Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Student Sued by RIAA
TinoMNYY24 writes "Jesse Jordan, owner of chewplastic.com, was on CNN this morning discussing the RIAA settlement. You can read a poorly spelled transcript of the interview. Jesse is one of the two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that were sued by the RIAA."
First he gets sued by the RIAA, then his personal web site gets Slashdotted.
One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.
lysergically yours
Let me get this straight...
This guy ran a search engine on his PC that essentially turned every particpating client PC into a single unit of a JBOD RAID array?
It would have been interesting to see the court case unfold if the guy had had the resources to fight
So... I hear that those glass houses are a bitch to cool in the summertime. :-)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Daniel Peng, one of the defendants at Princeton, may think that the lawsuit was "settled amicably", but I do not think that this is an "amicable" settlement. In fact, I am outraged. They will pay for what they've done.
Hey RIAA, if you see a nerd dressed in all black wearing a trenchcoat, ala "the Matrix", coming into your building...DUCK!
CNN: So, you can steal music with your tool, then?
Student: Well, sorta. You can find any kind of document on the network with it.
CNN: Like music.
Student: Music, along with any other type of file.
CNN: Illegal music.
Student: Well, I suppose.
CNN: So you're stealing music, then?
Student: No.
CNN: But you've created a tool for stealin music.
Student: I've created a tool that is a search engine, like AltaVista or Google.
CNN: There you have it, folks, one of the evil communists trying to get something for nothing.
All sweeping generalizations suck.
So what did the government... I mean the RIAA [claim you did]
Sounds like something a slashbot^H^H^H^dotter would say about them. I agree with the goatse man post a few comments up.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Yeah,
:P
I can't see this as coming from Rush. There was nothing about Monica or Democrats...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
ANCHOR: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you?
JESSE JORDAN, SETTLED LAWSUIT WITH RECORDING INDUSTRY: Well, actually it was the recording industry association.
Kind of hard to tell these days, isn't it?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
The government came after you...
Twice (although corrected the second time). Glad Jessie had the mind to correct the interviewer - it's not easy to think on national television - watching the news "professionals" should be evidence enough, think about when you're just a college student.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Smooth move, RIAA; this really endears your customers to you.. Talk about cutting your own throat.
Trolling is a art,
The scariest and best part is when the INTERVIEWER actually confused the RIAA with the Government. That sure gives the RIAA some big clankin' balls.
Next... RIAA orders bombing of Canada, because its acutally legal to download music here!
Ratboy666.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
No wonder you posted this as anonymous. You're ignorant. If you followed this story the last 5 times it was posted on slashdot, you would have realized that these students only created search engines, nothing more. The people who are "depriving" millionaires of money are the people who willingly use search engines to steal things. If a whorehouse uses the phone book to advertise, is the phone book to blame when people visit the whorehouse? I don't think so. You also need to see through the RIAA propaganda. They say that music sales are down by some percent (I want to say 25% but the numbers aren't in front of me). The truth is, music releases are down more than that. They release less music, then blame computer users when sales go down. Anyway, you're ignorant of the laws and the actual technology used in this case. Also, your post makes no sense. No one is complaining about copyright infringement except the RIAA, even though they have stolen music.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
How does the RIAA decide which students to sue? I mean, do they do careful research on who's most likely to settle, rather than contest it, or counter-sue for harrassment? Of all the piracy that goes on college campuses, how do they pick which people?
Oh well. Pity that the record industry has had to resort to extorting $12,000 out of people who can't defend themselves who probably aren't doing anything illegal.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Its unbelievable that the RIAA would go to such lengths to make examples of these people. But what did they gain? The story mentions that the students settled but did not admit guilt. So the RIAA recoups "lost revenue" but did they really get what they wanted? An admission of guilt would have given the RIAA more ammunition for future witch-hunts. But on the other hand, now they know that they can coerce people out of ridiculous sums of money just by sharing MP3s. What will happen in the future?
While I realize that what these people did is illegal why doesn't the American government try and come up with a reasonable solution to this?
Any moment now I expect to hear a jarring noise and then Cardinal Ximinez, Cardinal Biggles, and Cardinal Fang bursting out saying "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
They sued an interview? Man, those RIAA lawyers are slick!
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
I say it's time the people put forth a bill for all elections state and national to require full disclosure of all contributions. The current system allows for too much sneaky back room deals. This way everyone can see exactly which politicians are being bought out by which companies. That's the only real way people can make well informed decisions. Not, vote for the person with the best ad campaigns on TV.
For the first time ever, I actually felt like protesting something. I showed up at around 1:40 (it should have started at 1:30) and there was absolutely no one there. Shame. Though it was probably because it was poorly advertised (a few posters and an email to a handful of people) and during finals week.
They clearly stated why they agreed to pay instead of fight - it would cost a lot more time and money than either the father or son could spare.
I disagree with their decision on principle, but I don't have the kind of money it would take to defend against the RIAA either. It's extortion, really, and while I wish they would defend themselves, it's hard to say what I'd do in their position.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This seems right up their alley...this kid was running a general purpose search engine. It indexes everything it finds. It returns results. He made no money off of it. He was intimidated into settling, pure and simple.
Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are google and alta vista immune from similar suits? Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the crap out of the RIAA.
It's a travesty of justice. I wish one of the multi-letter organizations would help this guy.
Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
-- The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
RPI's other search engine, run by a school-funded computer club, was taken by the school's request.
Thats because the song was released on a copy-protected CD.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Something poorly-spelled on Slashdot? I can't imagine.
Blog,Twitter
I may have some of my facts wrong, but as I recall he initially had some illegal mp3s on his machine which would make hims a direct as well as alleged contributory infringer. He may be planning on removing his illegal mp3s and then putting the engine back up so that he is now above reproach.
I'd like to see the legal system set up so that neither party can spend more than the other, with some minimum allowance. For instance, if the RIAA wants to sue a student, and the student doesn't want to spend more than $100, the RIAA can't spend more than that, plus some basic allowance, say $1000. If the RIAA wants to spend more, they have to get the student's permission to loan him the money, and if they lose, they don't get the money back.
Apply it to governments too, so a state can't send in the well paid DA and his staff to prosecute some illiterate scum bag for a capital offense, while the public defender is only budgeted for one hour of time.
And yes, I do know about snowballs and hell.
Infuriate left and right
Remember to support your favorite artists and go to their concerts and buy their merch.
I've never bought into this. I don't particularly want to go to concerts. I don't want T-shirts or other such stuff. What I want is a piece of plastic with the music on it; and I'm perfectly willing to pay for the privelege. If the band members signed a contract that doesn't give them money for it, I don't feel terribly sorry for them. I'm certainly not going to pay for something that I don't want, and then go and steal something that I do.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
that's a mighty convienent mistake considering the media attention this has gotten.
I'd have to agree with the father, this was just a big PR trick for the RIAA and its a shame they aren't suing someone with the $$$$ to fight back.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Consider spending months and months, and 100s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
Yes you could countersue, and you might get your court costs covered. But where do you get the money you need to fight with (not even considering you might never get it back, even if you win)?
The US justice system is a tool for people/companies with money. If you can't afford to fight a suit brought against you, then you have to settle (which despite not admitting wrongdoing, always makes you look guilty.)
.sigs are for post^Hers.
There once was a man from RPI,
who the RIAA decided to try,
he was forced to settle,
but we'll continue to mettle,
and share musical art till we die.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I believe Jesse Jordan's point to be the same as mine and many others hosting p2p-type networks, searches, etc. MP3 trading has not hurt sales of anything but music singles - do that math (since the RIAA obviously cant) and you'll see they only handle 4 billion a year in total cash flow, so unless they intend to show entirely different numbers reflecting a 100% loss in revenue I suggest they get a new story. Jesse Jordan is awfully brave though to admit he intends to bring his search back up in the next couple days. Not the smartest thing to say but at least he was honest about it. People have forgotten what 'fair use' means and the BONO term of copyright length is insane - the 14-year with one max 14-year extension for ALL works makes sense and is what our founders wanted. As for fair use, as long as we are not making a profit I don't see the problem, heck - music sales are holding strong when most other business markets are struggling so give me a break. This is the old VHS fight all over but this time we don't have big business on our side. They are more than willing to make mp3 players for us to use but if we go to jail or have to fight for our right to use them, too bad. So, I say to you RIAA/MPAA - Are you afraid to attack the big boys again for fear they will shut you down again? Come on, lets have you attack Sony or RCA or any mp3 player mfr and see how long it takes you to get smacked down. I'll just keep hosting my p2p hub thanks.
Speaking as an RPI student...
RPI costs >$30,000 a year to attend. Assuming this kid is paying full price and living on campus, it comes out to somewhere around $17,000 a semester, plus incidental costs (books, etc). If he needed to do well in his finals to pass his courses, it would be more economical to pay off the RIAA than have a shitty semester.
--
Phil
Really, a more applicable analogy would be "if people use Google to find child porn, is it Google's fault?"
In 2000, the RIAA claimed that sales dropped 4.1%. Meanwhile, they cut their album inventory by about 25%. They are making more money per release in the past three years than in the history of CDs.
How, exactly, have the RIAA stolen music? If they have, then that's quite interesting, but if you're just talking about paying the artists next-to-nothing, then that's not stealing. The artists signed the contracts. If they didn't hire all sorts of lawyers to go over them and make sure that there weren't loopholes, then that's their problem.
I actually met a contract lawyer once. He said that out of all of the recording industry contracts that he had reviewed, not one had been payed correctly. The artists were almost always owed significantly more than they had been payed.
Help Jesse pay the $12,000. Go to Chewplastic.com and click the "contribute via paypal" link that's at the top of the page right now. Fuck the RIAA.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There's really nothing in this interview that implies that the reason the RIAA went after him was because of the search engine and not some other reason-- such as him possibly having some bootleg mp3's on his computer. It seems likely to me that the reason he settled was because he in fact was doing or aiding some infringing in some more direct way and at this point he'd prefer everyone think that the RIAA went after him for some more arbitrary reason (as it makes him seem less guilty). Not that I agree with the RIAA's tactics at all, but if all this kid did was to put up a google-like search engine I think he'd probably have the ACLU or the EFF or several other organizations ready to pro-bono defend such a landmark case. It seems to me there's something being swept under the rug here...
Actually, this makes sense. How much money would he have been out if he had attempted to fight the lawsuit, and didn't pass his finals because of that? I'm pretty sure that Resalier (sp?) costs at least $12k/semester. Plus he would have been out a whole bunch of time that he spent working on passing those classes. He would have also had lawyer fees, and the time it takes to fight the lawsuit.
So actually, the "Oh I don't have time or money right now to go to court over something I'll win...here's $12k, I have to go study. Thank you" makes perfect sense if you think about it. The RIAA realized that, and is probably one of the main reasons they chose to go after someone at a large university, instead of someone who was at a local community college with much less to lose by fighting.
REPORTER: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you?
JESSE: Well, actually it was the recording industry association.
REPORTER: Yeah, that's what I said. The government.
"All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss." - Douglas Adams
For what it's worth, I lived down the street from RPI for two years, and it is a "hotbed for piracy," however the kid's father may protest.
What you have, basically, is a campus full of geeks and alpha geeks, and the half-secretive tradition of cracking that goes with it. Years ago it was phreaking the telephones for long-distance calls (I got this straight from an alumnus), and people I know who still go there have told me that tons of students ("everyone" is the phrase he used) have hard drives full of MP3's.
However one feels about so-called "sharing," it's only honest to admit that plenty of it goes on at RPI.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Is there anywhere to donate to help pay for the penalty these kids paid? I'd be happy to throw in a few bucks.
If it was one of their songs, CNN would probably get sued by the RIAA for posting the lyrics.
Right off hand, I know Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters said, "What? do they want me to start putting a quarter in my car radio?" and Fred Durst has said, "Yeah, we [Limp Bizkit] make too much money anyway". Granted, Fred Durst isn't as cool as Dave Grohl...it's still something to think about. ~Scuba Steve
This disclaimer found on the Altavista MP3 Search page:
Disclaimer
Please be aware that the multimedia files referenced, made accessible or made available to you on these pages or by means of the AltaVista multimedia search engine are protected by the copyright and trademark laws of the United States and other countries. Therefore, you may need to obtain authorization of the owner of such materials before using them. Some of the multimedia content accessible through our search engine may be offensive to you. AltaVista accepts no responsibility or liability for such content, or your use of such content.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
The kid set up a paypal link on his site (chewplastic.com) so help him pay the rediculous extortion by the RIAA. I threw the kid $20 to help.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
I bet there was some high-pitched screaming when he was first served the papers, though.
Actually, I don't think it is a good idea to attack the RIAA in such a manner. Sure, it is funny whenever the RIAA website gets defaced, or when they get DOSsed... for a little while.
But in the end such activities help paint the picture of people who use P2P services as being pirates as well as hackers... the very picture that the RIAA wants those who use P2P networks to have.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
If it makes you feel any better, I guarantee that he was also thinking of porn when he made this search engine.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I don't think "The Hulk" will be worth the $12 it will cost me to go see it. So my options are to pay it anyway and see it, save my money and not see it, or sneak into the theatre.
What you are doing is analogous to sneaking into the theatre. The "moral" thing to do would be to just not go to the movie. MP3 theives insist on having their cake and eating it too. Then, they bitch about how bad the song was (while keeping it on their 5,000-song playlist anyway).
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
...is the title of a book of these. I think it may have been compiled from the bits Jay Leno did on the Tonight Show.
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
The courts just ruled in favor of Morpheus and Grokster, which are basically just search engines of another kind (compared to, say, Google).
... violating Microsoft's copyright and IP rights? AOL Instant Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger both allow users to share files (even entire directories). How is this different?
Now, if it's true that all these guys did was provide a search facility, why doesn't that ruling apply?
If all they did was provide a means to search for information they do not control or distribute themselves doesn't that mean ALL search engines could be sued? I mean, dang, I can go to MSN right now and find any number of sites willing to give me cracks and CD keys for Microsoft products (among many, many others). Does this mean the BSA should go after the Microsoft Network for
I really don't get it. If it's as simple as that, why didn't any number of search providers and special interest groups (Google, MSN, Lycos, AOL, Yahoo!, EFF) step forward and say, "You know what, we don't think so. You will back off. You will do it now."
What am I missing? They had to do something other than just provide a neutral search facility, right?
Under the Morpheus/Grokster ruling they could claim they designed the engine just for legit uses (or just because they felt like doing it as an intellectual exercise) and cannot be responsible if individuals not under the creators' direct control use the tool for uses other than those for which it was intended.
This goes back to the hammer analogy, I suppose: If I go to ACE and buy a hammer to bludgeon someone to death with, can the victim's family sue ACE and/or the manufacturer? That would be insane since the primary use of a hammer is not the braining of people who piss me off. Justification could be made for anything from automobiles to peanuts (ie, secretly feeding them to someone who is deathly allergic to them).
If all they truly did was create a search engine, it seems to me the RIAA simply used its gigantic financial power (in the form of threats of endless, costly litigation) to extort money from a tiny foe because going after a much larger, more dangerous but identical (in principle) foe (such as Google, MSN or Lycos) wouldn't be so easy, and because certain foes (Morhpeus, Grokster) had already been declared off-limits.
That is, I believe, the very defintion of "bully."
...I'm glad it got rectified eventually.
Sadly, that means squat in the public mind.
If anything of this will stick it is the big sexy "fact" that "the gubmint is gonna bust you for trading files".
I mean, look at this example:
A lot of people think they have found lots and lots of chemical weapons stached away in Iraq.
This is (at least this far) simply not the case, but the media has loadly claimed these findings, and then retracted them in fine print so many times that it has become the truth in a lot of peoples minds.
The big sexy news item, repeated again and again sticks, regardles of if it is true or not.
Exactly the RIAA's purpose with these lawsuits, I presume...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Right before the site got /.'d he added a paypal donation thing to the top. For anyone that can't see the page anymore, the paypal address is jordaj@rpi.edu. The last time I saw the page there were 1200+ users online. If we all donate $10 that covers what he owes and he can use anything leftover to fight back against the RIAA. We all need to take some action against the RIAA before this gets even worse. Where this guy has already been in court with the RIAA and his lawyers are familiar with them, we could get him to take some kind of action against them with all of us supporting. I dunno, I'm not familiar with the legal process or how our laws work, but I know taking $12,000 from a poor college student for downloading a few mp3s is not justified.
It is my understanding from the "last 5 times" this story was posted" that these students did not just create search engines; they were in possession of pirated MP3 files.
Everyone yelling about how much more money the RIAA has for legal fees is ignoring the fact that possession of music which is not "licensed" to you is against the law.
Unless you want to argue that someone with a sufficient legal budget could take this case as far as possible until they are either denied further appeals or the laws are declared unconstitutional, then these complaints of insufficient legal fees do not make sense.
This is not a case of "RIAA sues Google for providing search services", a case of "RIAA sues Google employee for having illegal music on company-owned equipment.
What people don't want to address here is that legally, the RIAA seems to be correct.
Don't blame the RIAA for reduced diversity -- blame the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which destroys earlier limitations on the ownership of radio stations. Stations were limited to owning only low number of stations (I forget specifics, but it was somewhere between 8 and 40).
Has anyone noticed that suddenly Clear Channel owns damned near everything? I'll bet that with over 1200 stations, Clear Channel now owns at least 3 FM stations in most major U.S. cities. Clear Channel probably doesn't make up a specific playlist for each radio station, which means that most R&B stations, for instance, play a bunch of homogenized crap. A lot of said crap can be played by stations which are supposed to differ in format -- how many stations (Light Rock, Rock, Top 40, etc.) play the band Creed?
All of this leads to reduced diversity in radio -- many stations in Pittsburgh are basically a carbon copy of what you might hear in, say, Phoenix.
Less diverse radio leads to less diverse demand (as seen by the RIAA). Less diverse demand leads to less diverse titles. Less diverse titles lead to disappointed customers. Disappointed customers, of course, lead to reduced sales.
If the RIAA really wanted to increase profits, they'd fight monopolistic media.
Shya, and pigs might fly out of my butt.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Name a popular RIAA member artist that condones their music being ripped off their CD and freely traded on P2P networks. I'm not talking about concert bootlegs or limited samples, I'm talking about direct CD rips.
The Offspring were vocal Napster proponents. And before you say they're not popular, go look up their sales. Further, you then argue that
The ONLY artists that don't mind - or even LIKE - their music being freely traded are indies.
Which is also clearly not true, as they're a big-label band.
That's one off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Furthermore, unlike your analogy of the gun manufacturer, I am quite certain that if you were to analyze the usage of these search TOOLS (not to mention the websites run by the same students) that you would discover that the overwhelming majority was used for piracy and not legitimate use. Certainly you won't deny that there are millions of hunters in this country (not to mention people that use them for target practice, collection, and self-defense). Although I am for an outright ban or much stricter controls on guns in the US, even I will make this distinction clear.
Although my allegations may not be proof--the only way to settle them is by going to COURT--you cannot reasonably declare them to be unreasonable assertions before hearing the case and seeing RIAA's evidence.
Kinkos and others have been sued successfully for copyright infringement.
No, but many people would hold liable the owner of the car if they left their shiny new red Ford Mustang with keys in the ignition and a big sign saying "take me for a spin" in front of some middle school (or especially if they lent their keys to their friend's drunk son).
Funny how the reporter kept saying "the government" instead of "the RIAA". But hey, the two are practically interchangable.
where the comment ends and sig begins
First: You need to read a book called "All You Need to Know About the Music Buisness" by Donald Passman. This book is a great read for exactly how record company math REALLY goes. You also find out that basically the entire goal of the recording industry is to screw the artists and keep as much for themselves. (I mean really I can have 1000 CDs pressed for right around $1000 WITH the the cool cover art and everything, so where is all that money really going?) Second: Most record companies (the big 5 anyway) are stationed out of either LA or New York, and California placed a law into effect that basically makes bands that sign to recording contracts nothing more then "works for hire". In other words the artists don't even OWN their music anymore. This law is being relooked at and hopefully changed. So just because it's not TECHNICALLY stealing, it's not exactly what one would call moral either... Three: The fact that YOU quote a contract lawyer saying "most always owed significantly more the they have been paid" TOTALLY makes your whole argument right above that COMPLETELY null and void ...
He currently has a link on his website on which people can click to donate money via Paypal.*
I know that some Slashdot readers really can't afford to donate, but many can. With Slashdot claiming over 200,000 unique visitors per day, it would only take a small percentage of people to completely defray the costs of his settlement.
If the RIAA sues a college student and drains his college savings, then they have won. If the Internet community chips in to cover the costs of the settlement, the RIAA has lost. The RIAA probably spent far more than $12,000 bringing the suit, incurred negative publicity, and will not have substantially harmed the victim of their lawsuit if Internet users pay the settlement. Not only that, the RIAA will see that there is a community poised to support its members and next time, maybe the funds will pay for legal defense rather than a settlement.
* Please, no replies with your thoughts on PayPal, donation accounting, etc. This is someone who has been screwed by the RIAA and the legal system and if you don't want to donate, then don't. But please do not try to discourage others from donating.
To the mods: I have Karma to throw away, so that's what I'm doing. This is a totally worthless rant and only marginally connected to the topic of this story.
... that really was just luck.
That said, I am so sick of hearing about litigation. It seems the Great American Dream is no longer to succeed in life through hard work, innovation and entrepreneurial prowess but to be on the constant lookout for someone to sue for wholly unrealistic sums.
A few years ago I was at work and suddenly found myself in so much pain I actually went to my knees. It was as if someone was exploring my guts with a red-hot fist and anything but a gentle touch. That lasted a few minutes during which I was fairly certain I was going to die and pretty certain it would have to be an improvement.
I was a healthy guy in my early 20s and had had no previous symptoms. The doctor at my HMO didn't see me straight away. I was seen by a nurse practitioner. She did a lot of tests, all of which came back negative right away or would take a day or more to show results. The abdominal X-Ray was mostly inconclusive, but I didn't appear to be bleeding internally. The nurse mentioned an MRI in passing and I immediately had the urge to bolt from the office -- I'm somewhat claustrophobic and pretty sure I'd go batty in that little tube. She smiled, said that was a common reaction and she didn't think it would be immediately necessary. She called in a nurse, they chatted; a bit later the nurse came back and said the only OpenMRI lab in town was booked solid for days.
More tests. She went over my symptoms with me again, poked around on my stomach until I wanted to hurt her in various creative ways but in reality just laid there and tried not to cry while offering one emphatic "YES!" after another to, "Does this hurt?"
She decided after that that I had pancreatitis, which is excruciatingly painful but never lasts more than 48 hours or so. She gave me a prescription for antibiotics and pain meds and I called my mom to come get me. The next day was hell. 48 hours! I figured I'd make it, if only just. But then 48 hours passed. And I went back. More tests, more head-scratching. I learned nothing new and was sent home. 72 hours. I felt a bit better, I supposed, or maybe I was just getting used to it. By the fourth day I was fine. It was later in the week that I found out what I'd really had: a small perforation in my stomach. I could have died at any point along the way. Surgery is usually indicated and the condition is considered immediately life-threatening. I was one of the rare few who have the things heal up on their own.
Everyone said I should sue. Everyone said I should be seriously, litigiously pissed. Especially since the actual doctor didn't see me until AFTER the whole thing was basically over (on the third day, when I was showing improvement, at which she adopted a "Wait and see, but don't hesitate to get to the ER if it gets worse" attitude.).
Except that I did a little research and I had perfectly described the symptoms of pancreatitis, apparently for good reason. It seems that acid from my stomach was leaking onto my pancreas (which is why it hurt a LOT more to lay down than to stand or sit, I guess). It was a perfect mimic. I was even sore in all the right places. A friend of mine has an uncle who is a trial lawyer and he was ready to jump all over it. "But I begged off the MRI," I told him. "But she didn't stress it hard enough," he replied. "The burden was hers, you have no medical training, you only knew you didn't want to get shoved in a dark hole. She was more than willing to comply because MRI's aren't cheap." To this day I don't actually know if an MRI would have helped. I suppose it would have shown the perforation the X-Ray missed. I suppose, in the end, it would have also caused me to undergo a surgery that, luckily, in the end I didn't need anyway. But
It went back and forth. In the end, I didn't sue. I might even h
so the next person doesn't die, thats why.
The hospital will only change procedures if they get sued. She should have said "there could be a problem that mimics pancreatitis, so I strongly suggest you take an MRI" then scheduled for an emergency MRI.
If at that point you failed to show up, or refused, THEN it is on you, but until she insisted she had not done due diligence.
I am not a big SUE for anything type of person, but it does have other effect.
Plus, you didn;t have to sue for millions, you could of sued for 100,000 plus law fees and a change in policy. It owuld have been enough to get there attention, not so much that you are raping the system.
Also, most multi-million dollar lawsuits end up appeal until there a reasonable amount.
of course the media doesn't report "that person we told you got 100 bazillion dollars only got 100K after the apeals."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on