Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Subpoenas Neighbor's Son, Calls His Employer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a 'reign of terror', how's this one: in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA not only subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away, but had their lawyer telephone the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1." From Ray's comments: "You have a multi-billion dollar cartel suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations. And due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law, if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."
By the way, this is the case against the home health care aide.... who has never even used a computer.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Here's one suggestion for fighting back: Don't buy a Zune.
Most people reading this by now know that MS caved and some sort of "copyright tax" to the RIAA for every Zune sold. Even if you ignore all of the negative reviews and MS is the devil and all that; the money given to the RIAA from the sale of the player is enough for me to never, ever consider buying one. And to recommend the same to anyone I ever happen to know.
A year? How about FOREVER.
I am RIAA music clean for years. I don't download stuff, and more importantly, I DON'T BUY THE CRAP THEY SELL!!!! None of it. Not a dime.
It's outrageous.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I doubt it's possible to dislike the RIAA or these lawsuits more than I do. I think overall the RIAA and MPAA represent an assault against cultural progress and preservation, by seeking to destroy the public domain and make distribution and archiving of even unprofitable works illegal.
/.'d but it basically says "we tried to serve him at home 7 times, and we kept getting lame stories, including being told the person we were talking to was actually the person's father, who's been dead for 4 years."
Bottom line. Don't play games with process servers. They've got a job to do, and they're going to do it. The harder you make it on them, the harder they'll make it on you.
That said, if you don't want an potential litigant to contact you at work, don't actively avoid service at your home. It does not help your case. Few things annoy a judge more than playing games with the requirements for service. Personal service requirements are a constitutional protection to guarantee that people aren't being brought to court without getting notice to defend your self. It is serious business, and courts take it seriously. They don't like it when a person who obviously already has actual notice of a pending subpoena plays games with the system.
Given the apparent circumstances, the RIAA and their lawyers were well within their bounds to attempt service at his place of employment. If he didn't want to be served there, then he should have accepted any of the previous seven valid attempts to effect service at his house.
Quoting from the footnotes:
Well, actually I can't quote from the letter, because it's
FTFA
In UMG v. Lindor, a case against a home health aide who has never used a computer, the RIAA has now subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's adult son, who lives four (4) miles away from her. Ms. Lindor's son, a paralegal in a law firm, has hired counsel to make a motion to quash the subpoena
Looks to me like the RIAA is goin fishin.
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
Read what is going on before commenting blindly. I'm probably one of the last to defend *AA but everyone is screaming bloody murder without reading the documentation.
His employer was called because:
1) Son is actively trying to avoid being served with legal documents. RIAA attempts to serve him at his place of business (standard practice)
2) Employer got himself involved in the case. Specifically, he left instructions on how to handle the legal paperwork trying to be served, plus went into discussions on obtaining a court order to protect his company's documents.
Check your notes on serving a summons etc. In MA it's perfectly valid to simply drop it off at the last known residence (there are some restrictions on how long they stayed there & how long they've been gone) and then sign the service documents as having done so.
The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...
"But this one goes to 11!"
Hey and if you have to go that route just remember that your assets in 401 k)s and IRAs and other tax exempt retirement accounts can not be taken from you during Chapter 7 (http://detroitbankruptcylawyer.com/dosdonts.htm).
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Hey and if you have to go that route just remember that your assets in 401 k)s and IRAs and other tax exempt retirement accounts can not be taken from you during Chapter 7 (http://detroitbankruptcylawyer.com/dosdonts.htm).
Nor can they be taken from you for a judgement either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The RIAA isn't suing people to get the specific money that person owes them, that is not their point. They are worried about the big picture. They want to scare the average person into doing what they want- not downloading music - without having to sue everyone . Your idealistic solution would not work on them - anyone that is serious about fighting them will never make it to a courtroom, that is part of their plan. I applaud your attitude, but realistically don't think it would work out.
And as far as filing bankruptcy goes to spite them, that's great if you don't want to purchase a house, car, major appliance, or anything else you may need credit for in the next 7 - 10 years. If so you are only screwing yourself.
"But this one goes to 11!"
And as far as filing bankruptcy goes to spite them, that's great if you don't want to purchase a house, car, major appliance, or anything else you may need credit for in the next 7 - 10 years. If so you are only screwing yourself.
Not exactly. A timeline for you:
Sep 2005: BK (Chapter 7) filed.
Dec 2005: BK discharged.
Dec 2005: Obtained $200 secured credit card.
Dec 2005: Obtained $500 secured installment loan.
Mar 2006: Obtained $1,000 unsecured credit card with $25 annual fee and 24.9% APR.
May 2006: Obtained $12,000 car loan at 13.6% APR.
May 2006: Obtained $2,000 unsecured credit card with no annual fee and 16.9% APR.
Nov 2006: Re-fi'ed previous car loan with local lender: 7.5% APR.
Nov 2006: Obtained $5,000 unsecured credit card from same lender with no annual fee, 9.9% fixed APR and 1% cashback.
Less then one year after a BK discharge this person has a car loan at a more or less prime rate and a FICO score of 660. In another year they will be able to obtain a mortgage at the same rate as anybody else. They could get one now -- it would just cost more.
Bankruptcy isn't the end of your credit life by a longshot these days.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I stopped buying music years ago when I had a really busy time studying. After that period of withdrawal I heard about some free music labels, got curious and never looked back again.
In the beginning I was impressed by programs that automatically download free music, based on ratings you give.
Today I have a quite large collection of free tracks and albums. From time to time I visit, some, of those. All that is 100% annoyance-, tool-, ad-, DRM- and RIAA-free.
You can't withdraw from your engagement ! So when presented with a contract, however bad its terms, you have to sign it, and forget about calling it off : the letter of intent has locked you into the process.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.