Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Ends Harassment of Grieving Family
denebian devil writes "According to Cory Doctorow at Boingboing, the RIAA has dropped its case against the family of a dead man. 'Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement: Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.'"
They can say that all they want, now that the only person who could confirm it is dead. If they really had the goods, they'd be all over the stepson with a lawsuit.
It is called social disabdience.
Really, nobody has a problem with buying music, just the price.
The market is speaking, adopt or die. Laws fail when the fly in the face of what the majority want.
I wonder how much of what is considered 'pirated' is outside a sane copyright law(like 14 years.)?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd probably be fine with a lawsuit leveled against commercial infingers (ie, people selling material they don't own the copryright for). Likewise, small suits for non-commercial infringement I could support (by small, we're talking at most the commercial value for the material, eg 10-20 dollars per CDs worth of music, or per movie), if they were carefully executed and if the defendant was able to actual stand up for themselves in court.
What I, and other people, can't stand is the use of legal brute force against people who can't realistically fight back. Following the letter of the law with the intent of ruining someone in a civil suit which they cannot afford to defend themselves against isn't "protecting their copyright", it's mafia style intimidation.
Software company suing another software company for breach of copyright on their code? I'm fine with it, as long as the suit doesn't abuse the court system (think SCO and their delay tactics as an example of such abuse). Record company launching a small suit against a major uploader (instead of massive suits against everyone)? I would at least be on the fence, and acknowledge their rights.
Part of the problem of course is that the way the law is set up, the corporations have the upper hand. They can sue for the maximum possible amount per infringement, and they can drag out court cases longer than any individual could afford, forcing an out of court settlement. Plus, they aren't held to a high standard of evidence when it comes to bringing the case before a court.
For the record, I don't pirate. However, at this stage I've completely stopped buying RIAA label music, since I'll be damned if my money is going to pay their bloodsucking lawyers.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.
Where do you get this fact from? I'd say it's entirely unsubstantiated.
It's along the same lines as me saying "The fact is, Dave Schroeder is a corporate shill.". This is just based on what I've read online. No evidence, just a guess - could be wrong, but I don't need to back it up, do I?
JB
Or permanently dropped?
All dislike of the RIAA aside, the fact this was even an issue shows how twisted and out of touch these people are.
If the public hadn't heard about it, i bet they would on the kids doorstep with a warrant.
They are sick.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for blank cds, such as burning ISOs of Linux distros, sending digital photos to friends and family, backing up legally purchases music
It's bad enough that I'm fined for the illegal behaviour my government -- and the cultural gatekeeers at the RIAA -- just know I must be engaged in, but I would *really* resent paying it if I were an independant artist producing my own cds to sell at gigs or on a web site. Imagine the struggling artist who, by choice or circumstance, decides to produce his own cds. He not only has to compete against the huge RIAA steam roller for the mindshare of his fan base, but he also pays them a percentage of every cd he produces, that they can then use to bribe radio stations and finance lawsuits against their customers.
I agree with the original poster. The only thing that is going to end this nonsense is to *stop* listening to music produced by RIAA member labels. Stop watching movies produced by MPAA member studios. No more commercial radio or television. Use the money you spend on cds and movie tickets to attend live performances of independant artists in local venues, and buy a t-shirt or a cd from them while you are at it.
They've turned art in to a commodity, like soap or toilet paper. It's time we tuned them out.
I don't care why you're posting AC
"How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?"
Email would seem a good first choice.
No, I'm being serious. Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them.
For what? As I recall, at least in the US, spam is specifically commercial, no?