|
|
Pushing the Limits of PettinessBy George Ziemann -- September 18, 2005 It's one thing for the RIAA to sue whomever happened to be at the computer associated with an IP address and have it turn out to be a child. But to intentionally try to litigate against a 13-year-old illustrates exactly how overtly hostile and petulant the recording industry has become. Here's a link to the primary source and a related discourse on the story, which goes something like this: Woman gets sued by the RIAA, responds with the "must have been someone else" defense. Woman lets slip out the fact that, although she knows nothing about computers, she has a 13-year-old daughter who happens to have one. RIAA asks judge to dismiss the complaint against the original defendant and add the 13-year-old to the case so they can sue her instead of her mom. Judge points out that the court would have to appoint a public defender for the minor child and noting that they've already wasted too much of his time, tells the RIAA to try again. They'll have to file a new case to go after the 13-year-old for the crime of listening to music. And you know they will. The case against the mother was dismissed "with prejudice," meaning the RIAA can't try a new angle to sue her again for the same alleged offense. This case was tried in Michigan, so your legal mileage may vary, but I see several important things here. First of all, the "must have been someone else" defense prevails. Again. False assumption: Even though the IP address may correlate to the defendant, that does not necessarily make them responsible for the internet use of others, even if they are the parent of the little rapscallion in question. The RIAA did not even try to assert that the parent was responsible. Their first motion was to drop the case against the parent. The second motion was to add the child to the suit they had already asked to be dropped. Logic never was their strong suit and this time it sends them back to square one. They lost one. Must have been someone else.
|