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)
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.
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.
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?"
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?
RIAA and listeners : till death do us part. . .
.but your estate are belong to us. You have already failed to survive. Set us up the corpse for great justice. We get stay. Make your filing.
. .
KFG
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!
Although the second part of the comment is exactly what I was thinking, at the moment the anti-piracy brigade has a fair amount of public ambivilence which is fine for the RIAA, as long as people dont care they can throw their weight around. The RIAA dont even need support to practice in this manner, just a lack of real awareness and comdemnation.
If they continue like this, large sections of the public (many of whom dont buy CD's) will become aware of the RIAA and form a very negative view.
Could this be the beginning of more desperate acts from an apparently up to now irresistable force?
How many more parents will just settle out of court as soon as the writ (I think it's called) from the RIAA turns up in the post. "Dont even try to fight us, we can still get your kids after you die".
And I dont reckon that was a troll, but perhaps I just bit.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
"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.
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.
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...)
If by chemical castration you mean battery acid, then I agree. Anything less is not near harsh enough.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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...
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!