What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
29 Comments
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Becareful with the writeup at Techdirt.com. This is a case of people reading way to much into the judge's orders (which were short and succint). It seems that some of the comments on Digital Music News, Techdirt and now, Digg, are based on a 3 point assessment by Ray Beckerman. I disagree with points 1 and 2 of his assessment of what this case means.
1. No where in the Judge's orders did it state that the RIAA cannot sue the parent for what the child did. You assume that because the Judge was willing to dismiss the case against the mother with prejudice, that that somehow meant that a parent cannot be sued for what a child does. That is a stretch at best. If that is what the judge meant, he would have stated it. He didn't. Parents can be sued and held responsible for what their children do. It is a matter of on what grounds the original suit was filed.
2. The Judge's orders are quite clear that the RIAA can indeed sue a minor. In fact, the Judge gave the RIAA two months to add defendants to the case and would agree to a RIAA motion for leave to add the daughter as a defendent, but only if the RIAA agreed to dismiss with prejudice, the case against the mother. In the second order, the Judge stated that guardian ad litem "will have to be appointed" for the daughter.
I think people are missing an important piece of information here. Read the section about the rewarding costs in the first order on page 4. The Judge appears to legitimatize the RIAA's method of filing lawsuits. That is going after the registered user of the IP address: "They brought suit against Candy Chan because she was the registered user for the IP address from which the allegedly improper downloading and file sharing occurred." Further, the Judge chastizes Candy Chan for essentially wasting the Court's time. This is the important stuff. Everything else is fluff. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Does an appointed lawyer represent the child?"
The person is called a guardian ad litem. It is a court-apppointed lawyer that represents the minor in Court. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I gathered that they widthdrew before the judge could actually make that ruling. Am I wrong?"
Maybe but unlikely. They withdrew the case against the mother because she revealed that the email address was her daughter's. The Judge only dismissed the case with prejudice against the mother and that this decision did not prevent the RIAA from filing a case against additional defendants. The second order was in response to a motion to amend the first order by the judge. Essentially, the RIAA did not want to refile the case. Again, the Judge left the option for the RIAA to file suit against other defendants. - Cander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well not a total vistory. The judge didnt award attorny fees to the defendent on it.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This really is a dilemma. Parents obviously cannot monitor their kids 24/7; however, the children can't be responsible for/represent themselves. So what to do?
Does an appointed lawyer represent the child? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hooray
+digg - nukethewhales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok so the judge said that you can't hold the parents accountable but can you really hold the kids accountable? If this were a crime they wouldn't be prosecuted the same as an adult so can a civil case be held against the child? If the child loses is the parent not responsible for paying the RIAA? If not then who is? I don't think that the judge's decision will hold up. I think it could be overturned and it probably should be overturned. If parents are no longer responsible for their children's actions then who is?
- gamabunta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Definitely a big step against the RIAA's lawsuit-happy escapades.
- TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This helps if you are a kid. :P
- stanleyfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Score! Digg for preventing 12-year-olds from gettin sued by a-hole organizations like the RIAA.
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can a 13 year old child be sued at all? The child has no assets and no means of income. The kid could say in court, "***** you, I'm not paying," and the court couldn't force them to.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0music is not a creative endeavor, painting is.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yey let the RIAA sue the majority of teenagers in the United States. That'll be a great encouragement for teenagers to buy their music instead of "stealing" it.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The judge simply refused because the case was dismissed with prejudice, not for any other reason. The mother probably paid more in attorney fees than an RIAA settlement would have been, but hey, it was her choice to implicate her own child. Don't worry though, now they'll make sure to sue the right person, the kids. It isn't that hard to get it right.
- i3x171um, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I gathered that they widthdrew before the judge could actually make that ruling. Am I wrong?
- BETA7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0riaa has enough money up its ass and all i have to say is pwned
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm buying all my music from the local neighborhood teenage geek...
How much did you say you wanted for that 300GB hard drive full of mp3s?
...and I'm going to pay for their bandwidth too! - Gills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The RIAA continued to argue that Ms. Chan was indirectly liable for providing a computer to her teenage daughter"
I could had someone a knife, does that make me responsible for any subsequent murders committed with it?
praise to Hon. Lawrence Zatkoff - Cowboy5995, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The RIAA continued to argue that Ms. Chan was indirectly liable for providing a computer to her teenage daughter." Am I the only one who is disturbed by this? This is absolutely ridicules they make it sound like its a crime to own a computer. So if I am reading this correctly if I had a friend who made/gave me a computer and I download things and get caught they can get sued too. lol
*Runs away plotting legal defense strategies" - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Argh! These rulings have absolutely nothing to do with parents being or not being liable for the actions of their children. Did anyone bother to read the two orders? Nowhere in those two orders is there any mention of parental liability. People are assuming that because the Judge was willing to dismiss the case against the mother with prejudice, that that ruling somehow implies that the parent is not liable for the actions of their children. Wrong. The answer to why the Judge was willing to accept the motion to dismiss lies in his explanation in denying the motion to award costs to the mother. When the mother admitted that the email address belonged to her daughter, in the eyes of the Judge, the case against the mother evaporated. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
- xs10shul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^^ In what states are parents not liable for minor children? I don't remember that from family law.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Also...this ruling is just for Michigan"
There was no ruling that parents are not liable for the action of their kids. For anyone to suggest otherwise means that they did not read the Judge's orders. - chris-gore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gills: "I could had someone a knife, does that make me responsible for any subsequent murders committed with it?"
If you know what they intend to do with it, then the answer is YES. - stickyboot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow! The RIAA is so Evil. Like pure freaking evil. SHES 13 for ***** sake.
- xs10shul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh. The case is meaningless. The RIAA can still sue, and even if they filed a dozen suits like this, the threat of a trial is enough to accomplish their real goal--inspiring fear.
Remember: they don't really want damages in these cases. They want to file enough cases against average folks to make others stop downloading. - Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RIAA is just kicking themselves in the ass.
It's pretty obvious that file-sharing increases how many CD's people decide to buy within their lifetime, unless they're really shallow and apathetic about music. In which case they wouldn't buy CD's even if they didn't have the internet to rely on.
My point is, they're more interested in turning people off to music than on. This 13 year old girl is going to grow up with a negative stigma against music. Good going, RIAA -- Music is life, not simply a profitable business with no soul. But then again, if we didn't have so many greedy record labels that screw their artists anyways.... Maybe we wouldn't be in this whole predicament in the first place.
Embrace sharing with your brothers and sisters. - shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what still amazes me is that we still buy RIAA cd's at all. We are all saying, "Sure, sue us, we won't do anything. We'll just keep buying your cd's anyway." Screw them, they won't get a dime of my money until the RIAA dies. Sucks that it has to be that way, b/c I used to buy 5 cd's or more a month.
- xs10shul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0jkfan87 - Well, it's an objective standard across the board, though from my experience, many courts are unsympathetic to parents who don't know what their kids are up to.
"If you know what they intend to do with it, then the answer is YES."
I'd actually say it's more: if you are the legal guardian of a minor, you ought to do your best to prevent them from breaking the law. :-) - 4z4z3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0famous quote " sharing is caring ***** the RIAA "
this is funny great digg
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is