Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants to Depose Dead Defendant's Children
Exchange writes "In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children. Recording Industry vs The People have more details"
The RIAA needs to lay off of the dead guy's kids. Seriously. He's DEAD, RIAA. What else could you want? A cookie?
Are their lawyers salaried so that they can afford to go after the estate of a dead victim?
There ought to be a law against that. (Salaried lawyers, that is. There's already laws against extortion.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Think this is the first time I've ever felt sick to my stomach over something like this.
Go ahead and sue dead kids, that'll get the public on your side.
I bet the guy faked his own death, just so he could have the last laugh at the hands of the musicians of the world!
He'd be perfect as the young RIAA lawyer saying the line: "I sue dead people."
Thanks, I'll be here all night, please try the fish, it's great tonight.
lets sue the children so they can't afford to bury the guy.
But they had been warned! Apparently- the Rhythm *is* out to get you...
Part of the inheritance, of course. The fact that they guy was rude enough to die before they could get to him doesn't change that he did grave damage to the coffers of the RIAA. Well, at least that's likely their thinking.
RIAA and listeners : till death do us part
Army Attorney General Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, 6/9/54:
"Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
With all dead, there's only one thing to do...
No, RIAA, I meant search his pockets for spare change...
Surely, if Ken Lay could get himself acquitted on technical grounds, then this poor guy should also be.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Seriously. Why aren't the major news outlets making a big deal out of shit like this?
Do they want a part of your ashes after cremation too? :-p
RIAA's actions consistently shows the world some corporations show absolutely no emotions. RIAA is ready to walk over corpses, quite literally, to cash in what's to them a ridiculous sum of money. I wonder what's more scary -- this action alone, or the fact that actual people make these decisions.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Netcraft has confirmed Scantlebury is dead.
Lawyers all need to be chemically castrated. Save the children, etc.
~/words_by_grainfed.txt
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI (Part 2), Act IV, Scene II.
Expecting morality from an amoral organization or its lawyers leads to disappointment. The RIAA exists to maximize profit without concern for anything else be it fair play, Fair Rights or human decency. One has to wonder just what kind of person would work as a lawyer for the RIAA, since they must know as does anyone who's been following along on Slashdot that their lawsuits are unfair and an abuse of the legal system by a very powerful organization funded by multinational corporations against comparatively powerless individuals. They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls. The person is dead. Find an unrelated living person to extort money from and leave the poor grieving family in peace.
But really... this makes me REALLY mad... i mean god damn... How dare they, they're going after the dead dude's family for god sakes. Makes me wanna do something violent... you know... screw volient video games making people volient, these big ass armies of lawers are a much more evil group... argh >. cant stay on topic... to angery! DEATH TO THE RIAA! Those bastards!
I have the doomed life of a PC gamer and a MS hater...
You find item: AOL install disk
It's an industry association. It seems their strategy is to go after their targets as aggressively as possible, in order to send out the clear message that they can and will sue regular folks like you and me. They are effectively the "bad cop" while the individual record companies play the "good cop" giving the people the Brittany Spears and Korn they so desperately need.
You can argue that filesharing is on the rise, or that the RIAA's enforcement actions have cut filesharing, depending on whose facts you use and how you slice them. But in the end the strategy of using the industry association to attack customers, while individual labels try to pretend they play no part in it, probably won't work. In a world where alternatives to label-centric distribution are nonexistent, the labels would be able to make this good cop, bad cop strategy work. But the irony here is that the tighter they squeeze, the more systems will slip through their fingers (apologies to G. Lucas). Sure, there are no "good" big labels to defect to, but there is much more incentive to escape the entire label system altogether.
I keep waiting for one of the major labels to break ranks and start acting intelligent, giving customers fewer restrictions and defecting from the RIAA. It seems though, that none of them has the guts to do it, so they'll all keep pushing on consumers as hard as they can. The end result of the crackdown will eventually lead to a new business model in which the labels play a small or nonexistent role. Ironic, isn't it?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The truly sad part about this? It's not surprising at all.
pathetic. I mean, so what. The guy's dead. Leave his family alone. His family has enough stress as is with a deceased loved one, and to compound that stress with some lawsuit with this. Shit, I severely hope that the judge denies the RIAA any chance of money, and makes the RIAA pay in return for this. In fact, the family should counter-sue, if at all possible, to screw the RIAA out at any cost.
that details the taxes/fees, per countries/states, paid on media or devices that gets compensated back to the RIAA/MPAA?
If buying CD-ROMS labeled 'for music' has a tax applied to go back to the RIAA/MPAA, would not storing a copy of whatever questionable MP3s on said media provide the legal 'fuck you' to the RIAA?
"RIAA Wants to DISPOSE OF Dead Defendant's Children"
Somehow, this did not shock me.
Seriously, is this legal for the RIAA to do? The man they where after is dead, so now they are going to try and use his own children to get to his estate?? Sounds like some back door shaddy sh!t going on to me.
So many choices, so little tolerance.
After seeing this story first on Digg and then slashdot, I think the website has been (ahem) "Dugg" or "Slashdotted"...... well today anyway.
This kind of behaviour is much akin to that of creditors and collection bureaus. They seem to view their targets more as debtors than as someone they accuse in a civil lawsuit. At least sometimes the debt can be nullified due to death with a real credit agency. Not an all time moral low for the RIAA, but a different low among the same levels it's been reaching for.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Everyone is bitching about the industry, but enough keep buying. Are these people addicted to the crap they sell? And if their practices are really so despisable, why aren't there other companies with better practices getting more and more successful?
My impression is that people just love to bitch but 99% will end up in a record store and buy the latest copy protected crap anyways. And that is exactly why DRM solutions are more and more becoming an everyday reality too.
My first reaction was, I guess if you've lost the trust of your customers you have nothing to lose.
But thinking about it, we aren't RIAA:s customers. Nothing any of us do or say will affect RIAA directly. Their customers as it were are the copyright holders, and their business is to maximize return to these people. The copyright holders (usually the recording companies) don't have us as customers either; their customers are radio and television stations and other broadcasters, and retail outlets from Amazon and Wal-Mart to record stores to gasoline stations.
They provide content produced by artists - and it's the artists we are customers for. We don't go to Amazon to buy the latest Sony Music album, we go to buy AC/DC (or Jessica Simpson, or Luis Armstrong, whatever your taste is).
It's this disconnect that keeps RIAA in business. We don't connect their actions with our favourite artists. The artists, in turn, have little incentive, and a huge downside, to raising their voice (most are, after all, not big enough to actually influence their company). The recording companies have no incentive to change RIAA's actions from their customers (Amazon et al) since those customers don't feel any backlash from us either.
The solution? I don't see one. In my case it has gradually soured me on music altogether. I haven't bought a CD in years - but neither have I downloaded anything either. Most people will never make any emotional connection between music and this legal harassment, however, and so RIAA will never have a reason to change.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Except that it's not a question of risking anything anymore, it's a formula. It's more of a decision than a risk - companies pull this sort of thing all the time, even in small localities. It's bizarre, though I can see how it works.
Where's now the faction that usually screams "Oh, would someone PLEASE think of the children?" when it comes to ripping away some liberty? How about thinking 'bout them NOW?
It's been said before, the RIAA doesn't give a rat's rear 'bout public image. Their business partners aren't normal people, their business partners are companies. And companies have no morals. The people in a company may have morals, but morals are easily brushed aside when you have someone else to blame. "I have to do it, or else I get sacked and someone else does it" is the usual comfortable excuse.
To invoke Godwin, that excuse has worked before. All too perfectly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... I sue dead people
foo mane padme hum
(Time to burn some karma)
Call me cynical or whatever you wish, but I just had a rather disturbing thought. Would it surprise ANYONE if, somewhere down the line, it was learned that the RIAA was actually responsible for Mr. Scantlebury's death just so they could inflict as much pain and anguish as possible? They're already suing dead people, so this doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. After all, the dead don't fight back...
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
What a racist bastard!
These guys have been out of control and beyond "immoral" for quite some time and yet they are allowed to exist and operate. Could there be a strategy to disband these thugs? They do nothing to help artists and everything to harm the public interest.
He's dead RIAA - the person isn't going to download/steal music anymore.
Jeepers...
One must truly understand what the RIAA is trying to do here. Their goal isn't recoup lost revenues. Their goal is "shock and awe" through scare tactics. Basically, their lawyers are instructed to take no prisoners, go for the jugular, and show no mercy. It's to send a message meant to scare people into thinking that if you file share, the RIAA mafia will be after you like a rabid bulldog with lockjaw. Any respectful prosecutor would lay off and drop the case out of respect. After all, the accused party is dead, so there's really no point. But no, the RIAA is going to find some way to press onward and make it the whole family's problem now, and they know it'll bring negative publicity. They want it. They want to be feared, and for young little "sharing is caring" tykes to be looking under the bed for the RIAA boogyman at night if they so much as dare think about doing such an evil thing as sharing. This ruthless and heartless behavior is soooooo going to bite the RIAA on the ass someday, hopefully violently.
The surprise twist being, that right at the end of the case it is confirmed that the RIAA lawyer has actually been dead the whole time! (at least when judged by the heart still beating rather than being ice cold to the core criteria).
The RIAA worked for that soul! It was theirs, they have documents and laywers to prove it! Then the good lord got to it and deliberatly reaped their soul, hell, thats stealing! They're missing a trick here, they just need to sue god.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
I live about 30 seconds away from the RIAA Lawyer's office. Ann Arbor is a very progressive city, maybe I should go protest (but getting sued would suck.) Any suggestions for signs? "Dead people can't steal music" has a good ring to it.
RICO...the same laws passed to deal with the Mafia. Extortion is extortion, no matter whether you're using the legal system or bands of thugs. It'll never happen though as the US government is in the pockets of the entertainment companies.
In most other countries, accepting lobby money is called Corruption, in the US it's accepted, nay, encouraged.
While it was true before, I'd like to let them know that I will never make use of their services again.
For a few months I have been on /. I have been an opponent of illegal downloading. I will still not do it personally (I do not listen to music anyway, so it is really easy for me, I have to admit), but from now on I won't say anything against people who do it. If you think it helps to bring THIS/IT down, to destroy this lowest scam of "entertainers", to dismantle RIAA, to cut the financial support of this terrorist organization, then let them do it. It is not stealing anymore, they are legitimate war target.
The only objection I have against ANY downloading of mainstream is that downloaders might become addicted to listening to high-production music and eventually might end up paying money for mainstream. The better way would be TOTAL boycott of any labels that are associated RIAA, MPAA and other terrorist organizations.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
..hijacked by sadistic Capitalists and right-wing Bible thumpers. I drink in your honour. Excuse my Engrish.
When I read through the summary, all I could do was laugh. This is so sad it is laughable. It would be interesting to know how many of these guys have families, and after a hard day of work, screwing people up the ass, they come home and live a 'normal' life, maybe even go to church even. Just wow. At this point, one may consider hiring a hit man to take out an RIAA lawyer if they come after you, since it is has now been proved that your death isn't enough to shake them off you. And for all those who still side with the RIAA in any shape or form...it is just music...no a loan, not gambling debt, just music.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
RIAA meeting: I bet that bastard thinks hes getting off easy by dying on us, well we'll show him!
I'm envisioning seeing a picture of a man in an open casket with headphones on. Do it. do it now.
-Michael, AKA Frankie.
Let's say someone dodged tax. Or maybe, even the person claimed more unemployment benefits than the person would be entitled to.
The person then died.
The government then sues the estate, represented by the children, to claim back taxes.
Would people have argued similarly that this was a heartless and cruel thing to do?
I can pretty much guarantee you, in the mind of the legal system and for lawyers in general it's pretty much the same thing. And I can sympathize with that view - the primary topic of interest is whether it is right that the RIAA sues people. That estates are sued is really not particularly big or special and have been done for centuries.
who considers this "reasonable" (presumably at least one lawyer does)
What is "reasonable" does not enter into a lawyer's calculation. All that matters is, what is likely to get more money, without actually running a big risk of the lawyer's getting disbarred.
well the RIAA is and still people complain!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Testimony from the countersuit:
Just so you know what kind of guy he is.
They need to make an example of this man. They need to show the world that you can't just pirate music & then die! If they don't follow through with this, then everyone will start doing it!
Schatten Teufel
There is nothing "Common" about Sense
There is a lot of outrage expressed over RIAA tactics (as there should be), but I still think a lot of people are missing the essential point. There are many comments along the lines of 'How can the RIAA screw their customers like this?', and 'Don't they care about their PR?' etc.
The point is - no, they don't care about their PR, and they certainly don't care about their customers or their clients (the 'artists' who will in all likelihood never see a penny of the loot from the RIAA). The RIAA, like us, have seen the future, and like us, they know that it doesn't include them. They're not stupid - they know that electronic distributions systems will only get better, faster and easier. They know that an artist will soon be able to bypass the RIAA completely and reach the public directly. They know that the teenagers of today (who will become the consumers of tomorrow) find the notion of paying for music odd and outdated.
What we are seeing here, from DRM to pointless lawsuits to egregious congressional lobbying are just stopgap solutions, all of which will eventually fail, sooner or later. So what's an organization to do when they see their cash cow headed for the slaughterhouse, and know that there is nothing at all that they can do about it? Simple - they make as much money as they can before the inevitable happens. They know there will be no RIAA in the future - so in the meantime, they are abusing the system way past the breaking point in order to garner as much cash for the Executives to retire on when the time comes.
When seen from this prespective, the actions of the RIAA make sense. They don't care about their image - they care only about squeezing the last drop of blood from the stone before technology renders them obsolete. That doesn't mean we should give up the fight - we should continue to do all that we can to hasten the 'Day of Reckoning' - (shameless plug for Lizzie West's album 'Holy Road').
Goodbye RIAA - we hardly knew you. Not that we cared.
The guy passes away and yet the lawyers are still more braindead than he is.
I am not a constitutionalist, but is picking one in 10.000 law breakers an unconstitutional -because unusual- punishment ? Isn't it actually also cruel to anihilate someone's future (which is basically what you do when you fine them $1m or more) for copying some data ?
With this interpretation of the constitution, punishment on other crimes is still OK, because nearly all discovered crimes are punished, making the punishment usual, and arguably also not cruel, because there is no $1m damage.
What's the difference? The CRIMINAL case is harder to prove, so should stick more once proven. The civil case is based on balance of probabilities and the defendent is unlikely to be allowed in court, and even if they were, they would not get to say much (except maybe "brains").
... the less they can sue the living.
I'm all for it!
Maybe he put his illegally downloaded mp3s are in his will. the RIAA is just doing what it can to cover all the bases
I fear the Y2038 bug
Challenge as follows:
Make a distinction between this case, and one where the social democratic government of a caring country with generous welfare systems sues the children of someone who has received benefits they were not entitled to.
To get a personal perspective: Let's say this is someone named Adam, a caring farmer and flyfisher, father of two, whose wife passed away some years back. One day while chopping lumber aged around 55, he chops himself in the leg by accident. He even manages to hit a nerve - and pretty much goes lame. His children are too young to assist him or take over the farm/
The government finds that he is quite poor.
They will pay for all immediate medical costs. Since he can no longer work, they will pay benefits so he can maintain a standard of living. They will also pay for a small mobility scooter, for an adapted car, and adapting the house. Adam lives happily and his children are cared for by family. Some years later, Adam is too frail to manage on his own, so he gets into a free nursing home.
Suddenly, however, the government finds one out of several possible things:
1. Adam's farm has quite a high value that he never mentioned (he said it was worth little). The government wants to claim it and sell it to cover medical and nursing costs.
2. Adam had a moderate amount of money stashed away in an account that he wanted to pass on to his children in inheritance. The government says he should have used that before receiving aid.
3. Adam's leg was actually not as bad as thought. The degree of invalidity was much lower, and consequently, he should have been able to work more and be entitled to less benefits.
For one or more of the reasons above, the government initiates legal action of recovery while Adam is still alive. When Adam dies, they continue the case against his estate, represented by the children.
Would you say this is implausible? As far as I am aware, every social democratic, caring country with generous welfare benefits and strong social safety nets in the world would have done at least one of the above. I think noone would argue that the Soviet Union would have done differently either.
Are/were all these governments and the Soviet Union as well fronts for capitalism? Since they appear to be - interestingly - not one bit more caring or respectful, and the level of care and respect is apparently what decides which economic system you adhere to?
That's just the thing: they never started as "regular" people.
About 1% of the population are psychopaths. They have no empathy to start with (or rather, they _do_ read your body language very well... but then at most use it to shaft you).
They're essentially living in a single-player game, surrounded by NPCs which are expendable and don't matter. Think of the last time you've played a game. Did you care about the NPCs? Did you care if the hooker you've brained in GTA maybe has children, or maybe is only doing that to pay for her father's surgery, or whatever? Did you care about her feelings, goals in life, etc? Or were you in a frame of mind that NPCs by definition don't matter, and any lies, deceit, even murder, are ok as long as they keep you entertained? It's just a game, and the smart player does whatever works to get ahead, right?
Well, think of people whose approach to RL is just that. Everyone else doesn't matter. Causing any harm is just fair game, if it keeps them entertained. (And indeed a lot of them aren't even motivated by monetary gains, and do outright counter-productive stuff just because they find it entertaining to shaft someone hard.) Most of them are also nigh impossible to threaten, presumably as an effect. At any rate, for them you don't matter. They can tell you to jump off a building with a straight face, if they think you might buy that, and be perfectly able to look themselves in the mirror the next day.
The dumb ones become robbers, gangsters and serial killers, and society eventually puts them behind bars. The smart ones become CEOs and politicians, and get worshipped by Wall Street.
Most of them had no life-shattering trauma to blame it on. Most of the white collar psychopaths come from rich or middle class families, led good lives, had the best education, etc. The only trauma in their life was the one they've inflicted on others.
Some of them will _invent_ some rags-to-riches story, to gain sympathy. It makes people easier to manipulate. But almost invariably those stories aren't actually true.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The primary reason is that when you cross that line, there's major liability attached. With things like lawsuits and such, the individuals making the decisions are shielded in almost all cases. So even if it comes out that they know they were lying about file sharing numbers, and knowingly suing the wrong people, nobody goes to jail for it. Murder however, ya, you go to jail for that. Anyone who took part in ordering it, anyone who helped arrange it, perhaps even people who just knew about it.
Very high risk compared to what you get.
I can just see it. Next thing you know, the RIAA hires hitmen instead of lawyers.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you really want to make a difference you've got to hurt the artists that make their empire possible. So you have to do a serious boycott. However for it to work, you can't play around about it. First off, you have to stop buying ALL music from any artist that is with an RIAA label. You also can't go to their shows, buy their t-shirts, anything. It can't be a "Oh well I won't buy it only when it's convenient," nope, you've got to stop.
Then send a letter to the band. Let them know you aren't buying anything from them until they are no longer on an RIAA label. Make sure to be nice, emphasize that you enjoy their music and want to keep listening, give them examples of things you've purchased in the past. However let them know that your morals don't allow you to give them money anymore because of the RIAA's actions and you will not budge until they are no longer affiliated.
If people really do this, a real boycott, it WILL work. Two things would happen. First, artists would quit their labels. Those that really cared about their fans would do it to make them happy, but even those just in it for money would have to, because they'd be losing so much. Second, labels would quit the RIAA. If all their artists started taking off, they'd do what they could to stop it.
The problem is that you've got to be serious about a boycott. It's not an easy thing. You can't give any money at all to the thing(s) you are boycotting. Also you have to actually let them know you are, and why. You can't just be passive about it. For that matter you need to convince others to do the same thing, this kind of thing needs lots of people.
This is certainly a beatable problem, but not one where you sit back and hope someone waves a wand and fixes it. IT will take plenty of effort, if it is something you really care about.
If they're trying to scare me, color me not impressed. Excuse me while I stifle a yawn.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
When any Artificial Legal Entity BEGS permission from The People to exist, ( By submitting, say Articles of Organization to the Office of the Secretary of State ) they AGREE to abide by The Peoples Regulations as a condition of issuance of Corporate Existance.
PREDICATED UPON The Peoples PERMISSION for a Corporation to EXIST is that it operates in The Public Interest, otherwise, what possible reason could exist for The People extending priviledges to Artificial Legal Entities?
I say the RIAA has violated it's DUTY and RESPONSIBILITIES to The People, shown it cannot be trusted, and should have it's Corporate Existance Ended by the courts.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
quote:
Most of the case documents are not publicly available at this point, and the suit was not highly publicised until now, so it's hard to find any real detail on the charges involved.
For the amount of legal coverage Ars has been producing lately, you should at least have some basic knowledge on how to do some fact-checking in this environment. Any action and its related documents, unless sealed, that are initiated in a Federal Court (as the motion indicates "United States District Court - Eastern District of Michigan") are public. That means that you, me, or anyone with an account with PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) may find out this information. So instead of firing up google and saying conclusively that the documents "are not publicly available," use some of your subscription funds or ad-revenue to get yourself a PACER account and do some fact-checking. It's easy to use and cheap ($0.08/page, $0.08/search) -- tons cheaper than Westlaw or Lexis.
I did not subscribe to Ars for lazy journalism; if I wanted that I'd go to slashdot.
Here's some of the docket history (easily obtained from PACER searching for "Scantlebury, Larry"), which I downloaded and hosted. For example, take a look at the copyright report which shows what studio holds the copyrights to the materials that were, presumably, found shared by the defendant's IP on a P2P network.
Still, I'd prefer being screwed by the goverment rather than a company.
Error: No error occurred
The lawyers are only "obeying orders", and am disappointed by the fact that so many people here blame them for simply carrying out a difficult job in difficult circumstances, for what I am sure is only modest financial reward from those fine defenders of probity, the RIAA.
In particular I gain the impression that some here are thinking of taking direct action of some kind against these kindly, well intentioned folks.
I would urge you not to do this.
I note that the links lead to the application by the lawyers, who helpfully include their email address.
We should treat this information with the respect it deserves and should not cause them to receive any spam, and we should not put matthew@srkllp.com in the email field of every popup window that offers up free porn, Viagra, or free Ipods. Signing them up for services is malicious and may be for all I know, illegal.
Also, the huge numbers of Slashdot readers should not send him or his firm emails, because that would be a bad thing, and might upset their email service.
The fact that their Managing Partner (dick@srkllp.com) likes to be referred to as a "Dick" should be treated as a personal choice, and in the spirit of
a diverse and respectful society, I urge all you all to refrain from sending him jokes about his name.
He's probably heard them all before.
Except of course if he's deaf.
Deaf Dick lawyers have feelings too, be kind.
I call upon everyone here to respect the good intentions of the undoubtedly excellent and obviously totally ethical firm of Soble Rowe Krichbaum LLP
I note that their firm specialises in "Complex cases" and "mediation". Perhaps if there is a legitimate criticism of these fine men (and possibly a female secretary), is that
their obvious talents are being wasted. Whatever view you have of current affairs in the Middle East, might it not be resolved with less pain if these fine men (and the lady who makes them coffee) were instead to use their obvious talents on a global scale ?
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
But what did he actually do (allegedly)? There's nothing in the linked article on what they were actually suing for in the first place. If he has gained from his activities at their expense, then his estate has also gained. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that their claim moves from him to the executors of his estate on his death.
But of course "RIAA sues dead man's kids" makes for better headlines and therefore more sales than "RIAA has a valid point".
"He's gone from regular villainy to cartoonish super-villainy!"
Either I am missing something, perhaps the trial already took place and this is about the penalty, or maybe civil cases are different.
If you can really sue dead people then say black americans could sue the family of slavers. It sounds like opening a hornet nest.
So how comes a dead guy is being sued or the childeren of an alleged offender? What makes this possible?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
on his radio show at the demise of Sonny Bono when someone called Sonny (who was management before he was talent) a "genius": "How much genius does it take to meet on Monday morning to decide how to smear the payola?" Randi Rhodes, the talk show host, had an amusing comment the other month as well when she said, "I have the coolest iPod in New York because I was a DJ. I know which demos came with the little pack of blow."
The record industry is apparently just a bunch of scummy thugs. "Ya die widout paying, ya kids pay" seems so, well, "typical".
I have this theory about huge business. It's like a new animal, evolved from more complex "cells", but demonstrating an intelligence of it's own. It is motivated by the instinct to "survive", which means bringing as much money to the shareholders as possible, and each of its members is constantly faced with a dilimma:
Increase the bottom line, by whatever means possible. The stockholders don't care how you do. They don't want to know, and if you fail to do so, they won't care why. They'll just replace you with someone who can improve the bottom line.
So, each organization is made up of people who follow company policy, even when they, personally would never make such a decision on their own, and who do what they must to get by, because either A). it's their job or B). "It's business".
So if you run a company and steal from people (Ken Lay), if you die your heirs (with their stolen money) are exempt.
If, on the other hand, you're just a person, and you do something wrong in the eyes of the music industry, the punishment is due your children.
Does anyone else see a HUGE problem with the justice system in this county?
We the people have no control. God Money has spoken.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Hey, why not just dig the guy up, re-animate him and set him to work in the mines forever... I mean, until his "debt" is paid? Or better yet, they could hire him out to metal bands who are trying to make their image more hard-core... just think of the possibilities!
(and why I do have a sneaking suspicion that I shouldn't be giving these guys any more ideas?)
Was the time/date of death before of after the time the cartel claims he "pirated" their crap*?
If he died prior to their "timestamp" or whatever it is they claim to have that one might call evidence then it could not have been him. I stopped paying attenting to the RIAA 'news' for a while, have they demonstrated how they obtain their information yet or are we still guessing they pick an IP address out of a hat and claim the defendant is "distributing" at least one "song" on the complete list of all the crap they've ever produced?
*it may not all be crap, just most if not all the recent stuff
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Say person A owes person B $X. Now person A dies. Does that mean person B is screwed out of the money they were owed?
Now reverse it, say the debt is owed by B to A. Do A's heirs deserve to be screwed out of the money they're owed?
Now lets say that person A's debt is a civil liability. Say... person A was driving drunk when he hit person B, leaving B paralyzed for life and unable to work. Is B SOL because A is dead?
There are plenty of things to debate about when it comes to the RIAA, but I don't think this is one of them. Sure, there's such a thing as common human decency and whether or not I'd personally proceed with such a case depends on how much I was owed, but the legal principle involved is a fundamentally sound one I think.
IANAL.
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
if people are actually downloading music illegally or not. RIAA still uses the law as a club and collects from people who may or may not be downloading music illegally. At this point you might as well download as much music as you want, the chances of getting sued are about the same as if you don't- and you chances of winning such a case would be exactly the same either way. You might as well...
Why the SO many citizens abused by RIAA stil arent filing a grand scale class action lawsuit against this shit of an organization of robber barons ?
Read radical news here
Everyone, we don't have to stand for this outrage anymore. Jump up on your blog-platforms and scream to the heavens! The people must know the deep-dicking the RIAA is out to give... even to the dead!
6 /08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html
From the article: "In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children:"
The RIAA was suing this guy and now he's dead. Instead of dropping it, the RIAA is going after his children. Yeah, the RIAA is pretty fucking sick. Think twice when you buy your next CD -- do you want to support the RIAA? http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp there is a list of all record labels associated with the RIAA. Please, send the bastards at the RIAA a message by avoiding those labels whenever possible (or better yet, pirate the music -- that really grinds the RIAA's gears).
The regular media might not cover this, but we sure can! Get to your blogs/myspaces/whatevers and rant! Here's what I posted; excuse my colorful language, it's early and I haven't had time to put on my happy-face: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
+5 Nail Hit Squarely on Head
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
NO! we need to kill them all, it's the only way to be sure.
Any respectful and decent judge would hold them in contempt of court.
Too bad the republicans are in charge - other wise people would be able to file a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA. Suck a few hundred million out of them for each [dead person | infant | non-conputer owner | dead person's family member] they defile.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I don't care. People should start shooting RIAA staffers in the streets. Someone needs to carbomb their offices and burning down the homes of their executives. These fuckers will not learn until a few hundred of their family members are lynched from lightpoles.
It's time for a revolution. Seriously, the RIAA is a cold, heartless institution that embodies all that is sleazy in the corporate world. I picture the boardroom, wall to wall with spray-on tans, cheap suits, butterfly collars and gold-on-a-roll chains mingling with chest hair. Aviator style sunglasses, greasy slicked back hair, alligator shoes, the whole nine yards. What's it going to take to shut these guys down? A mass anti-RIAA demonstration? A mass boycott of music for months? I mean really, does anyone 'have to' buy new cds? Or can you just listen to the radio and wait for the vultures to starve...
It's how you know who you know.
Ken Lay rapes the Enron shareholders and creditors, goes to trial, manages to get himself convicted and when he dies before sentencing, the court drops the whole shebang; as if it never happened.
In this case, the RIAA wants to go after the heirs for the alleged crimes of the deceased.
Yeah, everything's right with the world.
-- .sig allowed
No
Ah, but will 5-fingered, or 6-fingered humans ever outnumber the standard 10-fingered humans?
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The RIAA had a [completely bullshit] claim in progress against the decesased.
Just as if the deceased had outstanding debt, there is now a claim against his estate. Ignoring the absurd basis of the original lawsuit, this is a perfectly normal and legitimate legal claim. An outstanding lawsuit is no different from having a hospital bill, burial fees, outstanding credit card debt, a mortgage and so on.
Again, I agree that the original RIAA claim is bupkis, however, they are not 'suing the children', they are filing a claim against the estate just like any other debtor.
I believe that "grieve" was quoted to imply that wasn't plaintiffs' motivation at all. I'm sure they wanted the 60 days to regroup and prepare to depose the children.
How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
jazman says : "But what did he actually do (allegedly)?"
The RIAA bases its suits on the same thing: all they know is that someone using internet access that the defendant paid for had a shared files folder on kazaa, or one of the other fasttrack clients. They do not know if they were lawfully or unlawfully obtained. They do not know if anything unlawful was done with them. They do not know if defendant had anything to do with the shared files folder. In this case, it is my understanding, the defendant denied having a shared files folder.
"It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that their claim moves from him to the executors of his estate on his death." You are fictionalizing here. There is nothing in the motion indicating any intention of substituting his estate, which is what is legally required. They are trying to use the open case against a dead man -- which in legal contemplation doesn't even exist anymore unless and until an administrator or executor is appointed -- as an opportunity to oppress the man's family. The lawyer has every right to substitute the estate representative; no right to pursue the case unless and until he can do that. But he is trying to take advantage of the fact that the family members do not have a lawyer to tell them that.
Please in future don't make unwarranted assumptions.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is terrible. Clearly, dead children must be banned.
Do these clowns even *have* a PR department? I can understand if they asked Legal and theirs is probably run by Goebbels himself. So I get the "shock and awe" angle there. But I'd have to think that a decent PR department would see the ways this is going to go "kabloooie!" right in their faces. I mean, suing children and dead people? Great way to gain credibility.
if Mr. Prachett would be kind enough to sue them for that?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
If you make me fear you, I will soon hate you. You have become a problem & my first reactions are to avoid you or to destroy you. That's my experience. If more people start to avoid their products (since destroying them is not, unfortunately, a realistict option) then the RIAA & MPAA need only to go to the nearest mirror to find out who is responsible.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Not that my opinion as an AC means much, but this is the first sensible comment anyone's made. The consequences of debts - including civil damages - being extinguished by death are actually pretty horrific when you think them through. Court cases to collect damages generally continue against the estate when the defendant dies, it's a good thing that that's how the system works, and the fact that the RIAA are scum doesn't change it at all.
"I have a heart! I keep it in a jar on my desk!"
With one simple change to our legal system. Don't let trade groups sue on behalf of members. Make the companies themselves stand up and be the bad guy. Like Monsanto, many of them will do it anyway. But you won't see Sony suing dead people or threatening their relatives. You will find a greater push to open source if MSFT and IBM have to step up and sue companies for license violations.
Sometimes litigation is warranted, but if it tarnishes the image of the company they're going to be a little more circumspect about releasing the legal hounds. As long as member companies can distance themselves from getting their hands dirty by the action of enforcement entities it's going to keep happening.
Hey, you right wingers. If you're so hopped up about abusive litigation, why are our fearless Republican defenders of the people stepping up to put a stop to things like this? Maybe because you're hypocrites? Just a thought.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As a practicing attorney, it is my opinion that an attorney who will do whatever his client tells him to do is not an attorney at all. He or she is not a member of the same profession to which I belong.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ok, I can, at a base level, understand the RIAA's interest in persuing this.
Now, what interest does the court have to do this? They had to hear the RIAA's case before the extension. Why the fuck did they allow it? This should've been dismissed - with prejudice. This sadly illustrates who the courts are working for these days.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
As if any doubt remained that they lack souls . . .
Leave me out.
The purpose of the RIAA lawsuits is not to make money from settlements. It's to scare people away from engaging in copyright infringment. As such, it's not in the interests of the RIAA to appear to have a heart. Moreover, every single one of you who's going to go home tonight and tell your friends about the big, bad, RIAA, is doing exactly what they hope you'll do.
No, it's not working they way they want. People see the entire RIAA represented music industry as a greedy dinosaur that's enacted a bunch of really bad laws which they are abusing beyond the intent of any legislative intent. It's backfired on them big time and they are going to lose the basis of their suits and might even face long overdue copyright reform that will eliminate their obsolete business model.
The IRS tried the intimidation approach once and what they got was Ronald Reagan and a twenty five year bitch slap. It's been a long long time since the IRS has confiscated property from anyone but blatant scoff laws and real criminals. The purpose of the IRS is revenue, not ruin. Anyone who thinks the RIAA is more powerful than the IRS is deluding themselves.
When you act like they are acting, retribution is swift. Me telling my friends all about the RIAA's behavior is going to do two things the RIAA really does not want. People are going to be that much less likely to buy music and people are going to rethink copyright law. These cases make the copyright lawyers look really stupid and none of this talk is fun. People don't want anything to do with party poopers like the RIAA. Music is supposed to be fun, unifying and shared.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Jah-Wren Ryel said: "Ask any lawyer - they will tell you that it is not their place to judge their client, only to see that they get the maximum legal representation that they are entitled to under the law."
Well I'm a lawyer, ask me.
I'll tell you that a good lawyer (a) judges all the time, (b) tells his client when it is in the wrong, and (c) if the client won't change his course of action, refuses to go along with it.
A lawyer who isn't willing to stand up to his client, and resign the representation if the client is in the wrong, isn't a lawyer at all in my opinion, just someone pretending to be a lawyer.
From my experience with the RIAA cases, I haven't yet seen a real lawyer among them.
I don't know how they sleep at night.
(By the way, take note that in the Scantlebury case Mr. Krichbaum's partner Jonathan Rowe did resign the representation in May; there might be an interesting story there, although we'll of course never find out what it was.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Very good, very good. Admitting guilt for someone who isn't here to defend himself isn't exactly very smart. Good friend, well done.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
There was no evidence of stealing whatsoever. Why are you fictionalizing on behalf of the RIAA?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
in all honesty i would belive in this case (and many others) the RIAA is fully aware of what happened, considering the was working for a deal, usually such information is passed around.
besides this is slashdot, i would wadger this is as likely to be a well designed troll
"I sue dead people..."
Of course if you listen to their songs on the radio, they will not starve.
Try an NPR diet.
Your comment about a big label breaking ranks & forsaking the dark side gives me an interesting idea (well at least I think it's interesting...)
Some RIAA-free outlets like mp3tunes & such already exist, and presumably one could assemble a list of RIAA & non-RIAA labels without extraordinary effort. So how about a dot-org like "RIAAfree"? The main products of said dot-org is a logo -- a mere seal, plus a brochure, some window stickers, some audio spots for radio advertising, and a "quid pro quo" license.
Artists voluntarily allow their work to be used in limited ways under the quid pro quo license, and they get some RIAAfree press in return. Now, various sorts of merchants are interested in ways to participate in viral & orgainc marketing, and to cast themselves as less "corporate" and more "hip." So, the independent new "Starbucks Sucks" coffee shop orders an "RIAAfree" window sticker kit & a counter display for brochures. So long as they display the window sticker & keep the brochure holder stocked & visible, they get the right to no-charge overhead music in their establishment, via custom generated playlists. Patrons who ask what the cool tunage is on the overhead are referred to The Brochure, which informs them how to look up said playlist & purchase said music.
Extend this to the local gym, to the guitar shop down the street, and to radio programs at small / college stations etc., lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, when people whine about how crappy manufactured pop music is, the response is "All the good, independent stuff is on RIAAfree, dude. Where have you been?"
Pi Ran Out
Poor guy!
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Stop saying the RIAA is .... Tell it as it really is. ...
Sony and MGM are suing a dead man
If your neighbor sues you, do you say you are being sued by his lawyer, or do you say you are being sued by your neighbor? So long as the record companies disassociate themselves from the bad publicity, what do they care? Associate the RIAA tactics with the companies and the bad publicity will stop this.
i.e. Sony, through their representitives the RIAA, is suing....
Another important factor: That case was all over the media. To push on ahead would be bad taste, and the public would see it.
In this case, a minority of the people see it as it will never make media syndication (as all major news networks states-side are owned by media conglomerates who the RIAA work for). There is nothing to stop them.
*mutters something about that which flourishes in the dark and withers in the light...*
I haven't bought a new CD in a couple years now, nor do I even bother to download anything. For one thing, I don't like the crap quality of new music (don't get me started on how shitty rock is compared to 15 years ago), and I don't like the RIAA.
I'd be lying if I said that I don't buy music because of the RIAA, sure, I don't like them, but it has more to do with the fact that the industry doesn't produce anything that I want to buy. They simply don't make the kind of music that I like anymore.
Corporatism != Free Market
There's lots of other things that need similar treatment, but we can start here.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
The classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentSta nley Milgram studies covered this. The short version is that most people (i.e. much more than half - this probably means you) can be induced to go as far as killing a random innocent "could-have-been-you" stranger as long as they feel they won't be held responsible and are told to do so by someone they see as an authority figure.
Having read the depo, the RIAA is not going to depose the dead. They are extending the deadlines of all depos, but the depo of the Plaintiff is, as a matter of law, off the schedule. RIAA's attorneys are hoping that the other depos will bear fruit from the tantalization they got from the kid. Although, FWIW, the kid's attorney might have been wrapping a "everybody's doing it" argument that RIAA attorney's picked up on as a chance to find out who everybody is. Perhaps the follow up might have accompanied the local area telephone book.
So, what we have is essentially a news article twisted to stir up angst against the Plaintiff (RIAA)---sort of like the media raging against Israel, who is a plaintiff in a different court. Apart from the typical media hyperbole, there is nothing much to see here.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Of course they can't drop the case just be cause the kid is dead; otherwise, there'd be a precedent set--a way for the parents to get out of it by killing their kid, and something they want to do as they read the summons, anyway! Then who would be left for the RIAA to sue, HMM?
actually, they make no revenue off of people listening to their songs on the radio. even setting aside payola and contests that they run on stations, they're losing money on radio just in the cost of sending out a trillion free copies so that every station has one. if the money that they invest in radio publicity doesn't get them sales (e.g. if someone is boycotting sales and only listening to radio) then their investment didn't pay off.
They do not protect my intellectual property by filing these BS lawsuits. I strongly urge all copyright holders to oppose their strongarm tactics.
RIAA is also blaming the children. The legal document cliams that Mr. Scantlebury did not respond to the allegations. Yet, he *did* somehow indicate that others were involved.
n er_scantlebury_motion
I'm no legal scholar, but I'm sure hearsay on the part of opposing counsel is not admissible. RIAA laywers want to make a case based on the words of a dead defendant. This can't succeed.
From the legal document: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=war
2. Prior to Mr. Scantlebury's passing, Plaintiffs believed that there was potential to resolve the case. While at the time of Mr. Scantlebury's death, he had not responded to Plaintiffs' discovery (he had asked for and received extensions), he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights.
The singularity will sort that out quite well. I figure most of the corporate "psychopaths" (as other posters have noted) are conservative enough to not cross over in the first few waves. That leaves them at the mercy of the real gods--gods of technology who will take utter power soon.
If Sony, Universal, et al, directly sue the people who are making the works they invested in to the public for free on this massive scale, they have to be enormously careful not to sully their image in doing so. Yet the entire point of suing is to create a deterence. Looking like nice guys does not gel with getting people afraid of you. If the RIAA does it on their behalf, the RIAA takes the "bad rap" and can "descend" to pretty much any (legal) level without it hurting Sony, Universal, et al.
Yeah uh, that'd work great, except for the fact that Universal Music Group is the actual plaintiff, and are thus the ones doing the suing. The RIAA hasn't itself seen any harm from the alleged infringement, UMG has. That's the way industry associations work; they represent their constituent members in court (among other things), although the actual members are the ones suing.
However, you are right that we're doing the bidding of the RIAA by conflating the two in our blogs and posts and independent media outlets. All members of the RIAA stand to gain or lose by its actions, and thus a relatively benign corporation may sit in the corner and quietly reap the "benefits" of the voracious litigatious actions of larger, more agressive labels such as Warner Bros, Universal, etc.
--- What
Given the number of comments relating to my ill thought out words regarding souls, I am addressing the issue here instead of to each comment in particular.
I apologize for any offense to atheists and non-atheists. My intended point was that unless someone is an atheist it would seem foolish for them to ignore the possibility of Divine Justice for their sins here even if, being rich lawyers, they are immune while alive. I did not mean to imply that atheists do not have morals or souls or belief in non-theistic spirituality as none of these things require belief in a personified God or Gods, nor did I mean to imply that those who are religous are motivated by a desire to avoid punishment.
Have no fear, Citizen! Your government stands ready to fulfill your wish!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
So Ken Lay dies and his estate will pay nothing for all the damage he did (not slandering here, the man was convicted), but the RIAA is going after this family. Someone has to fix this legal system.
At least when when you're tired of getting screwed by a company, they're not as well-armed as the government.
The key difference between the Ken Lay case and the RIAA case is one is criminal.
Criminal and Cival cases have the right to appeal, Lay is dead thus he can not appeal.
However in the RIAA case the estate has the right to apeal.
RIAA case is civil, and therefore follows the estate.
Our Laws
You can not put a crooks kid in jail for the actions of the crook.
You can make a persons estate pay you for the actions of that person.
My thought on the RIAA case is that since there was no judgment entered in court the case should be dismissed.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
I can't name a single one of my friends in their late 20's through mid 30's who has purchased a music CD at a retail store in the last year or two. It's not so much that people are "getting smart about not buying from companies they don't support". With today's mergers, it's practically a full-time job just trying to research that! (EG. Last time I bought a car stereo, I remember thinking "I don't support a lot of Sony's business practices. I'll try to avoid buying any of their products." I ended up with an inexpensive Aiwa MP3 playing car stereo. Shortly afterwards, one of my buddies said "Oh yeah, Aiwas are a pretty good deal. They're really just a subsidiary of Sony, you know!")
Rather, it's the "free market" at work, plain and simple. The record companies aren't offering a product with enough value for the dollar, especially as people's needs change. My primary source of pre-recorded music is now my Apple iPod (with Pioneer car stereo adapter in my car, and DLO "homedock" to attach it to my home stereo). Buying music on audio CD isn't even a matter of getting it in a "ready to use" format for me anymore! I have to "rip" it first to MP3s. And of course, I never liked buying songs I wasn't fond of, just to get 2 or 3 songs I did want on a given album. And with online music purchasing or even p2p downloading, these limitations no longer apply either.
How come when Ken Lay died the government stopped all prosecution and let his family keep all millions of dollars he stole? I can't see how the RIAA can proceed against a dead guy when the government 'legally' couldn't (or didnt want to, depending on how you read it)....
Interestingly, a copy of Encyclopedia Galactica from the future defined the RIAA as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
You are under the misconception that the RIAA is in the business of MAKING music. The parent post made the important distinction that the RIAA is in the business of MARKETING music. P2P is competition because it is free marketing. It completely destroys the RIAA and the major record label's business models, and it violates copyright law, but it does NOT stop music from being made.
Why do you think artists sign with labels? To get their music distributed. They want their music distributed because they want to make money. So if p2p comes along and makes it hard to make money with the old distribution method, artists will have to make money in a new way. The times they are a changin, and you are one of the many people who still believe music can only be made if huge amounts of money are thrown around by middlemen.
It is also fallacious to say that the music industry shouldn't be afraid of independant artists because they aren't popular now. It's not the artists the industry is ever afraid of, because that isn't important to them. They control distribution, thats where the power and money comes from. We take that away with p2p and we get the artists back.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck the major labels. I "steal" music and I'm proud of it. You'll thank me in 10 years when people have realized that you don't need a cartel of 3 multibillion dollar corporations to tell you what to listen to.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Radio stations, like night clubs, pay royalties to play music. That is the whole purpose of BMI and ASCAP. It is a bit too complicated to explain in a single post, but a huge amount of money is gathered from all businesses who play music in the background as well, to both the performing artist and the author of the song.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
There is something inherently wrong with the system when those who rise to the top are more likely to be dishonest than the general population.
Oil, grease, and shit all tend to float to the top...
I believe they might try.
Nothing in the headline, the underlying article, or the motion papers, says that they are planning to depose the dead. It says that they are planning to depose his children after giving them 60 days to grieve, and that they are planning to sue one or more of the children.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"
Dear RIAA,
Please stop moderating articles about your own organisation.
Thanks.
Ken Lay. Please tell us how does this fit in your rethoric. good luck.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I haven't purchased any music in the past 4 years, and don't intent to. Pandora.com, DI.fm and ETN.fm keep me happy 90% of the time. If not, many of my favourite artists release their music online for free anyway.
Obviously the flaw here is that "being replaced" is a bad thing. That is where principle and character matter.
When someone says, "Sue the dead guy," you say, "No," you get fired, and you go work somewhere else, and you are happier for it.
THAT is the flaw in the system. Nobody has enough character to stand up and say, "No, I will not own slaves." "No, I will not let people work in sweatshops to save us a buck." Nobody is willing to fail on principle any more.
And the people who are eventually get replaced by people who aren't, and NOBODY (least of all stockholders) hold entire companies accountable for that.
But at the end of the day, I'd rather be someone who has stood by some good decent principles and fell on my sowrd for them. That is a type of honor that is more or less abandoned in the corporate world.
If people see that you can get away if you die, they will do that in order to escape and not pay. :-(
Poor RIAA
Is money, of course.
Support musicians like http://terranaomi.com/ that exist outside the riaa.
Here's a list of the members in the association. http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Don't buy music from them. Make sure they know why you are not buying music from them.
Do yourself a favor and go give Terra a listen, even if you must continue to support the likes of sony and others.
She's worth the time spent listening to her.
^..^
...by buying works from the members of the RIAA, and lining their pockets to litigate against dead people's children.
See, no matter how how try, it's still your fault!
*grin*
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Hmm... this is like that chain email asking people to not buy gasoline from a specific vendor each day. It's not gonna work.
The RIAA's publicity is also causing people to stop buying from them.
Sales are down. There's proof that the negative publicity - as well as poor music quality - is taking a toll.
I, for one, only buy second hand, if I do at all. My music collection is now mostly Anime and independent stuff, which is 100% of what I've collected since around 2003. I'm also quite successful at getting Britney Spears fans to dump the RIAA. Britney Spears fans.. if they can be convinced of the DRM issue and to switch, how hard can it be for everyone else?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Actually, they do. Every time a song is played on the radio, they collect royalties from the station... Also, businesses who play the radio in their establishment pay a flat fee per year to be "licensed" to broadcast to their customers. Companies like Mediaguide make their profit by monitoring and tracking. Now, it might be a much smaller percentage than record sales, but its hard to discount the amount of cash they racketeer off of all the radio stations and businesses out there.
In each of your examples, it has already been established that Joe Blow owes money to John Doe. In this case, that has clearly not been established (if it had, there would be nothing about which to conduct a deposition).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
They're suing dead people before they Sue It Forward.
Say person A owes person B $X. Now person A dies. Does that mean person B is screwed out of the money they were owed?
Yes, which is why most banks and lenders will sometimes require debt insurance, unless of course there is reasonable collateral.
Do A's heirs deserve to be screwed out of the money they're owed?
Um, inheritance is not money "owed" to offspring, it's money split from an established estate. If your parents were poor and didn't have anything to give you when you died, you're no different than a parent with outstanding debt. There is no "right" here to take away.
Is B SOL because A is dead?
Again, insurance, or estate. No estate? No liability (at least as far as monetary transfer is concerned). Try suing a homeless person and see how far that gets you. Same thing here.
Amen to that. I've been listening to only public radio now for about 3 years. NPR, APM, etc.
I love listening to classical music, A Prairie Home Companion, and From the Top.
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/
http://www.fromthetop.org/
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:RIAA_CEO_discu sses_the_analog_hole
I've heard time and time again that radio stations are the ones getting paid to play the music, thus assuring that only those who sign with the RIAA can be heard on the air. If you have a source that contradicts this, i'd be interesting to read it.
Well? Do YOU have a source for this?
Haven't bought any music in several years, because the latest stuff doesn't interest me. Of course, they think I'm just stealing it on the internets, but instead, I'm listening to talk radio and XM comedy.
Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
Radio stations get the music for free, but have to pay royalties to play it. They also have esoteric rules that you can't play the same song or two or more songs from a same album in a certain timeframe. They make the shit so complicated on purpose. I wonder if we will ever get rid of these cartels.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Actually what the RIAA is doing is not much different from what Hitler did to the Jews. It is interesting that American law allows this sort of thing to happen. You really didn't learn much from Hitler did you? Remember, the RIAA is made up of foreign companies that hate the American people and their way of life. They don't care about your children, they want their money. So if these companies have to go after dead people to get it, they don't care. They probably even enjoy this more because dead people cannot fight back, so they loose by default. The RIAA has this power because they have paid off the elected officials of the American government, who also don't care about the American people or their children. Your elected officials want reelected and if the RIAA pays for that, they don't care. So yes, the RIAA loves to put your babies in prison and distroy the American family, that is what they are paid to do by foreign agents. Survival of the fittest, and the RIAA will survive because it is driven by Japanese, Chinese and European interests which hate the American people and want to destroy your way of life. They also think you are too free and so are using your laws to $(W@ you. Have Fun and Enjoy this lovely ride. If you learn to fight back for what you believe in; then the RIAA fascist will loose thier power. But I don't think that will happen. Americans are too lazy for this kind of action. Easier to just sit at home , watch TV and eat TV dinners. You know, the American dream bullshit.
Hearsay?
A source? Yes, I used to work in radio AND in night clubs. Night Clubs pay according to how many 'seats' they have, quarterly. I forget the way radio stations pay, likely by Arbitron rating.
The 'radio stations getting paid to play music' happens, but it is illegal, it is called 'payola'. You should be able to google that.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed is good. Greed works, greed is right. . . . and greed, mark my words, will save not only Teldar Paper but the other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."
IMHO, IANAL, TINLA, etc...
Sorry for the caustic title, but that's my general opinion of most solicitors.
Unless the plaintiff honestly believes that Mr. Scantlebury's descendants were also benefiting from his *allegedly* illegal practices, the most reasonable conclusion is that they're in full-tilt Billing Mode and thus not paying attention to any moral consideration.
But wait, I'm talking about lawyers here...
> Admitting...
No, it's hearsay. ANd, since the govenment has made such behaviour potentially criminal, you can now use the 5th amendment. (The court cannot infer information froma "pleading 5th").
If copyright were strictly civil, then the relatives would be forced to testify as to what they did.