How the RIAA Sued a 14-Year-Old
(also known as "Examples of Sh*tty Bad PR Moves")
I wrote a paper several years ago on the Recording Industry Association of America pursuing litigation against those who infringed upon their copyrights by downloading and distributing music, especially through "peer-to-peer" (P2P) networks. It criticized their motives due to the extreme measures that RIAA lawyers and their legal staff took in an effort to recoup significant financial losses due to online music pirating; one of the examples which I cited included a grandmother in her eighties with limited computer expertise and, at one point, no computer, accused of "stealing" (and I'll talk later about why this is an incorrect term to use) popular rap music.
Few lawsuits filed against individuals citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) actually go to a judge or jury; the DMCA notice is usually enough to persuade people to settle, because the risk of losing is much greater than the settlement that the RIAA is willing to offer, usually ranging in the thousands of dollars. This means that there are very few precedents for the DMCA and online music "pirating," which is much harder to prove than distribution of physically pirated CDs and DVDs sold in public on the streets. The plantiff(s) -- namely the RIAA -- must seek a subpoena against the owner of the IP address associated with any perceived illegal actions, and the owner -- usually an Internet Service Provider such as Verizon DSL or Comcast cable internet -- may be forced to reveal the identity of the customer associated with that IP. It's a messy legal issue that I won't go into now. But those opposed to the RIAA's tactics have been waiting for a landmark case that will force the RIAA to completely re-evaluate their business model (which, right now, is based on scare tactics, which prompts the question, why do people pirate movies and music more often than stealing a piece of candy from the supermarket?).
That landmark case may be here now, with Priority Records, et al., vs Brittany Chan. Why is this significant?
Brittany Chan is the 14-year-old daughter of Candy Chan.
The RIAA just filed suit against a 14-year-old girl after unsuccessfully trying to sue her mother.
Priority v. Candy Chan established two things:
1) The plantiff must file a lawsuit that alleges copyright infringement against the party accused of infringement. A parent cannot be sued if the child committed the act.
2) If the infringer is a minor and his/her legal guardian (e.g. the parent(s)) has stated in a deposition that the minor committed the act and the suit was initially filed against the legal guardian, the minor cannot be added to the original lawsuit as a defendant. The plantiff must dismiss the original suit and file against the minor with a request to appoint an independent guardian ad litem.
From a public relations standpoint, this could be a disaster for the RIAA. Imagine seeing headlines like "Music Industry Sues 14-Year-Old Girl" in the newspapers and on television. Brittany Chan was thirteen at the time (she has since turned fourteen) and was accused of downloading and distributing 829 files under the name "Spicybrwneyedgrl." Candy Chan's testimony implicated Brittany in the use of the name:
Chan: ...And then he said we have a screen name of Spicy Brown-eyed Girl. I went home and I asked the kids who's Spicy Brown-eyed Girl, and they said it was Brittany, my fourteen-year-old.
Question: Did you ever talk to Brittany to confirm that piece of information?
Chan: Yeah. Is that your screen name? Yeah.
Question: And she agreed that it was?
Chan: Yep.
How much the RIAA expects to gain by suing Brittany is unsure, but it looks like we'll find out once a guardian ad litem is appointed and proceedings can begin. My opinion? The RIAA will win -- Candy cannot go back on her deposition without perjuring herself, and that still won't help her daughter -- but at a significant PR cost.
The court documents on the case can be found at http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/chan3.pdf.