Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer
boarder8925 writes "Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."
Punitive Damages !!!!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I mean she's NEVER used a computer?
How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me... It just goes to show you that you can't get away from the RIAA even if you've never used a computer in your life. They managed to find one of only a handful of people who has never used a computer and sue her... I should be scared for my parents right now.
Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods? Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth, she has in fact never touched a computer in her life, therefore she has not downloaded the music in question. Meaning she has been FALSLY IDENTIFIED by the RIAA's investigative methods (whatever those may consist of).
My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?
Reminds me of a colleague back in the UK who was taken to court for not paying his TV license fee - when asked what his defence was he responded "I don't own one".
Apparently the judge was not amused with the prosecution for not having bothered to do even this minimal check!
If this is the case (pardon the pun) with this action then I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down. Shame on them.
Can this work? The entire request to dismiss the case was one paragraph, with only one sentence stating that the defendant never used a computer. Wouldn't some investigation or proof be required in order for a case to be dismissed?
This woman does laundry a lot and has no dryer, so she hangs her clothes to dry. When the RIAA said she was using an "online distribution system" to make plaintiff's music files available, they were not referring to a computer; what they meant was that she is often heard whistling copyrighted songs while she hangs clothes on the line; hence, "online distribution system." Typical slashbots rush to this criminal's defense when it is clear she was openly and shamelessly stealing music and she was caught red-handed. Meanwhile, the RIAA music executives are being deprived of a living (or at least of a third yacht) thanks to the lawless actions of such criminals. Eventually this will kill music, as the RIAA warned us about home taping so long ago -- why would an artist bother creating or recording new songs when any old lady can just come by forty years later and whistle it without paying the company that distributes your cds a dime?
but 3 albino kids soaking in water told the RIAA that this woman was planning on buying a computer to pirate music so they sent tom cruise after her. thank god for these pre-emptive lawsuits!
Yeah but when they come to break down your door they need a geographic address, not an IP address -- presumably the address you signed up for your ISP with. So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name.
Perhaps this is part of a campaign to instill fear in the hearts of the "guilty" by first stringing up a few obviously innocent people.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?
Here is an article that describes recent news in that case:
http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/20
However her defense has changed slightly:Ah, yes... the old "it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it" defense. I wonder how well that one will fly.
Apparently Santangelo is receiving all kinds of donations from big hearted Internet file traders but frankly it looks like money down the drain to me. There is no way she is going to win when she's already basically admitting that she failed to supervise her kids and their friends when they were using her computer.
As far as this new case, who wants to bet that it won't turn out the same way? The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions! Saying "I didn't do it" won't help if it's your kids, like what appears to be the case with Santangelo.
Seriously, if she never used a computer then she didn't buy any media or software, so media producers lost profits. That's even worse than pirates 'cuz hardware manufacutrers lose profits either! Jail her now.
- Hunter S. Thompson
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
Dear Steve:
Greetings. I represent the RIAA. The song "la la la - I can't hear you!" is copyrighted by BMG, an RIAA member corporation. Your appropriation of the lyrics without permission of the copyright holder is in direct violation of Title 17 USC 101-810. Indeed, your transmission of said lyrics over the internet constitutes a distribution of copyrighted material, and your use of the "online distribution system" known as "slashdot" for your criminal activity amounts to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Moreover, the use of the "moderator" system to enhance the visibility and thus the distribution of our client's intellectual property multiplies the damages significantly. Please cease and desist in the use and distribution of our client's property or face legal action.
I know... like, how the hell does she pirate music and have meaningless arguments with strangers?
You join either the Democrat or Republican parties and attend the party congress. You will get into plenty of meaningless arguments although some say the the patriotic music offered at these events tends to be a bit cheesy. If you want to get serious about meaningless arguments you can also run for the Senate. Be warned it is an expensive hobby and you have to have your moral backbone and conscience surgically removed.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
A farmer from Wiltshire got a penalty notice accusing him of doing 85mph on his tractor in south Wales.
His tractor, however, has a top speed of 26mph and has never been to Wales. Simple case of mistaken identity: automatic numberplate reader gets the plate wrong.
The farmer's quote:
"It's a good tractor, but not that good."
Parents are liable for the behavior of their minor children. In your strawman case, the parents can, in fact, be sued for negligence.
Yes, but that's because the parent has not been performing their duty of care - an offence for which they would probably be found guilty in my hypothetical. My point is that they are not guilty of the offence the child committed.
If the police wanted to prosecute Ms Santangelo for negligance for allowing her child to use the internet unsupervised, that's one thing; but for the RIAA to be able to successfully sue her for Copyright Infringement, an offence she didn't commit, is another thing entirely, and wrong.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
While I want to agree with you, I'm going to have to call you on that. I suspect they make a lot more money by grooming particular artists and therefore knowing where their money will be coming from. To use an analogy, look at the state of animal husbandry. In medieval times, it was not uncommon to let your pig or cow free range for food. It was considered cheaper than providing for feed. Nowadays, I'm sure people would argue that it provides for a survival of the fittest, much as you state your idea regarding music. However, what typically happened was that there was little control over your animal and its productiveness. Your cow might be stolen by bandits. It might be shot by an errant poacher (or an earnest one). Even when it survived, you had no idea what it had been eating and who it was breeding with. And average production for those cows was small. With modern animal husbandry techniques, we now keep the naimals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows. Right now, the RIAA has those penned and bred cows. They know they can milk those cows and be assured of a rich bounty because they bred them that way. And you're asking them to free range their artists? It's just not a smart move for them.
I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol :)
Feh! Do you think their lawyers would let them get that far? I would not be surprised if they have a database of names which they automatically remove from consideration. At that, they probably do make a non-token effort to ascertain who's actually pirating out of the people they prosecute. It's only due to volume that we're getting these "never touched the Internet" people. If the RIAA were at all smart, they'd come out publically and state that this person was all a mistake and award her $500 worth of music from RIAA artists. It would be good publicity, the "we made a mistake and are making up for it" kind, plus it will cost them all of $5 plus shipping to do so, since they own the CDs.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
it doesn't matter.
RIAA doesn't sue people for the money.
It doesn't even sue people to get them to stop doing whatever they are supposedly doing.
They sue them for the publicity.
This is worse than mere barratry: the more outrageous the abuse of the legal system, the more it suits there purpose. They'd send a spurious C&D to a deaf vegan paraplegic nun who runs a homeless shelter, if they could find one. In fact, brazenly baseless accusations are better than substantive ones; it gets the point across without the expense of a trial.
They're trying to establish a reputation like the La Cosa Nostra. And they want to use that reputation exactly the same way: to create de facto privileges that do not exist de jure, e.g. "You don't want to park there, that's Vinnie the Hatchet's spot."
And you can't call them to task for their misappropriation of state machinery to despoil private individuals of their fundamental human right to be left alone; not without talking about it, which is exactly what they want you to do.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Lawyer: "When's the last time you used a computer?"
Ms. Lindor: "Actually, I've never used one in my life."
RIAA Lawyer: "OBJECTION, relevance!"
When out in public how can you tell a Grammar Nazi by just looking at them?
Simple, look for an adhesive label on their lapel with an upsidedown lower case 'e' on it.
By their schwa-stickers ye shall know them.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
In the old days people had a way of dealing with people like the RIAA execs. They grabbed them, stripped them, beat them, coated them in tar and feathers. In other words they made a public example of them to discourage other similar-thinking assholes from doing the same thing. Are we too civilized for that today?
this is just the ISP's playing games with the RIAA.
RIAA: Give us the user of this IP address!!!
ISP: Why?
RIAA: We have the right to commit murder to prevent copying of our intellectual property under the DMCA! This IP was trading files! Give us the name or we'll kill you!
ISP: [flips through phonebook.....] Ok, Ok...it was....Joe Schlabotnick, of 123 Main Street, Fukyusville, Montana.
RIAA: Thank you. Well...not really. You should consider yourselves honoured to give us the information of your cruminal customer scum!
ISP: Oh, we are....we are... [giggling in background]
RIAA: SUESUESUESUESUESUE!!!! [Calls Joe Schlabotnick]
Joe: Hello?
RIAA: We know you are stealing our music using Napster! [whispering in background...What?...that's legal now....ok, then what's still illegal?......] using KaZaA, eMule, LimeWire, and Bearshare, all at once! You have no chance to survive make your time!
Joe Schlabotnick: Huh? It couldn't have been me. I don't even own a computer.
RIAA: What happen? Someone set us up the bomb!
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I'm starting to think the RIAA "investigators" pick people at random from the phone book ...
Indeed, and once we see a lawsuit against Navin R. Johnson, well know for sure.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
RIAA Exec: "The new phone books are here! The new phone books are here!"
; )
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz