Court forces RIAA to dismiss case against mother & child

23 Sep 05 18:30 by Seán Byrne in category Uncategorized To news archive

Print this page

In a court case where the RIAA tried suing the mother of a 13 year old when her daughter shared music over a file-sharing network, the court forced the RIAA to dismiss the case. In order for the RIAA to sue the child, a Guardian Ad Litem (guardian appointed by a court to represent a minor) must be appointed to protect the interests of the child. While the mother had no experience or knowledge with computers, the RIAA claimed that she was indirectly liable for allowing her daughter to use her computer to illegally share music online.

While the
case was dismissed, the mother had to pay legal fees as the Judge refused to
award her attorneys fees. The reason is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had
taken the appropriate steps in trying to prosecute the mother and that the
mother used tactics to obstruct the Plaintiff to efficiently prosecute
her. If you copy, please show your appreciation by
linking back to cdfreaks.
The case was dismissed with prejudice, which prevents the case from being advanced against the defendant. Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgement in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied this RIAA’s request. Thanks to both adderal and RTV71 for using our news submit to let us know about the following
news:

src="http://www.cdfreaks.com/contentimages/newsimages/1196372059" width=106 align=right
border=0> In an actively contested case in federal court in Michigan, Priority Records LLC et al v. Candy Chan, the RIAA was forced to withdraw its case against a mother. Priority Records v. Candy Chan, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division – Case No. 04-cv-73645-DT Honorable: Lawrence Zatkoff.

The RIAA sued the defendant Candy Chan, who had no experience or knowledge of computers. It was possible that her 13 year old daughter may have had a file sharing account.

The RIAA continued to argue that Ms. Chan was indirectly liable for providing a computer to her teenage daughter. After taking Ms. Chan’s deposition, the RIAA moved to add the 13 year old child as a defendant.

Ms. Chan’s attorney, John Hermann of Berkley, Michigan, objected, arguing that the daughter was a minor and that the Court would have to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the child, before for the child before they could proceed.

The full article including documents href="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/211" target=_new
>can be read here.

Well, at least it is nice to see the RIAA finally lose a case for trying to sue an adult or child when a minor ends up sharing music online. However, this does not stop them from issuing further lawsuits against children with guardians to present the minors. In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.

A more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don’t understand what’s going on. For example, if one forgets to pay a bill for a product, the company would not suddenly go filing a lawsuit against the customer, but instead issue a warning to let the customer know what they have done wrong.

Source: Digital Music News

13 Comments

JPWRana: Posts: 95; Posted on: 23 Sep 05 19:19

hxxp://bart.gamingw.net/junk/awesome/riaa.jpg

drpino: Posts: 4916; Posted on: 23 Sep 05 19:36

ROFL :B "Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgement in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem." You've got to be kidding. BOYCOTT ALL RIAA MUSIC LABELS!!! (yes i'm yelling

)
[edited by drpino on 23.09.2005 19:38]

Rich86: Posts: 448; Posted on: 23 Sep 05 19:42

3 cheers for the judge n Michigan who introduced some small amount of logic and common sense into these outrageous lawsuits and proceedings being pushed by the RIAA. Maybe the RIAA should be arrested for child abuse.

heystoopid: Posts: 307; Posted on: 23 Sep 05 23:23

Dumb Lawyers, a sad case in which greed for money and conviction, overuled common sense!

TigerZai: Posts: 521; Posted on: 24 Sep 05 00:12

When I was 13 years old back in 19-oatcakes, I would have Now That's What I Call Music 1 and 3. A friend would have Now 2 and Now 4. We swapped tapes to complete our collections. We taped the Top 40 show on the radio so we could listen to the latest tunes. No 13-year-old back then had the disposable income to afford all the music they wanted - however the tapes are nothing like the original purchased item for quality and presentation. mp3s are better quality but still don't compare to the original quality of the CD they are sourced from. What this exchanging of material at a young age does is generate a taste and a market for later on in life when young people have disposable income from employment. You never hear the RIAA or the MPAA or whatever anti-p2p body mention this promotional side-effect and increased revenue as a result of using p2p file sharing. It's a fallacy to say that record companies only lose money from "illegal" p2p downloading. I remember the old slogans "Home Taping is Killing Music" sitting below a skull and cross-bones pirate image. The artists back then seemed to be doing okay, as they are now. Seems the RIAA should be spending their resources on constructive projects rather than destroy their future income.

Zod: Posts: 462; Posted on: 24 Sep 05 01:22

bleh it'd be more interesting to get a ruling the goes one way or the other on filesharing, to see if the lawyers can drum up a loophole that makes p2p not so evil.

greg42: Posts: 1027; Posted on: 24 Sep 05 04:54

:B Well you could use P2P to share text files and photo albums of your pets during that summer vacation ;-))) I agree with poster above BOYCOTT all those music artists, greedy f*** who make MILLIONS and MILLIONS of profits. Boycott ALL artists and don't order music onlien or buy their music.

LadyMatika: Posts: 6; Posted on: 25 Sep 05 01:58

early christmas shopping is coming people BOYCOTT all the music that the riaa represents don't go into no stores they represent, or buy anything that the riaa represents !!!!!!!! it's time to hit back where the riaa and the record cartel hurts, MONEY!!!!!! nobody buys cd's and tapes nobody from the riaa or cartel get money !!!!!!!!!

neo1918: Posts: 259; Posted on: 25 Sep 05 06:54

No!! You must buy more music! Buy the new Backstreet boys CD. Then buy all the tracks from iTunes. If you don't buy, the RIAA will not say "hmm, sales are down. maybe we should stop filing lawsuits." Instead they will say "sales are down! piracy is killing us! the sky is falling!"

LadyMatika: Posts: 6; Posted on: 25 Sep 05 07:25

as long as the record companies cartel are getting money from online and retailed stores then they will keep sicking the riaa assholes onto file sharing p2p systems weather or not you pay or don't pay , the record companies want p2p file sharing systems off the internet PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! what ever it takes to do so !!!!!

Rhelic: Posts: 302; Posted on: 25 Sep 05 17:18

I have to agree with the last 2 paragraphs of this article... Yes, sending a stern & legal warning letter when a child is downloading the music is the best practice BUT the RIAA isn't corcerned with fairness, I think it needs to be said what the RIAA is doing it outright extortion. It costs more money to investigate each issue to find out who is downloading the music when they can just send legal papers and sue them and reap the rewards. This isn't a case of "theft" as they claim, it's more of a case of "ah ah, no we found a way to sue you out of thouands". I hope this ruling paves the way for future victums.
[edited by Rhelic on 25.09.2005 17:18]

Balbir: Posts: 8; Posted on: 25 Sep 05 19:13

I don't agree with most of the reactions here, in fact I think children (and 14 is hardly a child) get too much protection these days. At 14 they're quite computer savvy and I would suggest much more likely to redistribute copies of downloaded material than your average adult - whether that's wrong or not is a different matter. 'Child on Board', so what ! pity the poor adult who would not have 'got off' Balbir

LadyMatika: Posts: 6; Posted on: 29 Sep 05 23:13

people need to find out where the pres of riaa or their speaker or who ever works for those bastards is speaking or putting in an appearance and then take boxes of un-wanted cd's and tapes and video's and take them to a river or a ocean or even a pond and get a loud speaker and start yelling listen up riaa this is what we think of your tactics and then dump the boxes in !!!!! and create our own little boston tea party!!!

Hello guest,: To benefit from all extra features you need to log in or sign up.

Court forces RIAA to dismiss case against mother & child

13 Comments

Post a comment

Most popular headlines

Grandmother is falsely accused of file-sharing (11)

PS3 closing ground on Xbox 360 (1)

Blame Blu-ray for lack of PS3 game downloads (14)

Murdoch: Avatar DVD won't be 3D (17)

Active Commenters