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 is lawyers. Representing the recording industry is their full time job.
KFG
It's called an estate.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
A hooker will stop screwing you after you die.
To be fair, the BBC isn't government run, just taxpayer funded. In fact, the BBC has often been attacked in recent years for "unfairly" criticising the government.
"The governments of most social democratic countries would sue the family"
And that, sir, is exactly the difference.
RIAA is not suing that family. It wants the family-members to provide sworn statements (which is what "depose" means) that could be used to proove the guilt of the dead person.
And that makes it a bit, shall I say, distastefull in my opinion.
But, as has allready been remarked, the sole purpose of RIAA is to "kill" (in any way, but for the physical one). Lack of revenue is no problem, as they are attached with a umbilical-cord to their parents, who provide them with the sustenance they need, as well as the pressure to make sure noone intervenes with their idea that they should be able to control anything that could be considered being music.
It's not government run:
...the BBC is, per its charter, to be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners.
Source
At least the creditors and collection bureaus probably have a real claim, although the interest and add-ons may be considered to be excessive, the decedent probably did actually owe them the money. Creditors usually have a valid claim for a debt, the RIAA is trying to sue somebody's family for an action that the the decedent may have taken.
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
"Access to the dude's grave to pry his last pirated CD from his cold, dead fingers?"
I realize that you're joking, but I'd like to set the record straight. Larry was a friend of mine. I worked with him for the past couple of years. He never illegally downloaded any music. Unfortunately, his step-son did (IIRC, almost 2000 songs using Limewire). Larry wasn't the most technically proficient guy, so he had no idea this was being done on his own computer. He would bring the case up at work. We would talk about it on occasion, he'd tell me a little about the case and how he was trying to work out a deal. I actually told him about Slashdot, and all the articles about the RIAA's slimy tactics. Larry used to be a lawyer, so he had some idea of how to deal with these guys. Larry's death caught us all by surprise. He died of a brain aneurysm, well before his time.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Credit card debt is unsecured. When you die, your estate is not liable.
I don't know whether there have been serious scientific comparisons made, but there are certainly academics that have been using criminal profiling on corporate managers.
This is a quick link found from Google. I'm sure you'll find more if you do some more searching.
Funny how the RIAA is suing people who infringe on the copyrights of their member's then, isn't it?
You do know that the money the RIAA extorts from people goes straight back to the RIAA's legal war chest, right? The artists don't see a dime of it.
Trolling is a art,
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.
It's been covered right here on Slashdot almost exactly a year ago: Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
Incorrect. In many states, such as Illinois, if a defendant in a civil case dies, the plantif has 90 days to substitute a personal representative. In other words, if you are suing person X because he called you a mean name, and he dies, you have 90 days to file an order to substitute his next of kin or even his lawyer (whoever has taken control of his estate) and sue them instead.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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...
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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!
More to the point, these were extended retroactively, which is fucking absurd. Someone tell me how extending the copyright from 50 years after his death to 70 years is going to make John Lennon write more music.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"Let them hate me, so long as they fear me" (oderint, dum metuant). -- Roman emperor Gaius "Caligula" (12-41 CE).
The RIAA won't care either.