing your case against little girls and single mothers.:rolleyes:

Edit: If anyone feels the need to buy music, use RIAA RADAR (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/)to see if you can buy it from a label that is NOT a member of the RIAA.

Tell your friends.
/rant_overhttp://open.thumbshots.org/image.pxf?url=http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/http://open.thumbshots.org/image.pxf?url=http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

[skoal]

openmind? I guess some would point out the irony in that...

No, sir. I offered an interpretation by summarizing the _entire_ document I read last nite, including all the PDFs, and it's "ill thought" and "crap"? Wow. Anyone else here actually read all of it? Raise of hands? It was an informative and refreshing read, IMO.

But, yes, in some sense I'm all too happy to support anyone in any venue for stomping out criminal activity. Afterall, p2p theft raises the price of music in the long term, inflating prices for the rest of us. If anyone doesn't understand why that is, well, I guess there's no _real_ discussion going on here.

Oh well...

Can you try to offer a constructive analysis of the case, instead of more generalizations? That would be super duper dandy. Thanks.

\\//_

[KiwiNZ]

Good grief will these anti RIAA threads ever stop ?
I think the subject has been done to death .

Its as boring and pointless as the legalise cannibis threads of a few years ago . They have stop I guess the supporters have lost their last remaining brain cells and cant remember how to turn the PC on :p

Please lets leave this subject die and move on

[openmind]

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, (or perhaps even this forum) but Maybe, just Maybe, "openmind" because I don't spend an entire evening reading a plaintiff's case (Hmmm, my last quip about "preparing your case" looms large.....) and then spewing forth support the next day without considering the bigger picture, history or implications....................Mind made up? (Probably last night).

I stand by my case; Your post was ill-thought out and crap. You reading tons of PDF's from one side does not and will not change that fact, and your innacuracies back it up, starting your next post "Oops" is a dead giveaway! No, this is part of a far wider-ranging situation that involves a decline in profits in the music business being solely blamed on p2p. They neglect (as do you) to even consider other reasons, (poor quality of recent releases?). They are incredibly poorly managed, have an outdated business model, but fortunately for them, an easy scapegoat in teenage girls and single mothers.

And easily-led supporters..................................:rolle yes:

To give an analysis of this case alone is to ignore the pattern, (Did you read all of the other cases?)

[Goober]

Being that I am just beginning the Chapter on Copyrights and Infringements and all kinds of Legal stuff related to this in Business Law (deadly boring course), all that I can say is good luck to the 14 year old, he/she is up against a behometh, and will need luck.

That being said, downloading excessive amounts of anything illegally is kinda like asking for RIAA to pick on you. What is that saying, the squeky wheel gets greased first?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Good grief will these anti RIAA threads ever stop ?
I think the subject has been done to death .

Its as boring and pointless as the legalise cannibis threads of a few years ago . They have stop I guess the supporters have lost their last remaining brain cells and cant remember how to turn the PC on :p

Please lets leave this subject die and move on

Some people still want medical marijuana.

Anyway, I feel this has value since people are somewhat shocked/dissapointed when you can't play mp3's or watch encrypted DVD out of the box (ok this is MPAA but bear with me). People need to see what kind of "monsters" they are really dealing with, and in actuality funding.

To go along with what skoal said about deleting his 1000 songs... That's the thing. Some people may download and just delete. Or just let it sit on their hard drive. They may like the song so much that they go and purchase an album (I've noticed people in the over 30 crowd like to do this).

The point? The point is that they assume what you got for free, you would surely buy... I totally disagree. Try the radio and a cassette deck (also the bane of the RIAA back in they day). Try lending your cd to a neighbor, listen to it then return it. They would love to stop this behavior as well. It might be nice to be quiet about it, and just let things be...

However, when it is acceptable for a group of large corporations to sue a little kid over petty cash... It just seems wrong to me. Corporations have all the rights a human would get. Sadly you cannot attack them in the same way. When they do something wrong you can go after a few people within the organization, and organization is left unscathed.

Awareness of the issue may encourage different behavior, such as buying cds used, trying copylefted or creative commons licensed music, or even whipping out some lp's.

[skoal]

[...]Some people may download and just delete. Or just let it sit on their hard drive. They may like the song so much that they go and purchase an album (I've noticed people in the over 30 crowd like to do this).
I'lll raise my hand on that one more than just once...

I do do this. (do do? I could have phrased that a little better) Anyways, that's also one of the many "justifications" I use to use to relieve myself of any indiscretion. I've always been a big proponent of "Try before you buy!", especially for this medium. I do _strongly_ disagree with not being able to return a Software or Music CD after I've torn off the wrapper. On that point, I will grant affiliation with most here. However, that still does not excuse my actions, IMO. The law is, well, the law. So, I currently do as you say - hit the used CD warehouses first, or take a gamble and plop down $16 for another potential 3SC (Single Song Shiner Coaster).


Awareness of the issue may encourage different behavior, such as buying cds used, trying copylefted or creative commons licensed music, or even whipping out some lp's.
Very refreshing conclusion. I agree.

\\//_

[weasel fierce]

Good grief will these anti RIAA threads ever stop ?
I think the subject has been done to death .

Its as boring and pointless as the legalise cannibis threads of a few years ago . They have stop I guess the supporters have lost their last remaining brain cells and cant remember how to turn the PC on :p

Please lets leave this subject die and move on

I quite apologize on behalf of the original poster, that he forced you to read his thread, and grossly manipulated your mouse towards its general presence

[KiwiNZ]

I quite apologize on behalf of the original poster, that he forced you to read his thread, and grossly manipulated your mouse towards its general presence

Being staff I need to read them all :rolleyes:

[weasel fierce]

Are the caustic remarks mandatory as well ?

[skoal]

Eesh. I think at this point I tend to agree with Kiwinz's original estimate about the fruitfullness of carrying on such a discussion.

It's unfortunate some here choose to deconstructively nitpick, instead of constructively pick apart. To those who made such attempts with the latter, I apologize but there really seems to be no further attempt at a _real_ discussion here.

Closed.

\\//_