theinquirer.net — A judge has made it impossible for the RIAA to sue the Mother of a 13 year old file sharer, saying that the mother cannot be held liable for what her daughter shares. Finally some justice for all the people the RIAA has bullied into settling.
Sep 26, 2005 View in Crawl 4
thenikSep 27, 2005
I, for one, Think this is great news. Good Digg. :)
sferreroSep 27, 2005
haha suckers
r0x0rc0pt0rSep 27, 2005
Oldie but Goodie. Digg.
bigredSep 27, 2005Submitter
Slashdot beat me to it again???? Damn them! I stole it from the Inquirer to which I linked.
Closed AccountSep 27, 2005
It's nice to see the RIAA lose every now and then, but the reality is that parents ARE directly responsible for the actions of their kids. That's part of being a parent. Unfortunately in the U.S. people are of the opinion that it's always society's fault, the schools, the "liberal media", gay marriage, not enough religion in schools, etc.
rattelerSep 27, 2005
Bout time someone figured out that ownership of music is as follows.The artist.The PUBLIC!The Record Companies.NotThe Record Companies.The artist.AND NO ONE ELSE!!!!Popular Culture is owned by the populous.It's the record companies who are being allowed to steal from US!
corrosionxSep 27, 2005
LEARN THIS TO FIGHT THE RIAADON'T PLEA OUTNow is not the time to cower to such repugnant and illegal extortion.This is the LAW, read it, know it.Fromt the United States Supreme Court:Like the prudential component, the constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts concededly not susceptible of precise definition. The injury alleged must be, for example, "` distinct and palpable,'" Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501), and not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical," Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 -102 (1983); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974). The injury must be "fairly" traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be "likely" to follow from a favorable decision. See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S., at 38 , 41. These terms cannot be defined so as to make application of the constitutional standing requirement a mechanical exercise.Furthermore, [it] is equally true that before one is entitled to a remedy against an alleged wrongdoer, there must be some duty owing from the wrongdoer towards the injured person." State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court, 15 Ariz App 597,598,490 P.2d 426 (1972)---That means to have a "cause of action" the RIAA will need to prove there is a real loss. Not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical,". Remember the burden of proof is on them.Visit the Adventures in Legal Land website I posted in my previous comment .
arcade2600Sep 27, 2005
Mousky =>"Wrong. The RIAA never agreed to pay Candy Chan's costs or attorney fees. That paragraph said "without costs to either party", meaning that both party's agreed to not file a motion for costs if the motion to dismiss the case against Candy Chan was granted."Page 3: "... even though Plaintiffs agreed to permit her councel to seek attorney fees"Page 2: "... without costs to either party." I believe refers to the amended complaint. As I read it, I believe it to say, that they are changing the person being sued from Candy to Brittany and doing so will not cost anyone any additional money.PS - Thank you mouseky for adding some more *meaningful* conversation to this digg.
arcade2600Sep 27, 2005
And I also agree with you. The Inquirer is the tech world's tabloid. They might as well add that the RIAA is now suing BatBoy for copyright infringement.
cowboy5995Sep 27, 2005
"Bout time someone figured out that ownership of music is as follows.The artist.The PUBLIC!The Record Companies.NotThe Record Companies.The artist.AND NO ONE ELSE!!!!"Am I the only one that is confused about this post?
mouskyOct 8, 2005
Arcade2600:Yes, you are correct that the RIAA agreed to permit Chan to seek costs, but in your original post you stated that "Candy Chen agreed to the reversasl and responded telling the judge that she should be entitled to attorney’s fees, which the RIAA already agreed to." Agreeing to PERMIT someone to seek costs and agreeing to PAY said costs are two different things. Selective quoting does not help your case. Page 3: "...even though Plaintiffs agreed to permit her counsel to seek attorney fees (provided Plaintiffs could oppose such motion)." It is clear that the RIAA was opposed to paying Chan's costs