The 83-Year-Old Dead File Swapper

93,000 writes "Gertrude Walton, a deceased eighty-three-year-old woman, was named as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a group of record companies. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name 'smittenedkitten.' Needless to say, the suit has since been dropped."

Comments

From TFA

[k4_pacific]

"Walton could not be reached for comment."

Re:From TFA

[zoloto]

They realised the lawsuit was dead long before she was.

At least the RIAA is better than a lawyer, here's the age old joke.

What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
The hooker stops after your dead.

Re:From TFA

[commodoresloat]

good joke, but the RIAA is a bunch of lawyers.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?

a cheap hooker will get you off but a cheap lawyer won't!!

Re:From TFA

[Arhat]

The lead attorney for the RIAA's legal team had the following comment: "I sue dead people."

Re:From TFA

[wickersty]

No, it's A hooker stops fucking you after you're dead.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hookers stop after *MY* dead? Hmm.. that doesn't make sense... oh wait a minute! I see what's happened here...

You didn't know that "your" != "you're".

Re:From TFA

[FLEB]

A trademark violation lawsuit was immediately filed by an MPAA representative observing the case.

Re:From TFA

[AndroidCat]

RIAA lawyer responded to the MPAA lawyer: "Eat my shorts!"

They dropped the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, the RIAA is getting soft.

Re:They dropped the case?

[Deathlizard]

Either that, or the afterlife doesn't have a DMCA equivilant. :)

Re:They dropped the case?

[The Evil Couch]

nah, the RIAA sent out its copyright ninjas to take the old girl out.

Re:They dropped the case?

[glenebob]

You can't have order in the court when you've got such an odor in the court. The defense rests.

Re:They dropped the case?

[Jugalator]

Man, the RIAA is getting soft.

Because the woman was too hard. ;-)

Re:They dropped the case?

[Peldor]

Actually, the defense rests in peace.

Well that's

[CodeHog]

one way to keep from getting sued for swapping mp3s.

Re:Well that's

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Computers don't swap files.

Dead people do.

Re:Well that's

[rjelks]

...or one really scary way to get people to stop swapping mp3's

Re:Well that's

[sik0fewl]

Two things are certain in life: death and taxes.

Only one thing is certain in death: getting sued by the RIAA

Re:Well that's

[Wtcher]

I met a guy in Milliways who did it for tax reasons.

Re:Well that's

[David's Boy Toy]

As was said by someone about passing out in an S&M scene "passing out is a very effective safe word".

Likewise dying is an effective lawsuit defense strategy. Its hard to attach someones wages when they are dead...

How do you plead? Your Honor the defendant pleads dead.

Re:Well that's

[batemanm]

Just out of curiosity how many heads do you have? :-)

Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[bigtallmofo]

She's also reported to have voted in the last presidential election in OH.

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[TheQwe]

She's also reported to have voted in the last presidential election in OH.

Multiple times, in fact.

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[Saganaga]

Or in Wisconsin...

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[Dr Caleb]

Sorry, I think you meant "And in Wisconsin"

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[rlp]

She also voted for the governor in the state of Washington.

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[Shakes268]

If this is a reference to dead people voting, she was alive for the election. I voted on Nov 2. When did you vote? She died on Dec. 11.

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[Hrothgar The Great]

Man am I ever glad you posted. It's a good thing to know that the JOKE MONITOR is on the job! Otherwise, I might have erroneously chuckled at a joke which obviously DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROPER AMOUNT OF ACCURACY.

Thanks! You've saved us all!

Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things

[ImaLamer]

That is why the lines were so slow?

Let that be a lesson to you,

[scrame]

file trading kills.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you,

[PriceIke]

You know, I never thought of it that way. 100% of all file swappers die. That's just as many deaths as people who smoke. That's a scary statistic!

Cause of death?

[Bongoots]

Does anyone know what the officially recorded cause of death was?

Re:Cause of death?

[hsmith]

'accidental'

let this be a lesson to all!

Re:Cause of death?

[geekoid]

Her officially recorded cause of death is available on Kazaa

Re:Cause of death?

[LnxAddct]

File Trading

Re:Cause of death?

[commodoresloat]

Bullet wound to the back of the head while her hands were tied behind her back. The body was first discovered by RIAA lawyers, and the death was ruled a suicide.

Re:Cause of death?

[superpulpsicle]

Don't give those crusty executives at the RIAA any new ideas. You know they get all their IQ from reading slashdot. If we didn't mention napster, they'd still be clueless about p2p.

Re:Cause of death?

[Arcturax]

She fell down a turbolift shaft and landed on some phasers.

Re:Cause of death?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Death by Britney Spears.

Re:Cause of death?

[Total_Wimp]

ok, lead poisoning it was.

Re:Cause of death?

[NanoGator]

"Does anyone know what the officially recorded cause of death was?"

Sorry, I can't post recorded content on the internet without being a Communist.

Re:Cause of death?

[Anonymous Coward]

She accidently downloaded Gigli and opened it.

Re:Cause of death?

[Tribbin]

She was hit by a truck.

Twice.

let it go to court!

[grub]

From the article: Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.

She should have let the whole thing go to court. It would make the RIAA look far sillier when a computer illiterate dead woman's name is cleared in front of a judge rather than before hand.

Re:let it go to court!

[dAzED1]

yeah, because when my mom dies, the very most important thing for me at that point will be to make the RIAA look silly. I'll want to actually show up in court with the bother and hassle that involves, show the judge the document, and get my kicks out of my mom's death. Yeah. That's what I'd do.[/sarcasm]

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

She should have let the whole thing go to court. It would make the RIAA look far sillier when a computer illiterate dead woman's name is cleared in front of a judge rather than before hand.

IANAL (Surprise, surprise, surprise!), but I'd think the judge would be rather upset if one of the parties could have taken simple, reasonable, steps, that would have a good chance of the suit being dropped before hogging the court's time. Faxing a death certificate looks like a simple, reasonable, step. (Personally, I'dve sent a notarized copy by registered mail as well).

Armed with that evidence, the defense would probably have a good chance at having the case dropped with prejudice by a pissed off judge if the plaintiff decided to pursue it anyway.

Re:let it go to court!

[sfjoe]

Faxing a death certificate looks like a simple, reasonable, step.

Although corporations own nearly every facet of American life, we are still free to ignore correspondence from them. Subpeonas are still necessary to compel a response.

Re:let it go to court!

[SlayerofGods]

Bah you think a little thing like death would stop those high-powered lawyers? They'd simply push the lawsuit through and sue the estate ;)
Dead people can get sued just as easily as the living.

Re:let it go to court!

[Em Adespoton]

One moment... none of the parties in the suit took simple, reasonable steps. It was a relative of one of the parties who took that step; she was under no obligation to be involved in the suit in any way; the only argument that could be made otherwise is if she was the executor of her mother's estate, and had not yet signed off. The daughter would not be required to go to court; it is her mother who would have received the summons. The court itself would quickly have discovered that there was no such person living, and reprimanded the RIAA for not following due process.

Re:let it go to court!

[Gonarat]

My guess is she was probably responsible for taking care her Mom's estate. Not responding to the RIAA would just make things more difficult. She would have to make sure the Estate was represented in court. Worse case scenario, they sue the Estate and end up taking everything (if she had anything left) that should have gone to her family.

Re:let it go to court!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

A week after my mother died she recieved jury duty notificaiton. I called the courthouse and tried to explain. I was told I had to come in within the next two working days to get paperwork from three different offices. I told her, "No, thanks."

She was like, "You have to, its the law. Otherwise she won't be excused from jury duty. Make sure you get this finished within two days, and you better call ahead to find out what documents you need to bring with you."

I stated that I had in fact done them a favor, but it wasn't my problem, it was their problem.

She sputtered. "But you have to. You can't expect your mother to fill out her own paperwork to excuse herself from jury duty, she's dead! Someone has to do this!"

I agreed that someone had to do something, but it wasn't my concern. She was still sputtering self-importantly when I said goodbye and hung up.

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

It was a relative of one of the parties who took that step; she was under no obligation to be involved in the suit in any way; the only argument that could be made otherwise is if she was the executor of her mother's estate, and had not yet signed off.

I had assumed that she was the executor of the estate, otherwise, you (and other posters) are correct in that there was no compelling reason for her to respond.

As for not having to respond, without a summons, this is likely true, but I still think that a judge would not look favorably on a defendent that could have taken simple steps to try to make a suit "go away".

Yes, the plaintif has to go through due process, and would have found out that the defendent was deceased when attempting service. But, having done so, might be motivated to sue the estate upon seeing a non-cooperative defendent. (If they didn't tell us she was dead, what else are they hiding?) Discovery could be a real burden on the estate, not to mention holding up probate.

If the plaintif was out to make an example, and strike fear into would-be "pirates", any legal excuse to burden the defense, even if the case had no merit, could be used to show that they play "hardball" with "zero tolerance" for "pirates" and those that "do not cooperate". The idea is not necessarily to go to trial, but to get the defense to cry "Uncle!" and settle. Remember, settlement for the plaintif in a case without merit is as much of a victory as one at trial, if not more so.

I'd think that a call for summary dismissal on the part of the defense would be far easier if they could show no grounds for the plaintif's burdensome discovery phase. I suppose one could try to play hardball with the **AA on principle, but they're bigger and meaner than most. Would it not be better to play the part of cooperative, innocent victim to earn the sympathy of the judge? Espescially if it was not burdensome to do so?

Remember, the plaintif wants a settlement, and the defense wants the suit dropped or dismissed (preferably with prejudice). Anything the defense can do to improve their odds strikes me as a good strategy.

Re:let it go to court!

[digitallife]

You're being funny right? Considering how long the judicial system takes to do anything, there would be no estate by the time they figured out she was dead. Even if the daughter was the executor, fat lot of good it will do them down the road. Anyways although the executor has a duty to inform those who may have a claim against the estate of the womans death, the RIAA had no such claim yet, therefore I would doubt she had a duty to inform them of her death (assuming she was still executor at the time of the notice of the lawsuit).

Re:let it go to court!

[ad0gg]

It could never go to court because you have to serve the papers to the defendant which would be quite hard to do.

Re:let it go to court!

[corsican]

I still think that a judge would not look favorably on a defendent that could have taken simple steps to try to make a suit "go away".

Who cares? The mother was the only defendant named in the suit and she's dead. What steps was the defendant supposed to take, a certified letter stating her intention to die before the suit was filed? Whether the judge looks upon her favorably as the defendant or not is completely irrelevent. She's dead.

Yes, the plaintif has to go through due process, and would have found out that the defendent was deceased when attempting service. But, having done so, might be motivated to sue the estate upon seeing a non-cooperative defendent. (If they didn't tell us she was dead, what else are they hiding?

Yeah, dead people are SOO uncooperative. And who's this "they" you keep referring to? Again, there was only one defendant in the case. You don't inherit lawsuits.

Re:let it go to court!

[Gonarat]

No, I'm being serious. If she had any estate of any value, even just a house worth say $50,000 - $100,000 - a claim can be made against the estate. There is a period of time after the death that any claims can be made (usually medical bills, etc.). Once that time period has past, the no claims can be made. That's why lawyers often get involved with Estates, especially if the person that died was well off (and a paid-off house, even if it is of modest value, is worth protecting).

Once the claim is made, the Estate can not be settled until it is settled, even if it takes several years. IMHO, her Daughter was wise respond to the RIAA, otherwise things could end up getting ugly.

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

You don't inherit lawsuits

Actually, you do.

Civil suits against deceased persons can easily be refiled against their estates, and if the suit is sucessfull, there is now a claim against the estate. Guess what, you just inherited a loss against your inheritance (though it can't exceed it).

Further more, while the executor does not inherit the suit, they have a fiducary duty to the estate to handle it when the estate is served. This can be a real problem because if the executor does not handle it "properly" (i.e. gives up and settles without a fight), the beneficaries can have a good case for suing the executor. It can turn into a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of problem for the executor: spend too much of the estates assets in defense and get sued. Spend too little, and lose the case, and get sued. Furthermore the will may limit the executor's freedoms in responding (though this can be a blessing for the executor as they can't be held liable for performance of duty if they are restrained from performing said duty).

It should have been obvious when mentioning defendents that I was referring to all present (deceased) and possible future defendents (the estate) in this case.

The bottom line is that judges do not like to see their courts clogged with frivolous cases because some now-present defendent blew off a plaintif. Due process is slow, and while necessary to protect everyone's rights, takes up the court's time (well the time of court clerks until a case comes to trial). Most reasonable people try to stave off likely problems they see on the horizon. I can not see the court looking disfavourably at a defendent that took steps to try to avert a trial for a case without merit.

Re:let it go to court!

[Gonarat]

Once the claim is made, the Estate can not be settled until it is settled

Doh! Let me clarify that. The Estate cannot be settled (closed and inheritances made) until the claim is settled (either paid or dismissed).

Re:let it go to court!

[Seumas]

IANAL (Surprise, surprise, surprise!), but I'd think the judge would be rather upset if one of the parties could have taken simple, reasonable, steps, that would have a good chance of the suit being dropped before hogging the court's time. Faxing a death certificate looks like a simple, reasonable, step. (Personally, I'dve sent a notarized copy by registered mail as well).

Personally, I'd have told the RIAA to fuck off. They're a private company. Who are they to demand legal proof that someone is dead - outside of court? They're the plaintifs and it is their duty to prove that they're suing the right person for the right reasons.

Anyway, what are they going to do, start suing her family because she (being dead) doesn't respond?

Re:let it go to court!

[sconeu]

Worse case scenario, they sue the Estate and end up taking everything (if she had anything left) that should have gone to her family.

Yeah, for the next 70 years. Oh wait. That's only for artists they have under contract.

Re:let it go to court!

[babyrat]

but I'd think the judge would be rather upset if one of the parties could have taken simple, reasonable, steps, that would have a good chance of the suit being dropped before hogging the court's time.

So exactly how reasonable is it to expect a dead person to fax their own death certificate? There are two parties involved - the RIAA and the deceased. One of the parties is going to have a hard time taking any steps. The RIAA is quite fortunate that the daughter interceded in such a way - that probably saved them a lot of money.

Re:let it go to court!

[Stiletto]

Great story! Sounds liks something straight out of Terry Gilliam's _Brazil_!

The sputtering woman probably had a nervous breakdown after you hung up. I know the type.

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

It gets dicey if the executor had reason to believe that a suit was forthcoming. Acting in good faith and all.

Re:let it go to court!

[dAzED1]

no, it wasn't. It was the quickest way to get them to leave her and her family alone. Should she have dealt with a protracted legal battle instead?

Re:let it go to court!

[Anonymous Coward]

When my Mother died, the Social Security Administration told me to return her last benefit check. So, in the month you die, you get no benefits from Social Security. Let's say you die on the 25th of the month, and have spent the check for that month. Your estate will have to cough up the check and return it.

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

IIRC, the cheque you receive is for the next month.

Re:let it go to court!

[runamok1]

I'm sorry for your loss, but that is a truly great story. How amazingly unempathetic that beaurocrat was....

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

I know how to spel. What I don't know is how to type. Typos get through. (This was submitted as banged out without any fixex. Note the 'spel' and 'fixex'.)

Re:let it go to court!

[renehollan]

So old people are supposed to hold on to the cheque for a month before spending it if they don't want their estate to cough up money?

Pretty much. Consider it payment in advance to make sure one isn't paid late.

Of course, there's nothing wrong in spending it as soon as it's received, but it does mean that there may be a one month social security claim against the estate in the event of one's demise.

This does not strike me as unfair, though demanding it shortly after death is a bit insensitive. (If it were a small personal debt, I'd let it go, for example.) Then again, an executor needs to deal with financial issues anyway, and should expect indifference to the state of the deceased, from claimnants against the estate.

An aside: American Express was very understanding when I called to arrange payment for my father's last bill in the month of his death, offering deferment for "as long as necessary". My father took his excellent credit rating very seriously in life, and would have not wanted the inconvenience of his death to impact it negatively, so I payed it for him on time. I considered that part of fullfilling his last wishes. (No, I did not file a claim against his estate for reimbursement: the major beneficiary being his widow, my mother.)

Wow, just wow...

[MattyCobb]

Shouldn't they be held liable (for more than just court fees) for wasting our justice system's already limited time with junk like this? After all, this isn't the first time something like this has happened :/

Re:Wow, just wow...

[KDN]

You need tort reform where the looser can be forced to pay before this kind of nonsence gets weeded out.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[gl4ss]

* Re:Wow, just wow... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04, @02:54PM (#11575442)
No. Why should they be?*

you stupid? when they filed that stuff they made a 'promise' that they had done their homework on the case and had proof that the defendant did it.

you don't care if they waste your tax money either?

Re:Wow, just wow...

[Analogy Man]

What come's to mind is the famous Robert Kennedy line that ended the McCarthy witch hunt era.

Have you no shame?

Re:Wow, just wow...

[nacturation]

when they filed that stuff they made a 'promise' that they had done their homework on the case and had proof that the defendant did it.

Okay. So what if she really did do it, they had proof of it, and she subsequently died? Of course, from the sounds of it, it was one of her [grand]kids that was using the computer but she was likely the one being billed from her phone/cable company for the connection.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[Rev Wally]

"Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Re:Wow, just wow...

[AC5398]

From the article ...

**Walton's daughter, Robin Chianumba, lived with her mother for the last 17 years of her life and said her mother objected to having a computer in the house. Chianumba said she didn't know anything about the record company's claims. And she said she does not know anything about the screen name.

"My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer," Chianumba said. "My mother wouldn't know how to turn on a computer."**

At a glance, it looks like either the RIAA has made a huge mistake, or Walton's identity was stolen.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron.

Do they teach *anybody* history anymore?

One of our inalienable rights is to be able to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "Tort reform" is just another right-wing doublespeak for "take away the little guy's right to sue". Just another bolt removed from the framework of democracy by the reich wing. And you, KDM, just can't wait to have some powerful person/corporation's dick in your ass, you can't wait to have no means of defending yourself legally.

So you know what? FUCK tort reform! Fuck it right in the ear!

If you have a problem with being able to sue somebody who injures you, there's the door. I hear East Timor and Lebanon are lovely this time of year. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Bye. See ya. Have fun. Hasta la vista, baby.

Fucking cretin.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[laird]

"At a glance, it looks like either the RIAA has made a huge mistake, or Walton's identity was stolen."

I'd correct this to "At a glance, it looks like either the ISP has made a huge mistake, or Walton's identity was stolen" since it was the ISP who identified Walton as the person assigned the IP address.

It makes you wonder if perhaps Robin bought herself a 'net connection on mom's credit card. I wonder if she had a wireless gateway and someone was borrowing it?

Re:Wow, just wow...

[caswelmo]

Way to drop those F-bombs. +1 - Potty mouth.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[gl4ss]

so they DIDN'T have _good_ proof of it.

that's the whole point. they don't know if the individual was swapping the files or not, all they got is a hunch made from some isp records - NO throughout investigation, in fact no investigation of any kind.

but the sad fact of matter is that they don't have to prove anything it seems, just bullying works fine (well, it doesn't really work but what it works fine is as a money pumping tool for the lawyers and firms selling 'ip protection' on the net... all they do is run bots on p2p networks and sue people and make automated notices.. they key is that they're investigating on automated mode basically, not even doing basic checking if the individual they're going to sue is DEAD or not).

Re:Wow, just wow...

[NormalVisual]

That was a nice demonstration of the many different parts of speech that "fuck" can assume (made all the more impressive by the AC tag), but to say that tort reform only screws the little guy is simplistic at best.

When you sue a company pro se for a piddling amount in small claims court only to have that company turn around and sue you for a much larger amount in retribution, knowing full well you can't afford to defend against the action and knowing it will force you to drop the original suit, you might think differently. Don't forget that corporations have the same right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and they're generally a lot better at it than the average Joe. There's all kinds of games to be played with the legal system, and under the current system if you already have a legal staff on your payroll, it can become trivially easy to force a plaintiff of limited means to back down simply by burying them in paperwork, sometimes to the point of forcing them into bankruptcy even if they win the case.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[nacturation]

This isn't a criminal trial where they would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the individual concerned. For example, if a murder were traced back to a knife that I had purchased and that was in my home prior to the murder being committed, I could not be found guilty unless they could prove it was I who used the knife in the commission of the muder.

In a civil trial such as what the RIAA would have to go through, it's preponderance of evidence. So if it's your computer, your connection, and you're the one usually using it, odds are good that you committed the act.

That's why OJ Simpson wasn't criminally guilty for the murder of Smith but was found civilly liable for her death.

As for whether or not the person being used is alive or dead, if the person was alive at the time you investigated and then it goes to trial (remember, sometimes your trial date is up to a year after you sue) then what's wrong with that? I'm currently involved in some legal matters where it often takes months between the lawyers talking, relating the matters to their clients, and then the clients thinking about it, making a decision, and getting back to the lawyers.

Things don't move as quickly as you appear to think in the legal world. That this happened to the RIAA only fuels your preconceived notions that they are evil, abusing the law, etc. Perhaps they do abuse the law but this isn't certain evidence of that.

Re:Wow, just wow...

[nacturation]

Or her daughter was the one using the computer and was just bullshitting to the press perhaps. Or did you expect her to admit that she was the one who should be sued? "My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer," Chianumba said. "I had Kazaa running there every day downloading gigs of mp3s, and thankfully the DSL connection was in my mother's name so I can't be sued for it."

Re:Wow, just wow...

[gl4ss]

there is certain evidence of them abusing the laws, they don't even check where the people they claim to have broken laws live in usa before bullying them. they don't do their homework before suing - THAT'S what should be illegal(and most probably already is).

and the point with "So if it's your computer, your connection, and you're the one usually using it, odds are good that you committed the act." odds really are AGAINST it you know, especially if the defendandt is an old lady they should have reasonable reasons to think that someone ELSE did it - yet they just go on and choose to sue the dead woman(in doing that they promised that they had checked things throughly - obviously they had not, not in this case and not in dozens of others).

just filing cases on in an automatic fashion quite probably is also illegal. just try to file small claims against 10 000 people you found on the phonebook - it's basically the same thing.

I've got NOTHING against sueing warez guys - but I got something against suing them without investigation, what's most sad is that these guys paycheck is starting to be probably the biggest real damages from piracy there is(they're just pumping riaa&mpaa on case basis.. and on basis of how many cease&desists they send, that explains why they're so eager to send them too _without_ checking if there actually is any illegal content or not, when they do that they also break the law).

Re:Wow, just wow...

[nacturation]

Fair enough, but how do you suggest they do their homework? So the RIAA hit squad finds IP address 12.34.56.78 is sharing hundreds of MP3 files, a clear violation of the person's fair use copyright rights. They request the contact information from the ISP. They get back Jane Smith, 1234 Main Street, Anywhere, USA.

Now, how should they find out the age of the person? Run a credit check? And if that person has an internet connection provided by their ISP, isn't it reasonable to assume that the person who is being billed is still alive? How many dead people sign up for internet service? Granted, upon death it may take a while to get things sorted out but it would be extremely rare to find someone who is using and paying for a service, something apparently illegal is going on with that service, but the person has died in the meantime.

Your 10,000 people in the phonebook example is a nice strawman, but it's not the same at all. The RIAA, in finding the person who's using a particular IP address, has already gathered evidence that their rights are being infringed by said person. If the RIAA were suing random people without any evidence at all, then your argument would have merit.

I will agree with you when it comes to automated notices based solely upon filenames. If I am sharing a file called "Michael Jackson - Beat It.mp3" but it's really a recording of ambient sound, then they should be required to verify that the files in question are indeed infringing.

I wonder...

[|>>?]

if there is now a way that this can be used to stop these kinds of lawsuits althogether, in that it shows that the whole concept of going after file swappers in this way is bogus.

Re:I wonder...

[gstoddart]

if there is now a way that this can be used to stop these kinds of lawsuits althogether, in that it shows that the whole concept of going after file swappers in this way is bogus.

It doesn't invalidate the concept of going after file swappers. It does demonstrate that the *AA's don't actually have a clue of how to do it or that it's not very practical.

However, once they demonstrate they're completely incapable of doing it themselves, they'll buy a law that says since they couldn't it's now up to law enforcement. Then they'll have finally gotten the criminal system involved in their copyright suits and they'll have won.

Re:I wonder...

[|>>?]

I was going to go down that track in my post, but then I wasn't sure if I would be happy or confident to state that going after file swappers is a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are legitimate uses for swapping files. There are also other uses.
Do I think it is unfair that record companies haven't yet figured out that their distribution methods are becoming obsolete, sure.
Do I think it is legal to share my record collection with you and everyone else on the planet, I don't know.

Re:I wonder...

[gstoddart]

Yesh, I'm not 100% firm on my position for many of the reasons you cited.

I know I'm awfully leary in which companies can start bringing charges against people on what more or less amounts to hear-say evidence. ("We heard from Suzy that the person with that IP address was you so we're launching a suit).

I can understand they don't want people trading their stuff ad nauseum without them making money, but there needs to be some better checks to make sure they don't just drive everyone into the ground.

Just proves....

[Anonymous Coward]

that file swapping is a grave matter.

Re:Just proves....

[Xyrus]

P2P is the killer app!

~X~

*bang* flop.

Re:Just proves....

[glenebob]

Yeah, but if you've got the right tools, it's gravy.

Could be...

[Kiffer]

I've heard of ADSL equiped caskets...
Where do they get these peoples names? how come I keep hearing about them getting the wrong people over and over again.
could her Family should counter claim?

Re:Could be...

[anatoxindustx]

ADSL in my casket? I'll put up a webcam so my family can watch me decay. Or get FTTC (fiber to the casket) and I'll have a server in my casket with one of the largest p2p nodes ever. That will be my contribution to the world.

Re:Could be...

[mikael]

In the past, they still used to accidently bury people who were actually in a deep coma.

At least this way, you can download some MP3's, send E-mails, and go onto IRC while waiting to be unburied.

Re:Could be...

[paganizer]

y'know, that is a REALLY interesting thought.
If I was to take $100,000 in life insurance and do a really detailed will... naa, I would have to pre-buy the casket and gravesite to make sure the wiring would work...
It would work, but I would have to have money to burn to set things up before i die.
But it WOULD be cool. the moment the casket is lowered down, the dark fiber lights up...

Re:Could be...

[eric76]

They can bury me in a pine box for all I care.

Instead of a tombstone, I think that a life-size statue of myself sitting on a horse with a sword in my hand would be cool.

Facing forward on the horse would be a plus.

What's more disturbing?

[HarveyBirdman]

That they are trying to sue a dead person, or an 83 year old woman called herself "smittenedkitten"?

*shudder* The horror... the horror...

I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.

Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up. :-)

Re:What's more disturbing?

[Tackhead]

> That they are trying to sue a dead person, or an 83 year old woman called herself "smittenedkitten"?
>*shudder* The horror... the horror...
>I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.
>Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up. :-)

"Every time you share an MP3, [RIAA chairman] Mitch Bainwol kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens."

(You want disturbing? I almost typed "Hilary Rosen". My head asplode, my Fark account surrenders, and after a Hilary Rosen dead kitten joke, you really don't want to think about what your dog wants.)

Re:What's more disturbing?

[HarveyBirdman]

The 83 year old woman wasn't smittenedkitten you moron. That's the entire point.

Swing and a miss!

No shit, dumbass. I was just funnin'. Lighten up, asshat, it's Friday.

Re:What's more disturbing?

[ediron2]

Someone tell CowboyNeal, they've misconjugated that verb:
Smite, smitten, smote. Ergo, SmoteKitten.

"Oh, I see, it's one of those irregular verbs: I'm eccentric, you're odd, she's around the twist!" -- Yes, Prime Minister.

Re:What's more disturbing?

[Rude Turnip]

A stake...to plunge into smittenedkitten's heart to make sure she's really dead. But what do I know, I only submitted this with a funnier headline.

the "it wasn't me" defense

[BaldGhoti]

Since she (obviously) didn't offer those files for download, and since this isn't the first such case of mistaken identity in these matters, doesn't this negatively affect the RIAA's potential success in future lawsuits?

Of course, I don't think anyone's been convicted of anything yet--people have only settled out of court, right?

Re:the "it wasn't me" defense

[ari_j]

I don't think anyone's been convicted of anything yet--people have only settled out of court, right?

You're confusing civil and criminal law. This was a civil case. Criminal cases have convictions and acquittals. Civil cases have judgments for either the plaintiff or defendant.

In reality, this has done nothing to militate against the RIAA's potential success in future lawsuits. This is actually the equivalent of settling out of court, albeit very early on in the process and with no money paid by the defendant.

Re:the "it wasn't me" defense

[BaldGhoti]

Has there yet been a judgement in a RIAA case? Or has everyone settled or otherwise had the case dropped?

Re:the "it wasn't me" defense

[SlayerofGods]

Not really since this probably had nothing to do with a mistake by the RIAA. What probably happened is the RIAA suponded the ISP to find out who has 123.45.67.89 and the ISPs records were out of date and or fake. Then instead of bothering to do the detective work to find out who really held that account they just said screw it and dropped the lawsuit altogether.
Someone out there was trading files under the name smittenedkitten but the RIAA just got the name wrong. I'd bet money it was really the daughter or one of her children.

Re:the "it wasn't me" defense

[BrynM]

Has there yet been a judgement in a RIAA case? Or has everyone settled or otherwise had the case dropped?

Everyone has settled. The last case I heard of was this one from August 2003, but the outcome was never announced (probably settled). In looking it all up, I found this nice listing of cases from the EFF.

Re:the "it wasn't me" defense

[laird]

So far (AFAIK) in every one of these cases where the RIAA was "suing the wrong person" it was not because they were wrong about what was going on -- the documentation of copyrighted files being shared over p2p file sharing networks from an IP address is pretty straightforward -- it was due to "the wrong person" being the person that the ISP billed, and the person who was illegally sharing copyrighted music was someone else using the internet connection. As a legal defense, "my mom didn't do it, I did" is pretty weak. :-)

Does anyone know if the owner of an internet connection is legally responsible for the actions of people who use that connection (i.e. the way the owner of a car is liable for speeding tickets when the polics look up his license plate number, even if he claims he wasn't driving at the time)? It seems to me that if the owner's liable, then liabilityt issues will force people not to run public wireless access points. And if the owner's not liable, then enforcement for illegal online activity will become nearly impossible. Messy either way.

Yeah, really!

[MissTuxie]

Bah, she probably just faked her death to escape freaking **AA. I know I would.

Tin Foil?

[phaetonic]

This proves what I've been saying for months. RIAA will kill you if you share more than 700 songs on a P2P application.

Re:Tin Foil?

[Scrameustache]

This proves what I've been saying for months. RIAA will kill you if you share more than 700 songs on a P2P application.

If that is in RIAA numbers, it means that anyone actually sharing over 120 songs is a target!

Re:Tin Foil?

[bigberk]

RIAA will kill you if you share more than 700 songs on a P2P application

700 of their songs. I trade thousands of non-RIAA songs, thank you.

Why "needless to say"?

[redelm]

It is perfectly possible to sue the estate of a dead person for torts they committed while alive. A bit tougher if the estate has passed probate, but there are also limitations (typ 2 yrs) on any tort claim.

Re:Why "needless to say"?

[ari_j]

I agree. However, I think that the plaintiff here realized from the fact that the named defendant was 83 years old and dead that she probably had not swapped enough mp3s around for the case to even have jurisdiction in anything but small claims court (most general-purpose trial courts have a minimum dollar amount which must be in controversy, and although you can inflate your numbers in the complaint, if they were way off and you knew they were off and lied about it to get into that court, you're going to be in big trouble as a lawyer).

Re:Why "needless to say"?

[flashbang]

I doubt this is considered a tort case.

Re:Why "needless to say"?

[Tabor_Kelly]

Copyright infringement is a tort.

Re:Why "needless to say"?

[ari_j]

Not all torts have the same statute of limitations, nor do all jurisdictions have even remotely close to teh same statutes of limitations. For example, medical malpractice generally has its own statute of limitations in each state. I suspect that copyright infringement has its own statute of limitations and that it is not 2 years, but I am not going to spend the time finding out (regardless of when the last time I downloaded an mp3 was ;).

Re:Why "needless to say"?

[deimtee]

I suspect that copyright infringement has its own statute of limitations and that it is not 2 years, but I am not going to spend the time finding out (regardless of when the last time I downloaded an mp3 was ;).

Probably life plus 70 years*


(*to be reviewed at 69 years)

Re:First old people, now dead people. What's next?

[The Grey Clone]

Wasn't Santos L. Helper one of the first to be sued?

Are you Joking!!!!

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Did they say she was deceased before the file sharing occured or *after*? Man, I might want to think about settling if the RIAA is gonna send assassins after me for sharing.

Re:Are you Joking!!!!

[PriceIke]

Maybe the RIAA thinks St Peter will judge you harsher for swapping than any judge down here would.

Dead Fileswapper ?

[javaxman]

Did anyone else read that and think that maybe she was swapping Dead tunes ?

Re:Dead Fileswapper ?

[temojen]

I thought perhaps it was similar to the dead letter office... like files found on old hard drives or something.

Re:Dead Fileswapper ?

[glenebob]

Close. I thought maybe she was dead swapping tunes...

What craziness

[suezz]

When will the craziness stop. They should be held liable for something - like someone would make a false police report - to me it is just like that - a false report. these guys are jokers and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the stupid DMCA -

Re:What craziness

[Ohreally_factor]

However, we don't know for a fact that it was a false claim. Was she (or any 83 year old) somehow constitutionally incapable of using file sharing software? Who else had access to her computer (the screen name smittenkitten suggests that someone younger was using her computer, but it is not impossible that it was her)? We'll probably never know, since the RIAA dropped the case.

If nothing else, you and a few other slashdotters have shown that you are as willing to jump to conclusions as the RIAA.

One last thing. It was a civil case, so there was no "false police report".

Re:What craziness

[suezz]

I was just going by what was in the article - what you are questioning you could do with every article on /. since she was dead I would say she was somehow constitutionally incapable of using her computer. for your second point that is just it how can she be responsible for someone else using her computer - just because she bought it does not say she can keep control of it. maybe someone was sneaking into her apartment when she went to physical therapy to use it. the problem is that they are accusing her when she was dead. this is the whole problem with what the RIAA is doing. they are just throwing lawsutis against the wall hoping some of it will stick and when it doesn't they should be able to pay the consequence whether it is civil or not. As for me I think the crap they put out is just plain junk and I refuse to buy any of it. I don't even have a dvd player in the house - I would much rather read a book than watch their crappy movies or listen to the junk music that is out there. the RIAA needs to start producing a lot more quality stuff than worry about who is stealing what. there are also artists who don't need the RIAA to make music and some are pretty darn good. so if I have one them on my computer and they sue me they should be held responsible for something (like my time and resources) whether civil or not.

TFA text, site getting slow.

[NetNifty]

Gertrude Walton of Fayette County hated computers, her daughter said.

That did not stop the recording industry from accusing the now deceased 83-year-old Mount Hope woman of illegally trading music over the Internet.

More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name "smittenedkitten."
- advertisement-

On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.

"Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

Walton's daughter, Robin Chianumba, lived with her mother for the last 17 years of her life and said her mother objected to having a computer in the house. Chianumba said she didn't know anything about the record company's claims. And she said she does not know anything about the screen name.

"My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer," Chianumba said. "My mother wouldn't know how to turn on a computer."

The case demonstrates the imperfections of the record industry's two-year old effort to hunt down and sue people who put hundreds, even thousands, of copyrighted songs onto file-sharing networks on the Internet.

The industry tracks down file-swappers using the Internet Protocol addresses attached to their relatively anonymous screen names.

The IP addresses are useful because they identify computers on the Internet. But investigators cannot use the numeric codes to figure out who is using a particular computer. Often, they can only use the IP address to learn who is getting billed for the computer's Internet service.

In more than a handful of cases, the record industry has sued a person for file-swapping, then later learned that they were really after the defendant's child or grandchild.

Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.

"I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Chianumba said. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park [where she is buried] to attend the hearing. I don't know if this is a scheme to get money, I just don't know what's going on. I am concerned."
- advertisement-

When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.

Could smittenedkitten be one of them? The RIAA declined to say.

To contact staff writer Toby Coleman, use e-mail or call 348-5156.

Re:TFA text, site getting slow.

[josecanuc]

The industry tracks down file-swappers using the Internet Protocol addresses attached to their relatively anonymous screen names.

The IP addresses are useful because they identify computers on the Internet. But investigators cannot use the numeric codes to figure out who is using a particular computer. Often, they can only use the IP address to learn who is getting billed for the computer's Internet service.

I think the most amazing thing about this story is that the writer didn't write incorrect infomation about IP addresses. It's so rare that this happens!

smittenedkitten

[clem]

Bet this new information has left certain folks out there feeling a little queasy after having taken up smittenedkitten's requests to cyber.

sirL@nc3@lot> Ok, got the knitting needles. What do u want me to do now?

Re:smittenedkitten

[gstoddart]

Oh, that is so terribly disturbing. Go to your room. :-P

Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[winkydink]

WTF? She told me she was 18, blonde, slender and hot!

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[glenebob]

She actually said "slender"? That should have been a dead givaway...

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[jxyama]

>That should have been a dead givaway...

literally!

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Dr Caleb]

Go stand in the corner, ALL of you!

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[glenebob]

Well, since we've started down this path...

Yes, my post was indeed a joke. A pun, I believe you'd call it. Some people might think it's funny, and some might not. Then there are the elite few who will notice something pun like about it but, assuming that it was only by accident, will proceed to explain the pun like feature so that others may find humor in it. Congratulations on being THAT guy.

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Tablizer]

WTF? She told me she was 18, blonde, slender and hot!

All true, except she meant she had 18 teeth left. You read it wrong.

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Mantorp]

18 is still twice the average dental count of some places, even if you count by household.

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[MasterOfUniverse]

she meant she is 80, old, and holding a blender which is getting hot..

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Dmala]

WTF? She told me she was 18, blonde, slender and hot!

She was... 65 years ago.

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[jxyama]

then there are those who think the one who noticed is an idiot and explain so... and on and on...

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[winkydink]

Don't knock a good gummer until you've had one. :)

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Xeriar]

At least now you know she really was a woman.

Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!?

[Tokerat]

Arkansas?

haha

[hyperstation]

i used to work at that newspaper.

I'm suing the RIAA...

[Se7enLC]

The RIAA Killed My Grandmother!!!

Good for Gertrude

[seniorcoder]

I personally lament Gertrude's passing away. What a great memorial. Just prior to death, put a file server away in a hidden closet in a house with many years of ISP paid for in advance. Serve up those files with no possible recourse from RIAA and other leeches. Maybe a foundation could be started such that the file repository is transferred from near-death person to near-death person. As the slow wheels of the RIAA start legal proceedings, the person becomes beyond even their reach. Not so much the "make a wish" foundation as the "make a statement" foundation.

Re:Good for Gertrude

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Better yet- put it in a concrete box- completely sealed except for power & ADSL connection....

Re:Good for Gertrude

[drxray]

Better to put it in a public place and use wifi (and maybe steal power from a streetlamp, or use solar) than easy-to-cut wires which someone (albeit on the deathbed) is getting billed for).

Re:Good for Gertrude

[jdray]

Think solar panels and a wireless transceiver...

Re:Good for Gertrude

[zx75]

Ok, so if you're close to death...

Is that the kind of statement you really want to make, as the last thing people remember you for?!?

Re:Good for Gertrude

[Greyfox]

I'd think that pissing off various organizations would be the last thing on your mind in the days and weeks prior to your death. Unless you also lived for that sort of thing, and some people do.

In a perfect world, the *AA will have died a gruesome death before most slashdotters are old enough to worry about it. Otherwise, expect a huge spike in this sort of activity in a few decades...

Re:Good for Gertrude

[Anonymous Coward]

Think solar panels and a wireless transceiver...

Did anybody else think "roof-top wifi Internet"??

Whoa, with a network of powerful enough wifi rcv/send antennas in each person's homes (acting as routers) we wouldn't need ISPs to communicate inside the same city... a new "custom", ad-hoc local "internet" for each citym with it's own protocol... and then a group of volunteers could tunnel data from each city's wifi net into other cities through the "regular" internet. and if one tunneler is "killed" then others pop out to take its place...

and to gather support from lay people, you could manufacture a box that you place in your roof which is composed of:

a) battery
b) solar panels
c) the wifi snd/rcv antenna thing
d) barebones PC

you just place it there and it already starts working as a router for the adhoc network. buy one, place on roof, ... can't be simpler. and then, when sending or receiving stuff from your PC you don't have to do anything, your PC with wifi card will use your own router which is nearer, on your roof. and you even SAVE money since you don't have to pay ISPs (only the tunnelers)

And best of all, people who run a router are totally invulnerable from "copyright infringement" since they can claim to be only routing (the "Freenet node" defense)

Ok, back to work...

Re:Good for Gertrude

[seniorcoder]

>>the *AA will have died a gruesome death before >>most slashdotters are old enough to worry about it. Maybe you didn't look at my login name. I won't be waiting for several decades. I have already been developing software for many (OK 3.5) decades. I wouldn't mind going out fighting though. I've spent most of my life pushing back against crap. Why change habits when I die.

Re:Good for Gertrude

[ari_j]

Bad bad bad bad bad idea. This civil lawsuit was dropped by the RIAA of their own free will, and could have proceeded against the estate of the deceased regardless of her livelihood. They dropped it as a PR matter and because an 83-year-old obviously almost certainly didn't share 700 mp3s on the Internet. Had they wanted to and had they the proof to do it, the RIAA could have pursued the matter against old Gerdy's estate. What you are suggesting would make your heirs one very poor lot of people.

Re:Good for Gertrude

[syukton]

Why not just get something hosted with HavenCo of the Principality of Sealand (see http://www.havenco.com/ for details), something you can have and use while you're alive? Their rates are absolutely disgusting ($1500/month for colocation with 256kbps bandwidth and 5 IP addresses) but for secured hosting in a place where there aren't any IP laws....

Re:Good for Gertrude

[Baki]

i don't know about the US, but in most civilized countries debts cannot be inherited, only positive assets.

so anyone with not much assets to leave as a heritage could and should undertake such kind of "last will" actions in order to sabotage the media industry criminals

Re:Good for Gertrude

[ari_j]

That's the case in the US, as well, but consider this ...

When you die, the computer you are using for this will be part of your estate and will itself be bequeathable in your will or covered by intestacy laws in your state. The new owner will be liable for the continued copyright infringement that computer is performing.

Re:Good for Gertrude

[Random832]

So leave it to someone you hate

Shocking.

[InvalidError]

The RIAA/MPAA/etc. have been making fortunes off dead people's backs for decades, it would be a logical next step to eventually extend this to dead customers.

Frivolous lawsuits are destroying America!

[Thud457]

Oh, wait this was a corp suing a citizen, not the other way around.

carry on...

Re:Frivolous lawsuits are destroying America!

[tadd]

You, sir/ma'am hve hie the nail on the head, bravo!

700 songs?

[Tibor the Hun]

Holy shit, I thought they were only going after the big ones.

Walton was the alpha geek in her nursing home

[cshay]

The accused, Gertrude Walton, was found to have nearly every performance of Benny Goodman and his Orchestra downloaded to her iPod. "Intellectual property theft by the geriatric is a severe problem for the recording industry costing us millions of dollars a year and must be stopped", RIAA spokeswoman Hilary Rosen said.

The nursing home where Walton stayed has agreed to block all filesharing ports as part of an plea agreement with the RIAA.

This is Total BS! I hope Bush will fix this!

[ellem]

Just because some old lady died they're not going to sue her anymore?

This needs legislation!

Just because you die doesn't mean that you shouldn't be sued!

Brings up an interesting legal question

[Locke2005]

Is the person being billed for the internet connection legally responsible for anything done over the connection? Even if they are running an open wireless access point? Why aren't coffee shops that offer wireless free access getting sued by the RIAA?

Re:Brings up an interesting legal question

[csimpkin]

I am not sure about a person that is paying for a private internet connection. The bandwidth of most internet connections (cable, dsl etc) is not intended for resale. Coffee shops are okay because the DMCA has specific exemptions for 'Carriers'. I would imagine that if a connection is not meant for resale then the owner very well could be responsible. But, I am just guessing.

Re:Brings up an interesting legal question

[Locke2005]

Ok, to rephrase the question: if I'm running an open access point, does that legally make me a "carrier"? Even if it is in my own house? Seems to be that running an open access point would be a legitimate defense if somebody actually wanted to take the RIAA to court...

Re:Brings up an interesting legal question

[csimpkin]

I think that it has to do with your contract with your isp. If your isp allows you to share your connection (like a buisness class connection) then you would be a carrier. If you are not allowed to share it (most cable, residential dsl) then you are not a carrier. And, just because your isp offers home networking doesn't mean that you are allowed to share your connection.

Re:Brings up an interesting legal question

[MushMouth]

Probably because a coffee shop does not usually have a single persistant server of music, and anyone that they did have is firewalled. In other words, while some people at times do run torrents from a coffee shop, they do not often leave them on for long enough for the record companies to notice. However if the upstairs neighbor had one running for weeks on an open AP the cafe, and the idiots who leave their connections open, would be identified and in a decent amount of hurt of legal fees in the very least. Anyone with a brain can figure out that this is a non story, most likely one of her grandchildren is running a p2p app on an ADSL line. The RIAA just gets the name/address of the billed party from the phone company, normally it would be sorted out later.

She shouldn't have downloaded Videodrome...

[uqbar]

...probably caused brain tumors and killed her.

**AA

[Cerv]

Shouldn't that really be the ??AA, not **AA ? Or do you have something against the Automobile Associaton of America, Alcoholics Anonymous and every other organisation who's acronym ends with two A's?

Re:**AA

[geekoid]

yeah, **AA has an unneeded level of indirection.

Re:**AA

[timster]

As far as I know it's only the two organizations -- I don't think we have anything against the NCAA.

So really it should be like {RI,MP}AA. Or better yet, {RIA,MPA,BS}A

Re:**AA

[PriceIke]

As far as I know, the Boy Scouts of America isn't a bunch of lawyers ..

Re:**AA

[timster]

http://www.bsa.org

Re:**AA

[NuclearDog]

/^(RI|MP)AA$/

Ever heard of .zip or .rar?

[bird603568]

Thats why you should share/download a whole album or a discography in a .zip or .rar It's less files, so theoriticly the less change of getting caught. But if found out then your SOL becuase you just got 300 songs per file.

Re:Sigh.

[the_mad_poster]

What's the point indeed.

Despite what the ravenous morons on this site will now scream, the RIAA was collecting information and planning BEFORE she died. They just happened to file the lawsuit AFTER she died. They got the wrong person, yes, but it's only coincidence that she happened to be dead by the time they actually filed the suit.

Nevermind:

[zoloto]

NetNifty has the subject here

The truth about stem cells........

[big-giant-head]

Thats the real reason Bush doesn'nt want stem cell research. We all know as soon as those pesky stem cells start mutiplying they'll be trading songs, movies and software over p2p networks.

The only way to stop that is BAN STEM CELL RESEARCH. .....

Grandma Walton...

[new death barbie]

say it ain't so!

John-boy, wipe that grin off'n yer face!

The RIAA's legal counsel

[Infonaut]

I'm not sure if Jenner & Block is the only firm the RIAA uses, but they are already drawing increasing flak from some people in the ALA (American Library Association) for potential conflicts of interest, as the ALA uses Jenner & Block as well.

One wonders how a big, powerful law firm staffed with smart people could have made such an enormous blunder, if in fact Jenner & Block was the firm doing the work on this.

I'd be interested to find out how many lawyers the RIAA employs and/or keeps on retainer.

That's weak.

[Kaisum]

Only 700? Old lady's a novice! A dead novice!

Re:That's weak.

[Dunbal]

Only 700? Old lady's a novice! A dead novice!

There was only room for 700 songs on her computer. It seems that there was no more room on her 240GB hard drive due to her pr0n collection...

You have already head of her...

[NoSuchGuy]

You have already head of her - she is the one who voted for Bush in last november...

Re:You have already head of her...

[Shakes268]

Well, the article says she died on December 11th. She could have voted since she was alive for the election.

Be careful with those lawyer jokes

[clausiam]

http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/ stories/2005/01/14/20050114wacnethaway.html

Re:Be careful with those lawyer jokes

[zoloto]

truely great indeed. I hope whoever had those two arrested and any involved in their unfortunate incarceration get fined and arrested as well.

Re:Be careful with those lawyer jokes

[Zhe Mappel]

Nice to see Ron Kuby is still out there all these years later, making the right kind of trouble. From TFA:

Lanzisera said he originally felt like telling the lawyers calling them to go to a very hot place of eternal suffering, but he eventually accepted an offer from an attorney named Ron Kuby, described by the Associated Press as a radical lawyer who promised to handle the case without charge.

Kuby got into the swing of things by saying his clients' case was like the lawyer joke, "What do you say to a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Good morning, your honor."

If he can keep this issue alive, Kuby wants to file a civil lawsuit against the court officials.

Ol' Bill Kunstler would be proud. Take 'em for all they're worth, Ron. ;-)

However

[paranode]

The whole legal strategy of the RIAA is to settle out of court and that's harder to do with a dead person. They know full well taking it to trial would not be in their best interests.

I'm scared.

[c0ldfusi0n]

This is shady. Anyone knows how the old lady died? She might have been a serious threat to the RIAA. And, do i dare say, they might have.... terminated her before she could cause any more damage! Eek!

Re:Stupid story

[Dachannien]

The RIAA sued somebody for violating copyright.

The point is that the RIAA failed to take virtually any action to determine whether that somebody actually did anything wrong before suing them.

Re:Stupid story

[jxyama]

indications are that she was not violating copyright.

if she was alive, she probably would have had to settle (i.e. pay RIAA money) because if she's like most people, she wouldn't be able to afford to go to the court simply to defend herself.

Re:Sigh.

[nkh]

They got the wrong person, yes, but it's only coincidence that she happened to be dead by the time they actually filed the suit.

But it was not a coincidence that she was the wrong person (actually they knew she was dead because the death certificate was sent to record officials before the suit was filed, they are even more ridiculous).

Does this sort of thing get everyone off the hook?

[janneH]

It strikes me that if there are enough mistakes like this, then they will not be able to convict anyone. The question will be asked - are you sure (beyond reasonable doubt) that you have the right person - the person who was actually committing the "crime". And the mistakes will be held up as evidence that they can't be sure. So how many mistakes will be enough to make reasonable doubt for everyone?

Stupid Mistake

[Bender0x7D1]

Just goes to show you that the record companies are too greedy to spend some of their money on a decent investigator and legal team.

A decent investigator would have noticed that the person didn't own a computer, and a decent legal team wouldn't have lost track of the defendant long enough for them to die.

Could have been worse...

[StringBlade]

Her screen name could have been "necrokitten"...

*ducks*

Why post this article....

[Tepshen]

... It's obviously a dead issue.

Remember kids

[commodoresloat]

When you download MP3s, you're downloading rigor mortis.

Re:Remember kids

[suss]

When you download MP3s, you're downloading rigor mortis.

How did you know i was downloading Cameo's Greatest Hits?

Re:Remember kids

[Harlockjds]

yep i am when i need my fill of death metal...

Damn

[elecngnr]

Man, smittenedkitten is dead? Where the hell am I going to get that Benny Goodman and Frank Sinatra now? I am so bummed. Damn mortality anyway.

Sole defendant

[null etc.]

More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit.

When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.

If the RIAA had done a little more research, they could have had 55 defendants instead of 1.

Anyone who disagrees with the RIAAs tactics should boycott legal music downloads on April 1, 2005.

Netcraft Confirms

[Ann Elk]

...sorry, I just can't finish this crap joke.

Re:Netcraft Confirms

[suwain_2]

Your signature sums the joke up nicely.

Re:Yeah..

[MightyMartian]

> "My client was distraught over her mother's death,
> Your Honor." No judge in his right mind would nail
> her.

Where is this fabled land where judges are in their right minds?

Could she have done it...

[Anonymous Coward]

With a zombie process?

In other news

[arvindn]

RIAA Piracy Dragnet Snares Popular Female Musician, Deceased Man, and Three-Legged Kitten

Re:First old people, now dead people. What's next?

[RockClimb]

My guess... my great uncle who has been deaf most if not all of his life. What I find disturbing is this statement from TFA:

Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.

And they still filed the lawsuit..... talk about cold. I know how ticked off I got a couple of weeks ago when a company sent a flyer addressed to my father who has been dead for 14 years. It didn't help that I got it the day before the anniverary of his death.

Stereotypes

[Tablizer]

Let's not jump to conclusions, people. Granny's can rock and swap files also. Just because you are old does not mean you can't still boogie woogie and jam. Maybe she just happened to die shortly after file trading.

Re:Stereotypes

[coastin]

Looks like the site got slashdotted to death... Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /web2/wvgazettemail/phplib/db_mysql.inc on line 75 Database error: connect(localhost, wvgazette, $Password) failed. MySQL Error: () Session halted.

Re:Stereotypes

[Tablizer]

Finally, proof that MySql kills

SHHH!!!

[Hobadee]

SHHHHH!!!! Don't give them ideas! It's the RIAA, the *WILL* use them!

They don't know who they are even suing

[Shakes268]

Seriously, all they see is an IP address and target for a law suit. They aren't looking at probability. If they were gathering evidence instead of one sided router records they would have realized this woman didn't even own a computer! Could this be a case of identity theft? Possibly.

Re:They don't know who they are even suing

[jasen666]

Yeah, and it makes me wonder, how many of these damn lawsuits are even the right people? How can we trust they're not just suing anyone without even going through proper investigative procedure to see if their data is accurate?
I get the feeling they don't care. Just grab an IP off the log and sue it. Who cares if it's the actual file sharer or not, we deserve compensation.

Re:They don't know who they are even suing

[Shakes268]

There is no proper investigative procedure if they had already filed a suit on a woman who didn't own a computer. Are they suspecting people of file swapping via Comcast DVR?

Re:They don't know who they are even suing

[jasen666]

That's exactly the point. If the woman owned no computer or internet connection, then how the hell did they get her name? Properly investigating who they are suing before filing it may have prevented this idiocy.

Old P2Per mind trick!

[HTH NE1]

On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.

Weak-minded fool!

Kinda OT

[mageos]

I know this is slightly off topic, but I am still waiting for the RIAA to file law suites claiming broadband should be banned because it facilitates pirating music.

They Killed Gertrude!

[scherrey]

You BASTARDS!

See children, stealing music can KILL YOU DEAD

[netsavior]

great I can just hear the RIAA ad now.

Re:This is Total BS! I hope Bush will fix this!

[Sean the Impaler]

"Just because some old lady died they're not going to sue her anymore?

This needs legislation!

Just because you die doesn't mean that you shouldn't be sued!"


I hope you're kidding...

It wouldn't have been thrown out

[donutello]

This was a civil, not a criminal case. In the event that the RIAA had won the case, any judgement would have been awarded against the defendants estate. You don't need to be alive to be sued in civil court.

The RIAA didn't need to drop the case just because the defendant was dead.

However, this was mostly a PR case. The lawsuite was not filed with the purpose of recovering damages. The real reason they filed the case was as a PR suit to make an example of the person and with the person being dead, the only PR results would have been to make them look like bigger scum than they already do. That's why they withdrew the case.

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[PriceIke]

ALL of the RIAA's lawsuits are PR cases. What, you think they need the money? It's all a bogus dog and pony show designed to impose guilt and fear on those who enjoy music and aren't slaves to the RIAA's (exploitative) distribution channels.

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[Dasein]

IANALBRTSOALSWIHSAL (I am not a lawyer but rather the spouse of a law student who I help study a lot) ...and you saved me from having to correct everybody. Now if I just had mod points.

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

UM while you are correct in some fashion (about the estate)....you cannot be held liable if there is no estate. You cannot be held accountable for the crimes of your parent. (If you did not benefit from it).

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[thogard]

You let the case go on and have the defendant add "defamation of the dead" with some large $$$ to the counter suit. Let the judge figure it out. If the judge is annoyed with people screwing with the system, he might just award all recent RIAA winnings to the defendant.

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[nizo]

IANALBRTSOALSWIHSAL (I am not a lawyer but rather the spouse of a law student who I help study a lot) ...and you saved me from having to correct everybody. Now if I just had mod points.

Any chance of getting that added here or am I going to have to write it on my arm?

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[quarkscat]

Yup. The RIAA could have taken the case
to court, and won. 700+ songs has got to
be equal to at least 700 different albums
at $15 each. The RIAA could have taken her
entire burial fund, and left her a pile of
(cremated) ashes in a cardboard box left at
the curb. That'll teach those fileswappers.

It would have been an absolute PR disaster.

Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out

[devilspgd]

See, now that is a _good_ reason to drop the case.

Re:Does this sort of thing get everyone off the ho

[joeljkp]

Possibly, if anyone actually takes them to court. AFAIK, none have.

Kill these suits once and for all

[Nom du Keyboard]

You know, one way the ISP's could kill these suits would be to give the RIAA just enough wrong names that they're constantly in the news with a case or two like this one. Some programmer has a glitch that just occasionally turns Michael Steward into Martha Stewart. After all, everyone knows that even the best computers make occasional errors.

Of course, if the ISP's quit keeping dynamic-IP address assignment logs so long, that would pretty much do in these suits as well.

Re:Kill these suits once and for all

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

why keep logs at all?

Well they don't keep musicians on retainer.

[crovira]

They exist for only ONE purpose. To keep the RIAA around.

Long dead musicians or fools who signed their rights away are the RIAA's stoc in thare.

Anything 'new' is hyped, churned, produced in such a way as to bankrupt he musician (see/hear Wall*Mart,) and put into the remainder bin.

That's why you have Golden Oldies stations.

It ain't good music. Its merely the most profitable.

The RIAA is to music what a Mortician is to a beauty parlor.

Re:This is Total BS! I hope Bush will fix this!

[donutello]

I know you're trying to be farcical but no legislation is needed. Civil cases can continue against dead defendants and any judgements are awarded against their estate.

The RIAA chose to drop the case but they didn't have to.

Who got lucky?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Okay, which of her 55 descendents inherited her music directory?

Lawyer: "And to my last, and least favorite, nephew, I will my 700 illegal downloads, and the RIAA suit that goes with it -- on the condition that he continue to be known as smittenedkitten."

Re:Golf Clap

[aero2600-5]

"Golf Clap"

That should be Dr. Bill Frist's 'Safe Clapping'.. because palm on palm clapping could give you aids..

Aero

Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[popo]

I love this effort to discredit all file-sharing suits by pointing out the few that are off-target.

"Look, see how dumb and evil the RIAA is? They're suing dead old women?"

Please. The same errors occur with IRS tax suits, electricity bills, lottery winnings, and anything else that involves identity and is executed by a large beaurocracy. What's the point of this idiotic story? If you haven't figured it out its an effort to discredit and vilify the the big evil RIAA (who has an extraordinarily legitimate case).

Remember kids: Capitalism bad. Socialist free information good. No one needs to get paid. Money = evil. Free entertainment is our birthright! Yar!

Hey.. why are there nothing but reruns on?

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[Vegeta99]

Because the media companies won't let the real artists on air?

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[popo]

Mmmm...Yeah ... I hear you Mr. Stalin. Mistakes of "this magnitude" (huh?!) should absolutely as you say, result in one losing one's constitutional rights legal action and representation.

<whisper>

Psst...Between you and me I think we should kill the people involved. And we should send their families someplace cold and miserable. Are you with me?

</whisper>

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[jfengel]

I love this effort to discredit all file-sharing suits by pointing out the few that are off-target.

Well, yeah. The RIAA is trying to track down anonymous people against whom they have a legitimate beef, but just because they have valid complaints doesn't mean they have a valid complaint against you.

Lawsuits are extremely disruptive, and it's vitally important that the RIAA know who it's suing. If I were to be sued by the RIAA, I have the choice of a lengthy defense (expensive in both my time and money for a lawyer, with no guarantee that I'll get it back when I win), or settling.

This is not an ordinary accident. They didn't just send out a mistaken cease-and-desist letter. They filed a lawsuit, and had she been alive to get it, the very next thing she'd have had to do is spend a few hundred dollars on a lawyer. The RIAA may be able to file lawsuits out of petty cash, but real people don't have lawyers on retainer, or a staff of people to handle suits.

When you're filing lawsuits against people and you haven't bothered to verify who they are, it says to me that you have an awful lot of money and you don't care who you hurt in the process. Morally, I have to weigh the incidental damage you're causing against the legitimate harm done to you, and in this case I find the RIAA very wanting.

Note that I'm not one of those "socialist free information" types. I support copyrights and even patents. The RIAA must not simply have a legitimate case: they have to have THE legitimate case. If they're just hoping to cow people into settling to make a buck, they're less sinned against than sinning.

Incidents like this suggest that they are doing precisely that. I agree that they have a valid case, but they're losing the moral high ground rapidly.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[popo]

Yeah, "if it wasn't for the record labels all musicians would be making a really great living". Blah blah... You sound like every other whiner living in Brooklyn struggling with a band that sucks and blaming it on the "industry, man".

Quit your juevenile uneducated whining.

Who are the 'real' artists? The ones *you* like I guess?

In every century before this one, musicians were broke. And so were artists.

Its the media companies that *made* this a business. Removing them from the picture doesn't create a more equitable distribution of entertainment dollars, it removes the dollars altogether.

God sometimes Slashdot is so full of whiners it kills me.

Next youre going to tell me that if Nike and Adidas would go away, we could go to stores and buy 'real' shoes from 'real' cobblers.

How old are you?

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[popo]

I hear you. That's a valid point.

But the legal system has protected (rightly so) civil liberties and rights to privacy above all else, leaving the RIAA with no other room to move.

The reality on the ground is that millions of dollars are being stolen every day. (Whether or not you agree that a song downloaded actually represents a sale lost not withstanding).

There *is* a legal transgression that is taking place daily and it is impacting the industry in an enormous way. The courts have sided almost exclusively with the consumer (thankfully we haven't started to lose that many civil rights yet), and the RIAA has only one course of action left open to it: lawsuits.

As I understand it though, the RIAA has constructed a "repent" clause in to all of their suits which gives you a get-out-of-jail free card in return for a signed promise of non-recidivism.

So your point about requiring innocent people to spend money on lawyers (unless I'm wrong, and its been a while since I looked into this) seems like only part of the story.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[jfengel]

The "repent" clause is an excellent idea, but if I were faced with a lawsuit, I'd want to get a lawyer to advise me on it. If you're guilty, that's not an unreasonable thing to ask you to pay for. If not, I'm out of pocket a few hundred dollars.

Mostly, I'd just like to know why the RIAA's lawyers screwed this up. The real problem here is not that the RIAA is suing people, but that their law staff allowed them to sue obviously the wrong person.

The article says they'd been sent a letter saying the woman was dead. What the RIAA needs to reconsider is not their lawsuits (which I agree can be valid) but their law staffs. It's a stupid mistake, and they're going to need to clean up their own house before going after anybody else.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[corsican]

Take 'em out, shoot 'em in the head with a .22 (no need to spend money on anything more powerful), and charge the family for the bullet.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[Dunbal]

Remember kids: Capitalism bad. Socialist free information good. No one needs to get paid.

Ri-iiight because every time grandma downloaded an MP3, the music industry had to pay $15...

Long before the internet and CD's there was something called radio, and people used to use this silly mechanism called a tape recorder, to tape songs from the radio. And there was a huge hue and cry about how this was costing the "artists" money. "Piracy" will NEVER end, but it doesn't cost the industry anything. IT IS MONEY THEY NEVER HAD and it is also MONEY THEY WILL NEVER HAVE. How this can be a "cost" is beyond me...potential profit does not exist, it's an accounting fallacy. If they want to sell more albums they have to do like any other business and drop their price, or create a product that more people want.

You can't force me to buy something I don't wan't, and you can't "protect" a few million bytes in a computer memory or anywhere else. If you can read them and make sense of them, so can I. Technically humming your favorite tune is also a copyright violation.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[zenyu]

There *is* a legal transgression that is taking place daily and it is impacting the industry in an enormous way. The courts have sided almost exclusively with the consumer (thankfully we haven't started to lose that many civil rights yet), and the RIAA has only one course of action left open to it: lawsuits.

Look EMI sent my ISP a nastygram that resulted in my losing internet service for a week. I work from home so this was a real hardship. I had never heard of the bands listed, the IP address listed wasn't even being used at the time, and I've never downloaded a song at home*. Music just doesn't matter much to me.

*I downloaded a public domain performance of a public domain song from Napster when they first started at work just to show my boss how cool the technology was.

Now lets look at losses: about $1000 for me, about $300 in customer acquisition costs for the ISP I dumped for not informing me of the letter they got before cutting off service. For EMI, $1. They obviously just did some brain dead port scan and hired someone not capable of cut and paste to write the nastygram.

This is a case that never went past the nasty-gram stage, just immagine the legal transgressions they are committing on the scale of our economy... I will gladly join a class action against them when it comes. They are impacting the nation in an enormous way. There is only one course of action left open to freedom loving Americans: lawsuits.

As I understand it though, the RIAA has constructed a "repent" clause in to all of their suits which gives you a get-out-of-jail free card in return for a signed promise of non-recidivism.

The innocent are the most impacted by this type of "repent" clause, it reminds me of our broken criminal "justice" system. Punish the innocent, pardon the guilty. It's just not right.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[HiThere]

The RIAA lost all it's moral high ground when it started bribing legislators. I know that they call it lobbying, and that technically you probably can't prove any law was violated, but morally it's bribery.

These days I consider the RIAA and the MPAA to be enemies of civilization, and that nearly anything that hurts them is justifiable. Unfortunately, file swapping doesn't hurt them, or I'd be cheering for the file swappers, and maybe doing a bit myself.

I do support reasonable copyrights, but when the DMCA was passed, copyrights lost their moral right to exist (which had already been considerably weakened by the reckless extensions that had been added during the 1900's).

Patents also have a good and proper realm. Patents are proper for inventions which require massive up front investment *AND* expensive duplication costs. (This implies that whether a patent is reasonably valid depends on the manufacturing capabilities at any particular time.) Patents were already being stretched out of shape by the late 1950's, but with patents on software and on business methods, the patents also became disreputable. (This was even before the reorganization of the USPTO turned it into a "patent mill", where essentially you just need to pay the money to get the patent.)

If you want to know why people despise "IP", look at the laws that sustain it. Something doesn't become moral by having a law passed any more than filing a law suit is moral just because it's possible for you to do so.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[Vegeta99]

I'm eighteen, not that it matters.

And of course, Slashdot is also full of self-important, i'm-always-right, tunnel visioned morons like you, too. You cannot think about a statement at all, you simply declare its thought completely incorrect and go into a tirade. I did not provide an argument, just a thought to consider, and you responded with an unneeded, completely one-sided argument with no consideration of other options.

Why are there nothing but reruns on? Because, in the future, the RIAA, the MPAA, and any other 4-letter acronym can no longer make any money by selling their manufactured music, that is, find a pretty boy or girl, hand them a tone corrector and a microphone, and have them belt out pre-written lyrics over a pre-written track. And we all know that with current distribution models (that is, record stores, wally world, and broadcast/cable TV), you've got to sell your life away to a label, or be lucky enough to have a pilot that an exec thinks can sell ads.

With newer distribution models, anyone can participate. <i>The market</i>, you know, as in under Capitalism, decides who makes it and who doesn't. The artists are in control of what is made available for sale, not a few large media companies.

As for your argument that it's OK for RIAA to sue a dead person because utilities always bill dead people, well, it's a dumb argument. There's quite a difference between sending a bill to a dead person and collecting evidence, hiring a lawyer, GOING TO THE PROTONOTARY AND CLERK OF COURTS, WHO WOULD KNOW HE OR SHE WAS DEAD, and filing a lawsuit. Their lawsuits are frivolous, usually not based on facts as their past will show, and the monetary damages they claim are exorbitant. Therefore, I will ALWAYS side with the defendants, and while I believe RIAA has to make money too, they're like the opposite of a dot com business. Their business model is too old, and they need to restructure, whereas most dot coms tried to enter new markets that weren't proven yet. Electronic distribution of music and video has been proven, and if they took advantage of it, I'm sure they wouldn't need these laws and lawsuits to stay alive.

Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy

[popo]

Well, right AND wrong...

I'm with you on the 'accounting fallacy' bit. Its pretty tough to call every downloaded track, a track that "would have sold". The RIAA is on crack when they make those kind of claims.

But there *is* an impact. It's not 100% as the RIAA suggests, and its not 0% as you suggest in your post. I'm not sure we'll ever have a good metric to assess this loss, but to say that it doesn't exist is as wrong as the RIAA's claim of 100% opportunity cost...

What? They let her off?

[catdevnull]

I'm surprised the RIAA didn't dig her up and piss on her corpse. I mean, why should the bitch rest in peace when she's responsible for all that lost corporate revenue with all the Snoop Dogg, April Lavigne, Dr. Dre, and Eminem files she shared with her punk-ass octogenerian miscreant fileswapping feloneous scumbag friends? Right?

I'm sorry...was I on a sarcastic rant? he he

Re:Every time you download music...

[pixelpusher220]

can we start with Congress?

The dead have risen...

[TheLoneIguana]

...and they're using Kazaa!

Death by Kazaa Adware?

[Sundroid]

Grandma Walton's death could be a medical mystery yet to be solved, but CNET has provided a clue: court documents related to the ongoing "RIAA vs. Sharman" lawsuit in Australia reveal that even Sharman's own employees are scared of installing Kazaa software because the adware in it screws up their computers. I have a link to that article on my blog at: http://sundroid.blogspot.com/.

Self defeating law suits.

[crovira]

In order to keep these bastards away, I don't buy any new music.

I have 800+ old CDs moved to iTunes and I've ripped my 400+ vinyl albums to it too so I figure I can listen to that instead for ever.

And the **AAs can kiss my money goodbye...

The next James Bond is a remake of Ca,bloody,sino Roy,friggin',ale. A remake... What a bunch of accountants...

I still remember the one with David Niven. I'm not going to pay to see that again.

Re:Self defeating law suits.

[spamfiltertest]

Actually, it's not a remake - it's simply taking the name seeing that was the 1st Bond book. Tho, I will forever love Casino Royale.

If I've learned anything from Blade...

[mtrupe]

Its to never trust old dead people. Especially the ones that listen to techno.

Hmmm...

[eno2001]

...maybe I really AM a geek after all? Was I the only one who read the title as "The 83-Year-Old Dead Swap File"? ;P

Re:Hmmm...

[jester22c]

Nope I read it that way at first as well...

hmmm

Re:Well, Duh!

[kamapuaa]

But, none of these 7-8 comments are actually funny, what gives?

Death Metal

[wheatwilliams]

Gertrude Walton must have been a fan of death metal.

Well, one thing's for sure...

[Chordonblue]

She won't be trying THAT again!

Remember: Every time you share a song, a kitten dies...

Re:Well, one thing's for sure...

[max8061]

"Remember: Every time you share a song, a kitten dies..."

Don't you mean that every time you share a song, a 'smittenedkitten' dies?

Re:Well, one thing's for sure...

[Daedalus-Ubergeek]

No, he's obviously saying every time you share a song, a kitten is smittened!

Re:Well, one thing's for sure...

[robertjw]

OK, am I the only one that thinks smittenedkitten is not a good name for any 83 year-old woman (shudder).

Partly true...

[SuperKendall]

She's quite slender now, and depending on how she led her life might be very hot indeed!

OK, I admit

[Registered Coward v2]

John Boy is the real file swapper.

No wonder...

[say]

In Fayette county, only old people pirate music!

Dead?

[SoCalEd]

I think she's faking her death.

Everyone who's anyone knows that Grandma Gertie is the rap-mp3-file-sharing-overlord....

Pest Syndrome

[spockman]

Still suffering with the PEST trauma are we. (Post Election Stress Trauma)

Re:First old people, now dead people. What's next?

[Shakes268]

The RIAA soon will support pro life, help overturn Roe v Wade all so they can sue the unborn they suspect will file swap at some point in the future.

A Joke

[micromuncher]

What's Old, Yellow, and lives off Dead Beattles?

Ans: Yoko Ono

---

Seriously, if you die and forget to turn off the computer and your p2p file sharing, you're asking for it. No wait, you're dead, you don't care anymore.

So let's see...

[bonch]

The lawsuit was filed, probably because someone using her computer or somehow connected to her in some way, it was found that she was dead and couldn't possibly be the one, and so the suit was dropped.

Why is this news? Is it so Slashdotters can hoot and holler about a suit that was already dropped? Obviously the wrong people will occassionally get named in these things due to the nature of IPs and the Internet.

Are we supposed to laugh at how dumb we think the RIAA is for going after individual downloaders, even though it's EXACTLY WHAT SLASHDOTTERS (including CmdrTaco) SAID THEY SHOULD DO back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuits?

Is it okay to violate music copyrights? If so, does that mean nobody should bitch in the next "GPL source code theft" article?

Just asking questions. With things like the iTunes store (.99 per song) and other online services, it's pretty silly to be justifying music piracy these days with excuses about how expensive and evil you think the RIAA is (notice the artists getting ripped off are never mentioned in those equations).

Re:So let's see...

[Reverend Joe]

notice the artists getting ripped off are never mentioned in those equations

sure they are. i post all the time complaining about how the riaa refuses to pay artists the money they deserve, and uses their illegally-gotten and abused monopoly power to strong arm artists into unfair record contracts, followed up by their tried-and-true, proven method of routinely "forgetting" to pay even the pittance they racketeered the artists into agreeing to.

that is, in fact, one of the things that I believe DOES justify infringing the copyrights held by the riaa; the fact that all the hollering the riaa does about "the artists" is done to support a system that has historically, systematically, and categorically used to "legally" rip artists off year-after-year without fail.

i'm with you man; i post about this all the time, what the heck are you talking about when you say "never mentioned"?

Re:So let's see...

[Hork_Monkey]

I think the point is that you should make damn sure of the facts before accusing someone of anything.

Re:So let's see...

[iminplaya]

Is it okay to violate music copyrights?

Yes. Just like it's okay to smoke weed. Copyright and prohibition are both wrong. They put the manufacture and distribution into the hands of criminals. I'd rather not deal with criminals. Real businesses have better quality control.

If so, does that mean nobody should bitch in the next "GPL source code theft" article?

Yes. "GPL source code theft" is impossible. There's nothing to stop anyone from using, sharing, giving, selling it. With that in mind, how is any megacorp that "stole" the code going to make their millions from it? How are they going to keep me from getting the source?

Obviously the wrong people will occassionally get named in these things due to the nature of IPs and the Internet.

And you consider THAT okay?? I find copyright violations a little less offensive(a lot actually) than the legal system being used to harass innocent people.

(notice the artists getting ripped off are never mentioned in those equations).

You are quite the redundant one aren't you? They are mentioned all the time. I've pointed that out before, and you chose to misinterpret that back then also.(How soon they forget...)

Re:So let's see...

[bonch]

Yes. Just like it's okay to smoke weed. Copyright and prohibition are both wrong.

It must be nice to just say that without any supporting evidence or explanation.

Yes. "GPL source code theft" is impossible.

Then why does Slashdot call it such?

You are quite the redundant one aren't you? They are mentioned all the time.

No, they're not. They're not mentioned in this article, either. You don't cite any instances where they are mentioned. The majority of discussion about piracy hinges on demonizing the RIAA in order to justify behavior people know is wrong, in order to shift their inner guilt from themselves to someone else.

I've pointed that out before, and you chose to misinterpret that back then also.(How soon they forget...)

You seem to make it a habit of outright saying something, and then when someone calls you on it, claiming you were "misinterpreted."

Next.

Re:So let's see...

[timmyf2371]

Yes. "GPL source code theft" is impossible. There's nothing to stop anyone from using, sharing, giving, selling it. With that in mind, how is any megacorp that "stole" the code going to make their millions from it? How are they going to keep me from getting the source?

Umm, ever heard of closed-source software?

What, it's okay to disrespect the copyrights of large corporations but it's not okay for large corporations to disrespect the copyright of GPL developers?

Re:So let's see...

[iminplaya]

What, it's okay to disrespect the copyrights of large corporations but it's not okay for large corporations to disrespect the copyright of GPL developers?

Where did I say that? Some you guys draw the weirdest conclusions. Even if they have the GPL code in their close source program, there's nothing to stop me from using the same code. It's GPL'd. If they used the GPL code "improperly", then their closed source program is now formerly closed source. If we ever get rich enough, maybe we can get some rubber-stamped subpenas to search their code the same way the ??AA's get our names and addresses from the ISP. Otherwise simple reverse engineering and disassembly will do the trick. You can't close source GPL code, and we have the tools to keep them from hiding it. As far as I'm concerned, if we don't get the same repect from them as they expect from us, then all bets are off. I am under no obligation to tolerate it.

Re:So let's see...

[iminplaya]

It must be nice to just say that without any supporting evidence or explanation.

I'm leaving up to you to do your own damn googling and prove otherwise. Maybe it will help you get out of that repetative rut you're in.

Then why does Slashdot call it such?

Don't know...don't care. Call it what you want. My statement stands.

No, they're not. They're not mentioned in this article, either...

The article??? I don't come here to read the articles(but I did in this case...and some others). The comments are what I'm interested in, and the comments are where I find that the artists are mentioned plenty of times. And speaking of artists, quit being such a crybaby. You are just trying be treated like royalty, build your damn house on the cliffs in Malibu and expect us to absorb the costs when the damn thing slides into the ocean, ignore trafic laws and other laws that the rest of us would suufer prison time for if we violate them. You want to be paid for the next 75 years for what...two months in the studio? I think you're full of it. Get out and perform damn it! You can get paid from the "ancillary products and services" as that paper put it. If you read anything besides your own posts, you'll know what paper I'm talking about.

...and then when someone calls you on it, claiming you were "misinterpreted."

HA! Now that's funny as hell. You haven't called me on anything. It seems like it's true what's being said about you here. You appear to be simply copying and pasting your(and possibly others) posts without reading, much less actually reponding to what was actually said in the reponses to you. Whatever floats yer boat, bub.

Reminds me of rimmer's lament about inland revenue

[bani]

Lister: "Rimmer, you're dead and 3 million years from Earth."
Rimmer: "That means NOTHING to these people!"

Nonsense

[xant]

Where do you get this information? Almost every file swapper who's ever lived is still alive. MP3 trading is practically an immortality drug!

If the dead can vote...

[Marthisdil]

...they can be sued for sharing files.....Wonder who's been posing as this dead person? :)

Credit where credit is due

[Rufus88]

From parent sig:
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Ronald Reagan

Yes, it's amazing what a reputation for wisdom Reagan was able to accomplish by not caring whom he stole the credit from.

Giving new meaning to Zombie Process?

[Anonymous Coward]

just saying...

Well, yes, I would want to be remembered that way.

[Crag]

The article seems to indicate that this woman had no knowledge of how her computer was used. HOWEVER, I support the idea of posthumously trading files as a statement.

First, what's the statement?

* file traders don't profit from their trading
* the agencies pursuing traders do so with no concern for their customers
* that even 'respectable' old people object to the current IP system

Perhaps there are other statements, but those were the first that came to mind.

Yes, I could see devoting my last few days on earth to that cause. I like it a lot better than giving my money to starving people who are just going to die anyway, for example.

seen on T shirt

[xmp_phrack]

every time you download music, God kills a kitten.

RIP

[grumpygrodyguy]

Rock on smittenedkitten.

It seems like all of the bush advisors

[Allnighterking]

Have left Washington to go to work for the RIAA....

SmittenKitten. Yeah she's right over there with the WMD's why?

shortly before I die

[Baki]

I shall also make my 10000+ collection of music etc. as widely available as possible, just to sabotage the criminal media industry.

In many countries downloading is still legal, and apart from that is very difficult to track. The risk is taken by those that publish "illegal" files, so it would be excellent if people who have nothing to loose would do so massively, until the media industry nazis are bankrupt.

Re:shortly before I die

[Legion303]

That would be great if there were any evidence at all that filesharing cost the RIAA money. Oh, look, another year of record-breaking sales figures (no pun intended).

of course

[Baki]

it is very honourful to be remembered for damaging acts to a bunch of the worst criminals, i.e. the media industry who behave like nazis: to protect their illegal interests they bribe politics and are prepared to corrupt democracy and civil rights.

really, i can't think of a better way to be remembered as such a statement. to fight the concept of intellectual property, the most despicable "invention" of mankind.

Everywhere ...

[A nonymous Coward]

... if Bush gets his way ...

Where is this fabled land where judges are in their right minds?

Note to humorless right-wing moderators: This is a joke. Look it up!

Re:Yeah..

[B3ryllium]

Canada, eh.

I sue dead people...

[jbrandv]

Hmm. Sounds like I could make a movie about this.

Record company managers are stupid.

[rice_burners_suck]

I don't understand why the record companies dropped the suit. Did they suddenly grow a brain that allowed them to correlate between the defendant's being dead and therefore their inability to sue her?

I thought all the people working in all the record companies are totally, completely, utterly, and in all other ways retarded and stupid.

Re:Record company managers are stupid.

[RevMike]

I don't understand why the record companies dropped the suit. Did they suddenly grow a brain that allowed them to correlate between the defendant's being dead and therefore their inability to sue her?

Actually, your the one that needs to grow a brain. They can certainly sue a dead defendant. It happens all the time. The estate of the defendant is liable for any judgement.

It works in the opposite way too. A dead person can be a plaintiff. If you were to die due to, perhaps, medical malpractice, you (through your own estate) would sue for wrongful death. Your spouse or other next of kin don't have standing to sue for wrongful death, only you do, and so your estate must make the claim.

In this case they chose to drop the suit because of the bad PR. They are probably investigating right now to determine if a family member was using grandma's name to buy internet access. They'll sue that family member once they get the evidence.

famous quote

[lampajoo]

"First they came for the dead, and I did not speak out because I wasn't dead..."

Re:Actually, she could have

[2old2rockNroll]

she only died on December 11

Only? That seems like a fairly important event of a lifetime to me.

Right! Where's the back-lash/bitch-slap?

[jabber01]

Could a lawyer in the house tell me if these scatter-shot law suits by the RIAA can be used to claim that any suit they bring against an entity they can actually drag into court (neither a minor nor a dead grandmother) is likely to be just as random and unsubstantiated?

examples never work

[cheekyboy]

When will these sorry ass old farts with no brains and scientific backing realise making examples of people never work. It didnt work for the nazis or stalin or Chineese dissidents or pot smokers of the 60s or Enron execs stealing billions.

or serve from a communist imperialist place

[cheekyboy]

Or just serve your p2p stuff from a country
that has

No freedoms
No human rights
No democracy

Russia/China

Who would have thought in the 60s that those hippies would find themselves living in a totarlian stat

Blame the ISPs

[mabu]

I can't help but think this is more the doing of an ISP (probably Comcast or another cable company). Many ISPs cough up subscriber information prior to filing of lawsuits - especially the cable ISPs, which makes it easy for the RIAA to name a defendant in a lawsuit without having to go through due dilligence and taking the standardized john-doe legal action to identify the perpetrator's identity.

It's my contention that some ISPs don't protect their customer's right to privacy. Telcos have more ethics than cable companies in this respect, so you're more likely to be handed over to the authorities if you're using broadband cable.

Gertrude gets around

[gmcraff]

She also voted in Washington state, as well.

JK: i hope they sue a gangsta rappa

[cheekyboy]

Why is it the RIAA never accidentally try to sue a compton ganster rapper with 3 murders to his name?

inspiring

[sacrilicious]

Gertrude Walton, a deceased eighty-three-year-old woman, was named as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a group of record companies. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name 'smittenedkitten.'

I'm just glad Walton had the balls to demand a trial rather than knuckling under and paying the typical $3,000 settlement.

When the first RIAA suicide?

[kin242]

At some point the RIAA's terror tactics are going to cause someone to commit suicide themselves. This will happen. Suing dead people, children, students. These people make me SICK!

What’s the problem?

[nasor]

Although the article says that this woman was computer illiterate and "objected to having computers," it never actually says that there wasn't a computer in her house. It's curious that although the article spends a lot of time talking about how she didn't like/know about them, it never explicitly states that she didn't have one in the house. It also states that she had family members living with her, and that she has 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Odds are that one of them were using her internet account for file-sharing, so she was busted for it. The fact that they filed the suit even though they had already received a copy of the death certificate can be attributed to the ordinary bureaucratic mix-ups that happen routinely in large offices, and shouldn't surprise anyone who has ever worked for a company with more than ten employees.

I don't see the point of this being on slashdot.

Re:What’s the problem?

[raddan]

If there was a PC in her home, there is also a good chance that it was zombie'd. In my role of overseeing a number of mail gateways, I've seen a great deal of machines out on the internet that have probably been compromised. We were getting mailbombed so badly by Bellsouth ADSL customers at one point that I simply had to filter out their netblock. If typical corporate security precautions are any indicator, regular computer users are totally f***ed.

Re:What’s the problem?

[shark72]

"It also states that she had family members living with her, and that she has 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Odds are that one of them were using her internet account for file-sharing, so she was busted for it."

Good point. Much was made of the RIAA suing a 12-year-old girl a few years back because the mother had used her daughter's name when she signed up for the ISP account. Such is the stuff of "The RIAA regularly sues 12-year-old girls and dead grandmothers" legends.

" I don't see the point of this being on slashdot."

I found it amusing, in a somewhat morbid way. I also found it a bit unsettling. I learned a little about death, a little about life, and a little about myself.

Plus, the more "record companies are evil" stories you read, the more guilt-free piracy becomes!

83-Year-Old Dead File Swapper

[Siggy200]

Well I have bill collectors after my ass for a repo car. I have nothing, I will never have nothing. The collection agency can go stick it where the sun don't shine, ;-)

Re:There's more to the story

[dorsey]

That's bullshit. They weren't in the courtroom, they were outside standing in line. And while the conversation may have been a little boisterous, you know damn well that they wouldn't have been arrested if they had been talking about a sports rivalry or something.

Oh, yes, trademarks

[HiThere]

Trademarks are generally valid, and the law is generally used in an acceptable manner. I'm not convinced, though, that it always it. I've heard of a resturant that was called MacDonald's long before there was a hamburger chain that was put out of business through abuse of trademark laws. Still, USUALLY trademarks are handled reasonably.

Guess what her most-traded songs were?

[Zhe Mappel]

"The Massage," by Grandmaster Flash

"I Just Wasn't Made For This Bed," by the Beach Boys

"Rupture," by Blondie

"Born To Run, Unfortunately," by Springsteen

"Start Me Up--No, On Second Thought, I'll Just Catch A Few More Winks Firzzzzzzz," by the Rolling Stones

Why wasn't this left to die of its own accord?

[cheros]

Sorry, bad pun, but I was wondering why this wasn't left to go to court with all the associated expenses? Would have been much more effective in bad press value if they'd turn up in court to find a picture of a gravestone...

It has to said: A priest, a lawyer, and a boy...

[FreeUser]

A priest and a lawyer are walking down the street when they see a young boy.

The priest says to to the lawyer, "Hey, wanna screw that kid?"

The lawyer asks, "Out of what?"

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

You missed a crucial point: that particular courthouse makes mere citizens stand in a long line and go through screening (metal detector, purse x-ray, etc.), but gives the lawyers ID badges to bypass screening.

The two guys would stand in line with the public, and tell lawyer jokes at the lawyers as they exercised their special privilege.

It was a form of protest: it is unfair that "some people are more special than others".

Which, frankly, I can agree with.

How would you deal this: some idiot decides to self-represent ("In propria persona"). Do you grant him an ID badge to bypass screening? Do you declare him a first-class citizen or a second-class citizen?

Re:There's more to the story

[ari_j]

How the court chooses to operate is up to the court, as long as it's not racially discriminating or anything silly like that. For those people going to court pro se, if they are in the courtroom as often as the lawyers who are issued ID badges are, then they may be overly litigious but perhaps they should be issued a badge. I don't know how that court runs its business, but it's really no different than flight attendants going to the head of the line at airport security. The employee of an airline is no more special to the airport than a lawyer is to the courtroom.

Re:First old people, now dead people. What's next?

[Ayaress]

Fourteen years? Nothing. Before my family, this house was owned by a man who died in 1956 (he'd only lived here for about three years after the house was built, and spent a good chunk of that in the hospital). To this day, despite the fact that the house has been owned by my grandparents and now my parents, we still get mail for that guy, mostly from his bank. We keep sending it back now. My parents spent a good eight years trying to track down his family to send the mail to, but didn't find anything. The house number is even different now, due to a lot just a few down the street being split by eminent domain to put in a cross street about thirty years ago (shifted all the numbers on our side of the street by one for some reason).

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

Although the court may choose to waive security for some classes of people - why not just waive all security?

No? Can you say elitism? I knew you could.

I used the pro-per example, specifically because such a person might have been arrested for a gun crime. When the person is both criminal defendant and legal counsel, which standard applies?

Does that apply to all lawyers with less than perfect records? Ex-convicts that earned their law degree in prison?

Looks like a slippery slope that slides to favored litigants getting preferential treatment, and schlubs being late for court because the screening line was too long. Making one side show up early, only to wait, while letting the other breeze through is unfair financially, too.

To me, it would be fair if there were no favors handed out. Lawyers (and court personnel) ought to have to stand in line like the rest of us.

And if they don't, because the court thinks that they are better than us, I think it is fair that they should overhear ridicule in the form of lawyer jokes as they pass through the members-only door into the country club, er, public courthouse.

From a different article: "Kash said he and Lanzisera were merely saying out loud that the public was being treated like peons or peasants while attorneys, who wave their security passes to court officers and don't have to stand on line, are treated like kings."

The whole incident is about elitism, and mockery thereof. And due to the arrest, it appears elitism won....

Re:There's more to the story

[ari_j]

You're presuming that there will be a conviction. You're also presuming that your sources are entirely objective. Neither is certain.

When interviewed...

[Skrybe]

Mrs Walton was asked for a comment on the case. Her only reply was: "Braaaaaaaains..."

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

Fair enough.

Of course, I'd rather that an arrest hadn't been made at all. Which wouldn't have happened, if the court wasn't practicing elitism in the first place....

Which does tend to bias my view toward a conviction being more likely than common sense would predict.

Conviction or not, they still got arrested. For telling lawyer jokes. (On as public property as exists in the USA, during public busines hours).

I could agree that they were interfering with the operation of the court, if they were inside a courtroom. But they weren't, they were in line, in the lobby, protesting the court's elitism.

Re:There's more to the story

[ari_j]

Standing outside a polling place on election day and telling gay jokes, nigger joks, kike jokes, and so on interferes with the business of the polling place, even though you're doing it on public property.

I'm not defending either side in this case, but neither am I passing judgment in favor of either.

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

That is an interesting spin on it.

I don't know if I would agree though, that if the election sites made a fast-pass line especially for government workers while everyone else had to be screened, if I could call a tirade by a member of the public an interference to the business of the polling place.

An annoyance, yes. But life is full of annoyances. Not worthy of police action, though.

That is my take on it.

Re:There's more to the story

[I8TheWorm]

I write code for the local county, and work in the county civil courts building. As an employee, I have a badge to bypass the metal detectors.

Here in this county, attorneys can also get these badges, as some of them are in and out of the building very often. However, they must pay a fee (I believe it's $120) and submit to an extensive background check, which delays the delivery of the badge. Some attorneys choose not to go through the hassle, but some do. It's just the way most court buildings work.

I do not believe you actually have to be an attorney to apply for these badges, by the way.

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

Now that is a fine solution. Just post a sign stating so, and the problem would have been solved.

Re:There's more to the story

[ari_j]

Life is, indeed, full of annoyances. Lawyers that spend more time in the courtroom getting in through the express line is one of them. And I don't personally think it's worthy of protest - surely there's something better to protest out there.

That said, I just read that the grand jury dismissed the charges against the two.

Re:There's more to the story

[Degrees]

Another slashdotter, I8TheWorm, pointed out in this thread, that his county building will give a badge to anyone willing to pay for it (and undergo a background check).

I have to admit, if that was the policy at the protester's courthouse, and court staff had a sign posted letting eveyone know that, then yes the 'protesters' were less than noble, and just troublemakers instead. My position would be all wet, so to speak.

Your point about the newspapers not neccessarily giving out all relevent information was a good one. The situation could indeed have been more complicated than it initially appeared.

Re:There's more to the story

[ari_j]

I'm glad we can agree that the newspapers did a bad job of telling us even half the story. And I think we all came to conclusions based on their faulty representation of 1/3 of it. There's a lesson to be learned here, but I'm sure it's one we've learned before and always forget: don't trust the news, even from a reputable source such as a Slashdot comment. ;)