RIAA Makes Case For Why Parents Should Be Liable For File Sharing Of Kids
from the doesn't-seem-to-fit-with-the-law,-you-know dept
Earlier this month, we pointed out that a judge had told the RIAA it needed to pay up for the legal fees for a woman it wrongly sued over unauthorized music sharing. Not surprisingly, the RIAA has asked the judge to reconsider, but there's also something even more interesting in the request. In the filing, the RIAA lawyers dispute the judge's claim that the RIAA's suit was frivolous and note that if they had been allowed to present more evidence they would have made it clear that the woman being sued should still be responsible for the activity on the account, even though she had nothing to do with the file sharing. The filing argues that, as a parent, she should have been aware of what her child was doing -- and that since the terms of service she agreed to with her ISP placed responsibility on her, then it automatically was her responsibility. On top of that, the filing points out that since she used the same computer, she should have noticed things like the Kazaa icon on the desktop or the annoying popup ads that come with the adware bundled with Kazaa. Of course, the filing doesn't explain how someone who isn't particularly computer savvy is supposed to immediately recognize that pop-up ads = your kid file sharing -- but that seems besides the point. Since it's become increasingly clear that the RIAA is filing these lawsuits based only on an IP address and a prayer (which hasn't been working out so well lately), it's interesting to see the lawyers hitting back and making the case that the owner of an account has liability for the actions of others. It's an argument that's been tried in the past and usually fails, so hopefully the judge will set the RIAA straight again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha ha ha! Yeah, right. So just to appease the **AA, everyone should take a few computer science courses? that's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My parents, nor my older brothers and sisters would have a fucking clue what a new icon was. Pull your head out of your arsehole and realise not everyone is a nerd like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sand Castles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sand Castles
I download free software(Linux distros, opensource games, etc), game patches, and other free to use/obtain content. I don't like listening to the same songs over and over so I just listen to internet radio. No downloading of music on my part at all.
But if I download something without a copyright notice attached, how do I even know if the content is allegedly protected? Its not the downloader's fault, its the fault of the person who made the content available to download in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sand Castles
I made the content available, but I was using my moms computer and account. next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sand Castles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sand Castles
BULLS**T!!!
Maybe a 50% chance 20% of the people will do that. The other 80% will just conveniently "forget"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for me and my house...
Some were purchased new, some were purchased used, and some individual tracks that could not be easily obtained elsewhere were purchased from a certain infamous website...
Incidentally, the only CD that I purchased without listening to beforehand (the music industry's preferred method) was the one big disappointment.
There are IMO, four basic types of music consumer.
1) Buyers - sample and purchase.
2) Collectors - download, burn and never listen again.
3) Kids - download, listen cannot afford to purchase... but will one day.
4) Thieves - download, listen, do not purchase.
Dear Music Industry:
Groups 1 are your friends.
Group 2 are not your enemies.
Group 3 are your next generation of customer, and must not be alienated.
Group 4 are the problem. Unfortunately, you can't get to them without p!ssing off the other three groups. Is it worth it?
The only question is what proportion of us are in which group; the answer depends on whom you are listening to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair enough...
KThxBye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak legal position
If the RIAA were able to go after the ISP, then the ISP could go after the account holder, and the ISP would have a valid claim that the account holder was liable because the ISP and account holder have a contractual relationship.
It flies in the face of contract law to let RIAA go after the account holder because the holder has a contract with someone else.
Now all we have to hope is that the relevant judges understand the pertinent law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak legal position
Would that mean that if my wife set up the account I would be free to ignore the ISP's T&Cs, when I use the computer, because I didn't sign the account agreement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak legal position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internet = 18+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: internet = 18+
This is the same if somebody stole your car (to use above analogies)... Should you be liable if your car was speeding but somebody stole it and it was the thief that was driving?
I will assume most people on this site are somewhat computer savvy and thus noticing things like a strange icon or a performance drop may be noticed. This isn't the case for most lay-people... And do you see how many icons are loaded now these days? What's one more beside the "Windows Update", Anti-virus, clock, battery, etc...
I really think the best defense would be "I didn't do it, prove that I did"... If they say your IP was involved just say it must have been hijacked... Burden of proof is on the prosecution. Of course, don't have 10,000 songs/movies on your HD if/when they come to take your stuff for said proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is not an excuse
1) Parents are generally responsible for the actions of their children, legally.
2) Ignorance is not an excuse.
Consider point #2 in particular. Remember when this very site had coverage of the trial where the parents of the underage teen who had sex with an adult sued Myspace? Naturally, this site claimed that Myspace wasn't responsible because it's the parents' job to know what their kids are doing on the computer. Guess what? That same logic holds here.
People, the computer is not a babysitter for your kids. You should have a pretty good idea what they're doing on it. Surprise them occasionally. See what they're doing with the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corollary
And no "It keeps them quiet" isn't a good enough reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Potentially Profound Question
An excellent question. If in fact parents are responsible for the actions of their children -- which I would contend they are -- then isn't the ability to understand said actions a prerequisite for parenthood?
And most importantly, if a person is incapable of understanding the actions -- particularly the technology-related actions -- of children, should we not then prevent him or her from having children?
I once heard a public service announcement on the radio that referred to parenting as "The Most Important Job You'll Ever Have." My immediate reaction to this was that it also happened to be the only job for which you'll never have to pass a job interview.
Does this seem right? Every baby is a potential serial killer or copyright violator. Why do we insist that everyone -- regardless of qualifications -- has the right to create such monsters?
I suggest that the RIAA immediately patents every aspect of the human genome not already covered by someone else. Then, just as it is illegal for someone to reproduce a recording under copyright, so too would it be illegal for them to reproduce their genes in a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Potentially Profound Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Potentially Profound Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the account holder be the person held responsible if someone uses their computer for other illegal activity?
With some of the high profile cases against spammers how would that argument have gone over? I would love to see the public reaction if a lawyer used that argument in court to defend a spammer. "He's not liable, it's the account holders of the computers that actually sent the spam that are the guilty ones. They're the ones that should be on trial, not my client."
Based on the RIAA's claim the spammers aren't liable for their actions since they didn't have an agreement in place with the ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the "someone" in question is their child, yes. See, there's this notion of "responsible parenting" that states that you're supposed to actually know what your kids are doing. Fortunately, courts usually hold this to be a legal obligation. So if your kid, say, steals your car and hits someone, guess who's resoponsible, legally? Yep, you are. Computer probably shouldn't be substantially different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Exec's son
Are they going after the Exce because he is 'responsible' for what his kid was doing? Oh, that's right, this one just kind of 'disappeared'.... must be nice to not have to abide by the rules you are trying to force on everyone else.
Do as I say, Not as I do....
Typical of these types of organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
BUT, as previously mentioned, a non-tech-savvy person would likely a) not understand an EULA/ToS, b) not know what to do to restrict access, and c) not know the difference if the terms were breached.
This is a clearly case where one could plead ignorance. I find it hard to argue ignorance though: if you buy an item (however technologically advanced), you are expected to learn how to use said item. If you buy a grill and manage to catch your apartment complex on fire, you are responsible, whether you knew you were not using it appropriately or not.
Despite my disagreement with the RIAA on -what- they are doing, I must admit that -how- they are doing it in this instance is logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wi-fi anyone?
Would the RIAA be able to track back to you when you use one of these? Or if you use your neighbors un-protected wireless router?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak legal position
1. Parent's are often responsible for the criminal activity of their children, and may be liable civilly for damages as well.
2. Under the terms of service, the account holder is responsible to the ISP for everything that happens using that account.
3. Anyone who uploads or downloads copyrighted material is responsible for their actions.
None of these have any bearing on the weak legal position I pointed out in my previous post. The weakness I was pointing out was RIAA's use of a contract between the account holder and their ISP as grounds for RIAA suing the account holder.
RIAA can freely sue the parents under theory 1.
The ISP can freely sue the account holder under theory 2.
RIAA can freely sue the actual uploader / downloader under theory 3.
What RIAA cannot do is sue the account holder because of a liability created by a contractual relationship between the account holder and the ISP. The account holder does not have that relationship with or duty to RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents Should Be Liable
The line about "what if the parents don't understand what P2P is" seems a non-starter -- I wouldn't know how to create many types of incendiary devices, but if my child did and used one to start a fire, I don't think my narrow lack of technical knowledge would sway anyone.
That said, there do see to be bigger issues when citing just a single IP, but if the woman in question is conceding it was her child that did the file sharing, I don't see why she wouldn't be legally responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad story summary
Really, this is just begging for someone to jack an RIAA adress to hack/dos some .mil site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys have to be kidding me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys have to be kidding me
Furthermore you can also have GPS chips placed in their cellphones and cars that will tell you where they are at any time. This is what parent should be doing with their damn rugrats. Personally I dont think they should even have cars or cell phones till they are 18 since kids and old people are the ones that cause 95% of accidents, and cell phones are unnecessary. We didnt need them 30 years ago and we DONT need them now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys have to be kidding me
The kid would not know it until your friend say samething about her/his online behaviour that the parent should not know. the kid may not know how but he would know is been watched, and only needs a tech savy linux loving friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful idea...
As for the GPS idea, it's a good one... if you can get the phone company to play along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A load of horse patooey
A parent is responsible for their kids to a point. If you're kid robs a bank or kills someone are they going after the parents? Possible but not likely and only to a point. Kids can't be watched 24x7 but can be checked up on and actions corrected after finding something wrong. Sometimes thats to late. I block sites and ports on my router as soon as I find out. But thats not every day, but then someone posts a link or how-to-get-by and the kids will find this right away.
Also you have the issue on a computer of different login accounts. One for the kid and one for the parent. The parent is going to logon to the computer and may never see any programs that may be on the kids account or pop ups or anything else related to this illegal activity that the kid may be up to. Nothing whats-so-ever to indicate anything. And unless a parent has computer knowledge they aren't even going to know what to look for.
Personally, if it's on the internet, and your able to download it, then it's free free free... If you go down to the local flea market and someone is giving out free cd's of music and you take a few, who's at fault. The RIAA needs to go after the person who is making the stuff free for the taking and not the shoppers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
So is this a criminal or civil proceeding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Potentially Profound Question
Umm, NO! Don't you realize that if it weren't for computer illiterate morons, a lot of us "computer techs" and IT guys would be without jobs right now? Computer novices and idiots = job security. If such a "license to own and use a computer" law existed, it would seriously hurt our economy.
The RIAA is full of B$ and that is the bottom line here. This is yet another case that needs to be thrown out of court. It's times like this I wish I was a judge and I got to DENY all of these absurd cases. The RIAA needs to be shot down and shown that they are wasting our tax dollars with stupid, pointless cases that should never go to court. Save our courts for REAL problems, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:12
On topic, While I think parents should be responsible for the actions of the kids, this is one case where I think they shouldn't be. Mostly because the RIAA needs to lose a lot of lawsuits so they stop with the shit and get a new business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:12
A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nobody's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nobody's comment
The owner of the car is ALMOST *ALWAYS* responsible for what happens to the car. If you kid took it and modified it to illegal means, you as the owner are responsible for correcting it. If you kid steals the car and kills someone or even if you LET him drive the car and he kills someone, you aren't legally responsible, but civilly you are....and that is where the money comes into play. All of the **AA cases are civil cases, so up to a point you are financially responsible for what you kid does. Weather it be in a car, to a car, to a house, on a computer you are responsible for you kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re # 19
All the **AA has to do is know that a certain file was downloaded at a certain IP at a certain time and subpeonea(IANAL might be the wrong word but you know what i mean) the router logs for that period of time and figure out which NIC was used to get said file.
Most routers log both the DHCP client table and the Mac addresses of any wifi connections made.
God I hope the MAFIAA doesn't read this post.
*Scurries off to disable the logging on his router*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISP's should delete logs fairly quickly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got some case history on that to back you up? I don't know of a jurisdiction where parents aren't responsible for the illegal actions of their children.
"Um, kids are arrested for their behavior all the time. In a civil case, a jury may find a parent culpable. But a parent never goes to jail for the actions of their kids."
And in fact we're talking about civil action here. Although if the parents are found to be neglectful, criminal charges could ensue, although obviously not in the present case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US- 2, RIAA- 0
Instead, they try to bring her mother into it and she obviously had no clue on wtf was going on while her daughter was in the computer.
This shows the government's organized work in cracking down "illegalities" in the internet and the so called "justice" they do in trying to accuse one person who just collects songs in her computer.
Quoted from the summary above:
"Of course, the filing doesn't explain how someone who isn't particularly computer savvy is supposed to immediately recognize that pop-up ads = your kid file sharing -- but that seems besides the point. Since it's become increasingly clear that the RIAA is filing these lawsuits based only on an IP address and a prayer (which hasn't been working out so well lately), it's interesting to see the lawyers hitting back and making the case that the owner of an account has liability for the actions of others"
See? they're using only one bit of evidence- an IP address, not even a person who was spying on that little girl who was downloading songs from a P2P program such as Kazaa. This is the worst way to spend taxpayers money where we could just spend it in fighting for a more decent law where the USRIAA wouldn't penalize people for little incidents such as this.
It's one thing to have a parent keep an eye on their child to download anything illegal, but it's another where the parent doesn't know about what his/her child has in their computer to begin with. Practically it's only the parent's fault if she ignores the child's safety in total.
Putting aside with the meniton that isohunt.com is already in a very big legal case against our government with a similar issue in distribution of both licensed and unlicensed material, which in result will lead to another loss by our government attorneys, this is one of the more unavoidable issues that we the people have to bang heads to and tell both the USRIAA and everyone involved in this issue to get their heads and laws straight.
Otherwise, once Bush is down from the White House, there will be changes in this matter that can affect us all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
r u f******kidding me
DEE DEE DEEEEEEE whover says thT HTHEY ARE LYABLE ARE DUMB
did u raise your kid thta waY???? did u say hey son go sownload allll the songs u want for free cu we wont get caught its the dumb ass kids whp do that on their own
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRAA Responsiblity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
parents/kids sued music downloads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]