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.'"

Comments

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Jherek Carnelian]

I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

Why do you make that presumption?

If someone honestly believes that such material is not deserving of such restrictions, then just why is it that you expect them to honor such restrictions in the first place? That's like saying in a country with legalized slavery, you would trust that anyone who honestly believes slavery is wrong to never aid a slave in escaping to his freedom. Or in less inflammatory terms - if someone fundamentally disagrees with a law, believes it has no moral basis, he should still unquestionally obey it.