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."

Comments

How low can they go?

[linuxci]

How low can they go? What does calling someones employer have to benefit the RIAA? The only thing it can do is give this persons boss a bad impression which may see him put last on any promotion shortlist and first on any planned redundancies as no doubt the RIAA would create the impression that this person is a full scale pirate (yarr).

What's worse is that it's not even the accused, it's the accused's son.

Re:How low can they go?

[morgan_greywolf]

The only thing it can do is give this persons boss a bad impression which may see him put last on any promotion shortlist and first on any planned redundancies as no doubt the RIAA would create the impression that this person is a full scale pirate (yarr).

The RIAA should fire their lawyers post haste. Seriously. While IANAL, it sounds like this guy easily has a defamation of character suit against the RIAA. What's more is that he doesn't need any serious resources to fight it. All he has to do is go find himself an ambulance chaser who will take the case on contingency since it's a deep pockets lawsuit that he's likely to win. Pain and suffering, loss of income or potential income...kaching!

Re:How low can they go?

[Talondel]

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.

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 /.'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.

Re:How low can they go?

[gt_mattex]

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.

Re:How low can they go?

[squiggleslash]

The RIAA should fire their lawyers post haste.

Why?

The message the RIAA wants to send you is that you WILL be hurt if you're involved in P2P piracy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The RIAA isn't going to lay-off the stereotypical (but improbable) 80 year old grandma suffering cancer and a missing limb who's never touched a computer in their lives. They want you to know they're going to go after her. They want "you" to know, as a 20-something poor-little-rich-kid zit-faced P2P user who has been caught bang-to-rights redistributing their member's content and has barely any moral credibility whatsoever, that there's pretty much nothing you can do about it, they will go after you, after all, they're prepared to go after Mother Theresa, why the hell wouldn't they go after you?

Of course it's terrible. It's supposed to be. The truth, which NYCL and others kind of gloss over (and there's a reason for that), is that the practical powers of the RIAA are strictly limited, so the entire deal is to make themselves look like the biggest bastards possible. They look for people redistributing, they get the only identifying information available (the ISP logs), they sue, and they hope there's enough publicity that other users of P2P networks will be sufficiently scared enough to avoid fighting back. And sometimes the best way to generate that publicity is to sue grandma and a few unrelated parties and let "Good cop" (a few radio DJs and artists) cry out about it.

And if Good Cop's not available, there's always an ambulance-chasing lawyer around with a silky populistic patter who also has plenty of incentives to play up the "Monster, out-of-control, can do anything and will" image of the RIAA who'll faithfully repeat the message and scare the pirates just a little bit more.

Re:How low can they go?

[tinkerghost]

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.

Re:How low can they go?

[Shakrai]

They want "you" to know, as a 20-something poor-little-rich-kid zit-faced P2P user who has been caught bang-to-rights redistributing their member's content and has barely any moral credibility whatsoever, that there's pretty much nothing you can do about it

And what exactly can they do about it? Get a judgement against that 20 year zit-faced brat with no assets and little income? What does he have to lose? The time it takes to find a bankruptcy lawyer and file?

Re:How low can they go?

[purduephotog]

No, it's when they get the judgement against his *parents* - where they're ruined.

I've been involved and vindicated in court case (Same Name, Different Guy) that has a, shall we say, credit problem. I was taken to court by his creditors- even though I proved I wasn't the person they wanted.

I lost about 20 lbs in the time that it took to straighten out and felt like shit for the entire time.

So... what can they do? They can make you so miserable that you don't want to live.

At least 'justice' worked in my case... now if I could just win judgement against them for violations of the Fair Credit act....

Re:How low can they go?

[lawpoop]

" However, if you are on the receiving end of a lawsuit, it is extremely stressful and a huge financial burden.



Only if you allow to be."

OK, two things here.

1. "It's extremely stressful, but only if you allow it to be."

Perhaps you are an enlightened Zen master and nothing ever gets you down, but for most average people, being sued is a huge emotional drain and and ruin health, livelihood, and relationships. I think it's naive and frankly insulting to say to people who are undergoing the stress of a lawsuit to tell them that they are just 'allowing' it to get to them. Step into the real world.

2. "It's a huge financial burden, but only if you allow it to be."

Demonstrably false. If you choose not do defend yourself, the judge will find in favor of the RIAA, and you will owe them tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you are a millionaire, and this would not be a huge financial burden. For most people, this means a kid not going to college. If you do choose to defend yourself, lawyer fees could easily several thousand dollars, even over ten-thousand dollars. For most people, this is a huge financial burden. Maybe not for you, but for most individuals, this would be 1/3rd to 1/2 of their yearly income.

"Given the community outrage and the back that major groups (the EFF for one) are backing the people being sued, it doesn't seem to have worked real well does it?"

I would say it's been extremely successful. How many people have they sued and eventually gotten to settle out of court? I'd bet most if not all. What community outrage are you talking about? Hostile postings on slashdot? Has that had any impact on the RIAA? Are they changing their tactics? Nope. What 'major groups' are backing those people being sued? I have news for you: the EFF is three people. It's not a 'major group' in any sense.

I don't see any of your supposed community outrage or major group backing as having had any impact whatsoever on the RIAA and their campaign.

There's a simple solution for this...

[__aaclcg7560]

The RIAA needs to sue the Mafia and the Mafia will send in the hit men.

What to do about it?

[Heem]

"if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."

OK..

In all seriousness. WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

Please.. what can I do to help make this go away?

Re:What to do about it?

[ack154]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[theheff]

cmd

ping www.riaa.com

(until they stop)

Re:What to do about it?

[dupont54]

And stop funding these people by boycotting their products, of course...

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

BOYCOTT!!!! Listen to what you already have and don't purchase or download anything else for a year.
Go to concerts and enjoy live performances but DO NOT BY RECORDINGS IN STORES OR ONLINE!
If most people took this approach, it would bring the recording industry to its knees or at least drive prices into the ground where they should be.

Re:What to do about it?

[ack154]

It really is a great theory... but it wouldn't work. There are too many people that do NOT see this sort of information that will continue to buy music and purchase normally. Of course everyone wants some boycott... but how often do they REALLY work? You just can't reach the necessary audience and have the necessary impact on them for it to be successful.

Re:What to do about it?

[Trails]

They'd just blame piracy.

Re:What to do about it?

[Jehosephat2k]

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.

Re:What to do about it?

[b0s0z0ku]

They'd just blame piracy.

Litvinenko blamed the Russians as he lay dying in hospital. Doesn't make him any more alive now, does it?

-b.

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Great question. Hope you get moderated up to +5 instantly on that one.

1. The tech community can offer their services as technical consultants to the lawyers and individuals who are fighting these cases, preferably on a reduced fee or pro bono basis. There is a great need for people who can testify and advise about numerous issues that come up in these cases, such as, just to name a few, (a) hard drive forensics issues, (b) IP addresses and the like, (c) file sharing software, (d) the significance of metadata and hash marks, and (e) the unreliability of proprietary software that has never been peer reviewed as a basis for a lawsuit... i.e. all the issues on which the RIAA are trying to mislead the judges.

2. All tech companies who make profits from the internet should be organizing, and contributing financially to, legal defense funds to assist the RIAA defendants. Right now the only fund I know of that is currently operational is the RIAA legal defense fund operated by "Defective by Design".

3. All tech companies should urge their industry trade associations to be assisting the RIAA defendants financially.

4. Everybody, tech community or not, should be writing to their federal congresspeople about this situation and urging legislation to curb the tide of litigation against ordinary working people.

Re:What to do about it?

[EzInKy]

Stop committing copyright infringement maybe?


Ain't gonna happen. Copyright law has become so ridiculously restrictive that it has become nearly impossible not to infringe. The majority of people just don't care about it anymore.

Re:What to do about it?

[Trails]

Boycott corporate music. Support your local (or another location's for that matter) indie music scene. Go to open mic nights at clubs, if you like something you hear buy their burned-on-a-pc cd's with fuzzy photocopied covers with third rate photoshop work(lense flares are teh awesome!!). There's more great music out there than what the idiots at BMG float.

Re:What to do about it?

[nschubach]

You could always petition outside a big name music store in New York, LA, etc. Hold up signs, tip off the national news media. You might get a few hits here and there, but over time it grows and people get word of it.

Persistence.

Re:What to do about it?

[Kombat]

Infringe all you want, just don't get caught. If you pirate something, send a check for the cost of the music directly to the performer. If enough people do that, maybe performers will get the message that the recording (rather, hard media selling, good sound men will always be needed!) industry as we have it today is dinosaur and isn't needed. Uhm, OK, but what about all the other people who put legitimate work into the album and who would be completely screwed by the system you're proposing? You know, the faceless, nameless people who

• Composed the music
  
• Wrote the lyrics
  
• Played the instruments to make the music
  
• Mixed the album
  
• Promoted the album
  
• Discovered the singer in the first place
  
• Created the cover art for the CD
  
• Produced the album
  
• etc.
  

Or are they unimportant in your eyes?

You know, people who espouse the kind of tactics you're condoning make me furious. Why do people like you just seem to assume that the artist deserves all the money? Has it ever occurred to you that your very starting premise is flawed? Why should the spoiled, whiny, drug-addicted, self-centered, egotistical singer get all the money for showing up (late) at the studio, singing a few songs that someone else wrote for them, then going off, getting drunk, and partying while the real work begins, making the album? I'd love to hear an answer from one of you "all-the-money-to-the-artist" types.

Re:What to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been plenty of responses thus far to your question, but IMHO none of them go far enough.

Here's what needs to be done: stop listening to music. Completely. Don't listen to corporate music. Or indie music. Or local bands. Don't go to concerts. Don't listen to the radio. Don't own a radio. Don't buy music. Don't download music, legally or illegally. Don't trade it. Don't have any CDs or tapes or LPs or 8-tracks. Get rid of it all.

The reason the recording industry seems to have so many people in their clutches is that so many people have made music a part of their lifestyle. Remove music -- ALL music -- from your life, totally. Change your lifestyle.

That will hurt them the most, and they will have no power over you.

But so few are willing to do that. You've been trained to think your every action, your every waking moment, needs a soundtrack. It doesn't.

Let the RIAA control music all they want. Every lyric, every note, every recordable sound. So what? You don't need any of it. They can control all the music, but it only has value if someone else wants it. Stop wanting it.

Re:What to do about it?

[LunaticTippy]

Do you ever shop in a store or eat in a restaurant? If so, you're supporting the RIAA. They also get a cut of blank media and hard drives in many countries. Let's see...radio, movies, TV all cut checks as well. I'd say in today's world it is impossible to not give them money.

You can only minimize it.

Re:What to do about it?

[lawpoop]

Gary, instead of using defensive maneuvers, hoping that the RIAA will eventually drop their strategy, what do you think of trying to mount an offense against the RIAA? Maybe something like a racketeering lawsuit, or a class-action suit? Am I correct in thinking that a racketeering suit would need to be driven by government prosecutors?

Re:What to do about it?

[rossifer]

The only way you could get it to work would be to get the liberals, who watch liberal biased news [...]

Newsflash: the news is big corporation biased and lowest common denominator biased. The only people stupid enough to believe in a strong left or right bias are so far gone to the other extreme that the middle looks like a right/left bias. Based on your remark, I guess we know where you stand and your relative intelligence.

[...] to mentally equate the *IAA's with big, evil(TM) money grubbing business

Um, the **AA's are evil (TM) money grubbing businesses, and pretty much everyone I know acknowledges that. There's no need to be a liberal to understand that.

I get the impression you think that the political left in this country is responsible for the DMCA and the abuses of the common man that have arisen since then. The DMCA was passed in a Republican-dominated congress by unanimous vote, and signed into law by President Clinton, arguably the best Republican (ahem) president this country has had in decades. You did read the bit about unanimous?

Most of your senators and representatives, Democrat and Republican, are bought and paid for by corporate special interests. Those corporate special interests want to keep their income steady and have made sure that laws intended to prevent the internet from threatening those income streams has been quickly passed.

This is not a left/right issue. This is a corporation/rest of us issue. The fact that you think it's a left/right issue just means that you're believing the corporatist propaganda. Good luck getting any straight information from talk radio. They're far too distracted unraveling nonexistent conspiracies to actually inform anyone. But good luck anyway.

Regards,
Ross

Re:What to do about it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Who the hell is Gary?

Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[mrchaotica]

...before it becomes actionable defamation? Surely they've already crossed the boundary and this guy has grounds to sue for slander, right?

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[chrish]

How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Shakrai]

How's he going to beat the RIAA in court for that when they've already got billions of dollars worth of lawyers aimed at his family?

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro-say and drag it out for as long as humanly possible. I'd file motion after motion that they'd have to answer (while paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour for that legal help) and tie it up for years. I'd drag out any depositions that they requested for hours and hours. You think it can't be done? I've known people that turned "What is your name and occupation?" into a four page long answer about how that question reminds them of their favorite childhood pet.

And counter suits? I'd counter sue them for everything from harassment to loss of consortium (my wife is stressed out by the suit they filed) to PTSD. Every thing that I file or every question that I answer with a non-answer costs them hundreds or thousands of dollars..

And in the end, if they won? That's what bankruptcy is for.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't have the glamour of fighting the good fight. But if just half of the people sued by RIAA adopted these tactics of filibustering and delay it would cost them a fortune and grind the court system to a screeching halt. It costs you nothing but grief and sweat equity. In the end they lose money.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Khyber]

Easy, the defamation costing him his job which can be proven in court, IN A SEPARATE LAWSUIT, the RIAA is 100% fucked. He's got proof of defamation, left and right, when he's not a part of the infringement lawsuit. Once he loses his job, or any chance of promotion, he can take the RIAA for destroying his job, effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay) and that's the end of story. His family has the problem of one lawsuit, he can find a pro-bono lawyer easily and get one hellified lump-sum for defamation, harassment, emotional/mental damages, slander (since they called his employer) and at that point the RIAA is going to have to pay bigtime. I'm just hoping the son has enough sense or knowledge to sue the RIAA for somethign in the billions of dollars range in a civil lawsuit which they can't back themselves out of once he brings it in. I also hope he's smart enough to NOT FUCKING SETTLE OUT OF COURT.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[ncc74656]

Those billions of dollars of lawyers cost money. If I was sued by RIAA I'd go pro se and drag it out for as long as humanly possible.

That wouldn't be a bad idea for someone who's retired, but what about those of us who have to earn a living? The time you'd spend in court is time you're not at work. Not only can most people not afford lawyers to go up against the Media Mafia, they probably can't afford the time off from work to aggressively pursue the matter themselves, which means they're even more frakked than you might at first imagine.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but this is great advice to follow. You can always do well in court going pro say. You should be able to prove mens ray without a problem. It's obviously a prema fashuh case once you supena their motis operondeye. Your lingwa franka may be free music coupons in sitoo of money if you don't argue it right, but that's kwid pro kwo in an ex partay decision. You should have some stare deseesis on your side, but still, good luck.

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[joshetc]

No offense but stealing tangible shit from me is far from comparable. Something along the lines of breaking into my house and writing down a copy of my recipe for spaghetti sauce would be more accurate..

Re:Or rather, how much can they get away with...

[Red Flayer]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Easy, the defamation costing him his job which can be proven in court, IN A SEPARATE LAWSUIT, the RIAA is 100% fucked. He's got proof of defamation, left and right, when he's not a part of the infringement lawsuit.

Oh? Has he lost his job? What if the claims of the RIAA are true? What if the son used his comapny's property to infringe on copyright, thereby exposing them to liability? Defamation might not be so easy to prove.

he can take the RIAA for destroying his job, effectively sue them for EVERYTHING they're worth (since they have just cost him everything, it's not an injust or unfair fine for the RIAA to pay)

Oh? Everything == lost income for, say, 40 years? Hardly adds up to billions. And you think it'd be easy to find pro bono representation in a case like this?

slander (since they called his employer)

Do you have a transcript of the conversations? Or even what was discussed, other than what was in those footnotes? Did the RIAA tell the employer that an employee of theirs was a criminal? Or did they say that they were trying to serve him with a subpoena in relation to a pending action? Or did they say that they may have evidence to suggest that there was illegal activity occurring on one of their computers? Who knows. And a defamation judgment is very difficult to prove here in the US.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but his case is not nearly so clean-cut as you seem to think -- particularly since truth is an affirmative defense to defamation (libel|slander) claims. In his case (since he's in the US) the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the claims are untrue... might be difficult since he would need to supply the very things that he was so desperately trying to hide from the RIAA.

The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[Aglassis]

"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."

This isn't a reign of terror. The purges of Stalin would classify as a reign of terror. The French Revolution would classify as a reign of terror. This classifies as merely harassment. I understand that the poster wants to bring up how loathsome the actions of the RIAA are, but exaggeration merely turns people off. When I hear someone talk about a "reign of terror" I typically just ignore that person since he or she is trying to convince me emotionally instead of rationally.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

People like you or me wouldn't be 'terrorized' by it. But the kind of people who are being sued are being terrorized by it. I talk to these people every day.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[kimvette]

It's not so strange for one on the production side of the business to loathe the record companies. I know a couple of sound engineers who are also performers who wish that RIAA members would suddenly die. Many engineers befriend the artists they work with, or are also artists themselves, and get sick of the f***ing scams that ruin their friends careers -- especially the record companies' creative accounting practices which result in artists accumulating huge debts to the record company, even when a record charts and becomes a huge money maker.

I for one do not wish RIAA members to die; I wish for them to become mentally disabled from all the coke they snort. That would be a much more fitting punishment for those jackasses.

Re:The hyperbole has gone nuclear

[jb.hl.com]

Bullshit.

The RIAA called his employer. This alone is a call for concern (no pun intended)...seriously, defaming someone to their employer? For fucks sake.

If they settle out of court, they are down thousands of dollars. If they don't, fight the case and lose, they are down thousands of dollars. If they do, fight the case and win, they still have legal fees to pay.

Maybe this is not Nazi Germany style terror, or Soviet Union style terror, but to these families right now they are shit fucking scared of how their future, not only their financial future but also their career, (thanks to the lawyers calling someone's employer...seriously, that's disgusting) is going to pan out. To them, this is terror. Any legal action from a large corporation against a normal family is largely going to make you 1) shit scared 2) fucked up financially for a loong while.

And this is speaking as someone who defends the RIAA (not the lawsuits, understand) all the time...this is scumbag behaviour.

Low act.

[Merls the Sneaky]

Not only will they sue you, they do everything in thier power to make your life and that of your families a misery.

Home Health Care Aide

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

By the way, this is the case against the home health care aide.... who has never even used a computer.

Re:Home Health Care Aide

[ZachPruckowski]

I really have to wonder how the RIAA think they're going to get anywhere with all of this. They are suing people, but they're suing like .001% of filesharers, and it looks like 5-10 percent of their cases are missing horribly (dead people, people without computers, etc.). Then they make all sorts of ridiculous demands and steamroller people with their financial backings. I mean, they're totally destroying the US legal system and wrecking lives at random, but they can't be making that much money off this, and they aren't cutting down on piracy.

If the guy were working for me...

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd give him a raise (if only a token one) just to give the Bronx cheer to the **AA Mafia.

-b.

Probable Cause?

[CPIMatt]

If you read the response from the record industry, Richard Altman is not an innocent bystander. According to the RIAA he has reinstalled Windows on his mom's computer several times and he was the one who delivered his mom's computer's hard drive to the RIAA. It is not like he has not been involved

The RIAA says that the hard drive they have is not the hard drive that was attached to the computer they are looking for, so they are looking at Richard Altman's computer equipment to see if he has the information they want.

Do they have probable cause to do this? I don't think so, but that is their argument.

-Matt

I don't download music anymore

[drewzhrodague]

See? This is bullshit. I'm so scared of getting sued by the RIAA, that I don't download music anymore -- and I don't buy CDs either. No, I don't have a 20+G inventory of MP3s. Instead, I use many of the online commercial-free radio stations (Like the fabulous SomaFM.com).

Now I've been a little scared of being hit by the MPAA for downloading Doctor Who and James Burke shows. Oh, wait...

In the land of sweeping statements

[tttonyyy]

From TFA:

However, in this case they basically decided to go for the gold and [the RIAA] made a bold argument claiming that merely making files available on the internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement. It was a shocking argument because if it were accepted it would probably shut down the entire internet.

Because there is no internet outside of the US. Or, in fact, anything. It's all just sea, y'know.

Re:Is it unusual

[Red Flayer]

For a lawyer to call someone's employer? It sounds odd, but is it really rare and or unusual?

Not unusual at all, when someone is attempting to send legal documents (such as a notice of judgment or a subpoena) and attempted delivery at the home address has failed. I personally have had notices of judgment served to debtors at their place of employment many, many times.

Not for nothing, but it appears that the son was deliberately avoiding receiving the subpoena (good for him, every attempt at re-delivery is costing the plaintiffs cold, hard cash) -- and if he does this at home, he should expect and deal with the consequences (the subpoena being served to him at work).

The plaintiff's lawyers decided to play tit-for-tat and ask his employer about the possibility of the son's work computer having material potentially relevant to the case.

The lesson is, if you want to play hardball with the MPAA, then you'd better bring your bat, glove, and catcher's mask.

The Objective: Fear

[mpapet]

The main objective is to heighten the fear of using one's own files into the hearts of "normal" users.

Much like a dog that has been beaten for no reason, consumers then get into a frame of mind where they will go to entertainment corps first and follow crazy usage rules in order to avoid getting criminalized.

In exchange, then entertainment mega-corps content consumption will appear cheaper.

I'm liking vhs/dvd's much more now than ever. (until I can build a silent mythtv box anyway)

Am I missing something?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

The guy was illegally downloading music, dodging legitimate subpoenas, having people lie about his whereabouts to avoid legitimate subpoenas, having people *impersonate his dead father* to help him dodge legitimate subpoenas, and then after finally being served he tampers with evidence?

Say what you will about our thieving jackbooted fascist powertripping RIAA overlords, I'm having a hard time mustering up much sympathy for this guy. I disagree with much (if not all) of the **AA's tactics, but I'm just as rapidly running out of compassion for people who don't have the nerve to man up and just *do without* all their downloaded music and movies. At least the stoners have the nerve to stand right in front of the cops in a crowd of thousands and say "go ahead, arrest us all." I've yet to see a single person say "yes, I'm illegally filesharing and I'm willing to take the legal consequences as a symbol protest." Instead all I hear is "b-b-but it's not stealing, it's sharing! Everybody does it! Your business model is outdated and you're *mean*! Lower your prices! Britney sucks!"

Re:Is it unusual

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's outrageous.

Re:Is it unusual

[Red Flayer]

He didn't ask if it was outrageous, he asked if it was unusual.

And given the circumstances, it's not even outrageous -- assuming that the plaintiff's assertions that repeated attempts to deliver the subpoena at the son's stated address failed. If you read the footnotes you linked to, there's some pretty dodgy stuff there about avoiding the subpoena. If true, the plaintiff was fully justified.

Making the summary sound like they contacted the employer out of the blue is sensationalist, misleading, dishonest, and, in fact, outrageous.

Note that I completely disagree with the RIAA's tactics in re: intimidation of targeted suspects. However, your yellow journalism just increases the amount of people who also believe that plenty of people who are against the RIAA are no better then them. FUD, etc.

Alternative RIAA scheme

[brenbart]

You know, people probably wouldn't hate the RIAA so much if they changed their tactics from the "Trying to make a point/set legal precedent" to one of "trying to get the recording industries fair share"

Wander with me a moment if you will...

DRM - Change the DRM so that instead of trying to block copying of media it's more of a tattletale. Periodically it informs the RIAA what songs you have, when you copy them, whatever. I don't have this completely fleshed out but it would probably entail some sort of RIAA song registry.

Then the RIAA takes the same vague sources of data that they have now and instead of suing someone they send them a bill for a set reasonable fee for each song plus a 50% "You were being bad" fine. The consumer has several options upon receipt:

1. Pay the bill - Somehow a system of what music you have would have to be registered somewhere.

2. Refute the bill - Set up an arbitration process that doesn't actually involve a court. Some third party looks at the evidence and makes a binding decision. This process would have to have some mandatory fee to prevent everyone from clogging the system. Fee to be paid by the loser! So if you do have "stolen" music and you lose, you'd pay the cost+fine+arbitration fee. Ouch! But in the case of all these other people now being sued it'd be a lot cheaper. Ooo, and if they got their greasy hands on evidence that you tried to screw with the tattletale DRM then there would be an additional fine.

3. Ignore the bill - After a certain length of time the RIAA would have the option of pursuing it like any other debt. Black marks on your credit rating, "selling" the debt to third-party debt collection agencies etc. Or if it's some massive amount of songs/money then they could sue you in the appropriate civil court.

The end result of this? A new source of income for the recording industry. Potentially it could change the primary distribution model to one of mainly media downloads. (Why leave out the MPAA?)

For music the DRM could allow you to play the song a set number of times before you have to pay or delete it. I doubt the movie industry would go for that. Maybe a set number of minutes into the movie like hotel room pay-per-view used to be? "Warning! If you continue to view this movie you will be required to pay $XX.XX or you can stop now."

good idea, but just to be safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'd suggest not sending anything that can be tracked back to you. Small bills in an opaque envelope with no return address, printed with the cheapest trash inkjet printer you can find, should be pretty safe.

Ban trade association enforcement

[HangingChad]

The simple solution would be to ban trade association enforcement. In one swoop that would take out the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. Make the parent companies be the litigants. If Sony starts suing people for file sharing consumers might well start avoiding all their products at the store.

Make the companies behind these tactics be front and center in any adverse actions and you'll see lawsuits against all but the worst offenders, the ones very few of us feel sorry for, dry up almost overnight.

Stop sharing music illegally

[KalvinB]

problem solved.

While their tactics can be extreme it's not like they're going through a phone book and randomly suing people. They find an IP that's illegally sharing files of content that is copyright by the RIAA and then contact the ISP to get the information of the person that is responsible for the account the IP was assigned to at the time the offense was committed.

It doesn't matter what your socioeconomic status is. If you break the law, you broke the law and are subject to punishment. I don't think anyone doesn't understand that if you have something you were supposed to pay for but took it without permission and without paying, you broke the law.

Game companies do the same thing. It doesn't matter what electonic media you're peddling illegally. It's all warez; music, movies, games etc. And the companies that are victims of the crime are fighting back.

It's rediculous to try to paint the people committing the crime as the victim just because they're everyday people. There's nothing nobel about taking things you have no right to have.

Re:Stop sharing music illegally

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All of which would be a reasonable argument, if the RIAA were only going after people who were genuinely breaking the law. But, as NYCL and others have pointed out on several occasions, they're not.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Jtheletter]

1. Don't steal* music.

Right, which works perfectly assuming also that everyone the RIAA brings a suit against actually committed copyright infringement (*fixed that for ya). However the GP's question was how to support the people who aren't necessarily guilty, and/or being absolutely wiped out financially by the RIAA. One of the points that is usually contested is that the fine per infringement is rediculously high ($750 per song) and that level of damage doesn't even have to be demonstrated by the RIAA, they just need to prove there was infringement, whether one copy or 100. Adiitionally their tactics are very underhanded, to the point of almost being outright extortion. They have demonstrated in many cases thus far - sorry don't have time to go compile all the links - that they will use legal stalls to drag out the suits and make it more expensive for the defendent, as well as in a couple cases dropping the charges when it looks like they will lose, usually in such a way that the defendent cannot make a motion to recoup lawyers fees. THAT is what we're looking for solutions for. The fact is that the cost to defend oneself even when you are 100% innocent is so high that for a lot of people it's cheaper and easier to fold and pay the settlement money to the RIAA. That's not justice, that's scamming the system and taking advantage of people to prevent them from even having a chance to defend themselves. And even if they ARE guilty of the infringement, going to court might give them the chance to have the fines imposed be more reasonable than the proposed settlement value. Justice is not being served by people being extorted with the choice of admit full guilt and pay $X now, or suffer the financially crushing wrath of our multi-million dollaar legal team who can and will bleed you dry to make a point if nothing else.

I welcome your response to this but please at least identify yourself as the parent AC for clarity and continuity if you respond.

Shenannigans!

[TheCabal]

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.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[TheRaven64]

If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, why are you downloading it? Why do you want it at all, if you don't feel it's not worth any money?

Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[wombat13]

First of all let me say that I am a Musician. The FUD about downloading costing them money is a smokescreen. What they are really afraid of is Musicians bypassing the record companies entirely and selling their music directly to consumers online. Remember MP3.COM it was shut down by the RIAA even though the music that was available on the site was posted by the musicians that held the copyrights to it. They are afraid that musicians will figure out that they are no longer needed as a middleman. There is an excellent article by Steve Albini who was involved with many of the Seattle Grunge Bands during their heyday. The Article shows just how screwed a Band will Get for Signing a contract and having a hit record. And how much money everyone else makes off them. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html This has nothing to do with "saving the starving Artists" this is just greed.

Re:Why They are Really Afraid of Downloading

[o'reor]

Please read the article. The problem is not with the contract in itself, but with the "letter of intent" that majors have the artists sign. Basically that "letter of intent" is a promise made by the artists that they will engage a contract with the major. The trouble is... you can't cancel that letter of intent (and this is usually not specified anywhere on the letter -- so unless you are experienced with such legal traps, you have no idea what you are really getting into).

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.

All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[jocknerd]

They'd drop the case. They are nothing but bullies without the balls to fight. They are hoping you give in.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

Well I doubt it would be that easy given what they are doing in other cases where the people have decided to fight instead of rolling over.

Still, even accounting for "time is money", I know that I could cost a hellva lot more money then they could cost me, were they ever to come after me. And I have nothing to lose. I have few assets and little disposable income. If they beat me, hello Chapter 7. And they'd still be out the money.

If I did have money to lose then I'd run up huge legal bills defending myself. My lawyers get priority in any bankruptcy proceeding and I'd rather give them all the money then RIAA.

If everybody had this attitude they wouldn't be able to get away with this.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[TheCarp]

Sure you can cost them more money than they can cost you....

but can you cost them a larger percentage of their revenue stream than the percentage that they can cost yours?

I dunno about you... but I am pretty sure the RIAA can take a million dollar hit much more gracefully and with less notice than I could personally take a thousand dollar hit.

Not that you are wrong, I agree... these are the sorts of tactics that could work. Just make them drop the case by dragging it out.

-Steve

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[balsy2001]

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).

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

It's about not filing a ridiculous lawsuit. It's about making it un-profitable for them to continue with their existing ridiculous lawsuit.

If you want to come after me then I'm going to stipulate nothing. I'm going to send you a merry paper chase with my interrogatories. I'm going to drag out any depositions that you may request to the point that you walk away with nothing useful. I'm going to file a counterclaim that you'll have to answer.

The point is that they are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour on their lawyers and that if everybody did this then even RIAA would not be able to justify that sort of expense. Do you think the shareholders would approve of pouring tens of millions into a legal black hole when you are only expecting to cover a few thousand per case if you win and if the defendant has any money or assets that can be seized.

And if RIAA does get a judgement, then so what? You think civil judgements are the end of your life? Ask OJ how hard that civil judgement hurt him -- he didn't even need to file bankruptcy (always an option) to avoid paying it!

Make it massively unprofitable and sooner or later the shareholders of the RIAA companies will demand an end to this little adventure.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

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.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[RespekMyAthorati]

The point is that they are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour on their lawyers ...

Wrong.

The RIAA doesn't hire lawyers, they are lawyers: the RIAA is effectively a specialized law firm engaged to pursue copyright infringers full-time. They can not be deterred financially, having hundreds of millions available from the record companies. Their sole purpose in life is to harass a few people to the point that everyone else becomes too scared to download. They don't really care whether they win or not.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[Mister Whirly]

That's extremely fortunate for that particular person. The experince I had dealing with my ex-wife's bankruptcy was not the same. It prevented us from buying a car, and delayed the buying of our house by a good year and a half. Cars and credit cards are one thing, but I bet that person would still have a hard time buying a house without having at least 25% cash downpayment.

Re:All you would have to say is "See you in court"

[morcego]

Make it massively unprofitable and sooner or later the shareholders of the RIAA companies will demand an end to this little adventure.

See, you are very wrong there.

Lets try the "whats more likely" approach and see what happens, shall we ?

Ok, what is more likely ?

1) RIAA will just give up chasing people around
or
2) RIAA will lobby in congress and supreme court and have some new law/precedent stopping people from doing this kind of stunt ?

Not sure about you, but for me, #2 seems MUCH more likely.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[CellBlock]

The RIAA has the rights to distribution, and they say it's 10 bucks for a CD.

If you obtain the CD, but don't give them the 10 bucks, then they've lost 10 bucks.

It's actually pretty easy to see how it's a lost sale. If you were never going to buy it, why download it? The argument you always hear is "The music sucks blah blah blah." If it sucks so badly (and a lot of it does), then why does everybody desire to possess it so much? It boggles the mind.

Re:HOWTO Stop RIAA Lawsuits in 3 Easy Steps

[Jacer]

Just because you never planned on buying it doesn't entitle you to a free copy of it. Why should you get a freebie just because you're less interested? *I* pirate music. I make absolutely no excuses for it, nor do I try to sugar coat it. What I do is illegal. Do I feel that the RIAA charges an absurd amount for music? Yes, and they've been punished for it, but they've just paid the fine because it was more profitable. Do I think the RIAA uses racketeering tactics? Yes, they pick on people who have no means to defend themselves. As brutish as they are, and they are brutish, what I'm doing is *illegal*. Your short-sighted view of piracy doesn't see the larger picture. It is becoming oversubscribed, and like any slashdotter, let me blow this way out of proportion. Presumably if music piracy continues to grow at this exponential rate, how long is it going to be before it becomes to not be profitable to make music? We sir, you and I may be contributing to the eventual total demise of the commercial music industry, and while that prospect does sadden me, I won't stop downloading music that I want. I make no excuses for my actions. I suggest you get off of your high horse and, at the very least, take responsibility for your actions.

What about breakages?

[hughk]

In a leftover from the days of Shellac, record company's deduct 'breakages' from their artists fees for their product reaching the reseller. Unfortunately the advent of robust media such as vinyl and now the CD has not done anything for some of these ridiculous costs. Somewhere on the web there is quite a good explanation of where the money goes, and similar to films, it is amazing what can disappear as production costs.

Re:New Game: Spot the RIAA Plant

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think there are at least 5 or 6 user ID's being used as RIAA trolls here today, maybe even more. That's the primary reason I started using the "Foe" function, so that I wouldn't waste my time trying to engage in dialogue with them.

One sure tip off is if the comment starts "No one hates the RIAA more than me". I think the RIAA trolls, here and in prior posts, are trying to do the following: (a) propagandize for their lawyers' positions, justifying their conduct, (b) take things off topic, (c) waste my time, (d) try to draw me out on undecided legal questions, and (e) discourage people from seeking legal counsel.

Yes it is

[Opportunist]

Fight fire with fire.

They don't listen to reason, they listen to money. Denying them money is like denying fuel to fire.

Re:Yes it is

[Shawn is an Asshole]

If they get less money, though, they claim it's because of the "pirates." Then they just use it as an example of how "piracy" is hurting them.

Re:Yes it is

[drinkypoo]

Regardless, if everyone they sued did this, they'd have to abandon their tactics and move on to something else. We can't even get to THAT point if we sit around HERE where we are now.

Alternatives ... ?

[Rhabarber]

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.

Where does the "neighbor" come into this?

[Software]

Why does the summary say, "RIAA Subpoenas Neighbor's Son", when there's no neighbor involved in this story? FTFA:

In UMG v. Lindor, RIAA lawyer Richard L. Gabriel, in opposing the motion of Ms. Lindor's son

It's all in the Lindor family.

Re:Terrorists. They're all terrorists... ;)

[drinkypoo]

Actually, the first three of those really do freak the money-grubbing power elite right out. The most threatening thing you can do to the current social order is nothing. That's right, nothing. Sit on your ass. Don't produce. Don't consume. Do nothing.

Of course it's actually very hard to survive that way - if you do, you will certainly be supported by someone supporting the current system. So here is an alternative method for dodging the system. Warning: It may involve dramatic changes in lifestyle.

First of all, you need to get your hands on some land somewhere and some suitable housing. For something like $20,000 you can get a shipping container and a kit that makes it into a home, some assembly required. This will be a home requiring very little maintenance as it will be wrapped in steel which is highly durable. It can stand up to high winds and in an earthquake it will remain intact and whole. For about $15,000 you can build a straw bale structure with a traditional roof. For about $10,000 you can build a cob home, but it will require endless maintenance so I wouldn't go that route. You can get a geodesic dome for anywhere from $1,000 to $50,000 (and up) depending on material and features.

Your land should ideally have some water supply, some means of generating alternative power (you don't need much) and a southern exposure. Everything else is a nicety. Anything you don't have you will have to pay for, so you will have to continue working, so you will have to continue contributing to the system.

You'll be growing crops :)

But seriously, it is possible for us all to dramatically decrease our consumption. I realize consumption is fun and I do plenty of it, but we're simply fueling the same power structure that we claim to dislike so much.

In the lower end, you can make a difference based simply on where you spend your money. Always do your best to give it to the least evil company, even if it costs you more. In a capitalist society, where you spend your money has more of an impact on society than anything else.

But if you want to bring the system crashing down, we're all going to have to consume a lot less.

Re:Nobody likes a bully

[PygmySurfer]

Well, here in Canada, they're known as the CRIA, and they routinely get their asses handed to them when they try this shit, so they're largely ignored. I assumed the rest of the world felt the same, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be.

Even labels in Canada have split from the CRIA, due to disagreements in the way they do business (including labels for larger acts like Rush and Sara McLachlan). The CRIA was founded to protect Canadian artists and companies, one of the reasons these labels left was because the CRIA was more interested in protecting US companies, than Canadian artists.

Is there anything to indicate the CRIA, RIAA, and the equivalent body in other nations are actually the same companies, though? Seems to me calling the RIAA an international organization is a bit of a stretch. They may have similar goals, but I don't think they're one and the same. Although, I suppose if they're comprised of the same corporations (Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, etc), they might as well be one entity.

SSG101 -- Under the Radar Living

[HomelessInLaJolla]

You can do it for far less than that and go further under the radar if you really want to and are very diligent and meticulous about personal cleanliness and general lifestyle cleanliness.

You need one set of durable clothing. The basics: socks, shoes, underwear, long pants, t or a shirt. Additional according to target climate: zero or more additional pairs of cotton pants (for layering in the cold), zero or more cotton long sleeve shirts (for layering in the cold), zero or more wool or cotton sweaters or sweatshirts (for layering in the cold) one or more jackets suitable for the weather--a good setup for even the coolest climates is t-shirt, two long sleeve cottons, one cotton sweatshirt, one wool sweater, one cotton hooded sweatshirt, one field jacket or heavy coat--one pair of gloves, one hat (anything more effective than a baseball cap will do). Multipurpose: one rain poncho (rainproofing, doubles as a ground layer). One sleeping bag suitable for the target climate--get a compression bag to reduce bulk, Marmot makes nice ones. Additional survival necessities: steel fork, knife, spoon, Swiss Army or Leatherman style multifunction pocket tool, Toothbrush, toothpaste, baby powder (for feet), antibacterial ointment (for first aid), miniroll of duct tape, small roll of kite string (50 pound test), one large roll of thread (pick your color) and at least five sewing needles (you'll break a few unless you have prior proficiency in hand-sewing). You can fit just about everything (except the sleeping bag, which should come with its own tote bag) into a standard size backpack. Extra clothes can be folded up or secured, with the kite string, to one of the bags. State issued ID--preferably a US passport (not 100% necessary but makes random encounters with local authorities go quickly and without mishap). It may take a bit of practice to refine your particular carryall system.

That's about it. Choose an urban location in a moderate climate (ie. not the desert, not anywhere with heavy snowfall or severe cold temperatures) with readily accessible toilet facilities, a readily accessible supply of drinking water, but far enough towards the edges of urban jungle so that you can find a sleeping spot that's relatively secluded. You should be able to set up your sleeping spot in less than five minutes and pack up in the morning in a similar amount of time. Use the rain poncho to cover the ground where you will spread out your sleeping bag. If it rains during the day then you can wear the rain poncho and have what I used to call "free car wash day" but is now "free rain poncho wash day". If it rains at night, well, spend the night walking around in the rain poncho. If that's the worst of your worries--staying awake for a night--then life isn't so bad.

Note that this lifestyle requires staying clean. No heavy drinking as humans tend to become forgetful, at best, or outright stupid, at worst, when drinking is involved. Heavy drinking is the number one cause for torn clothes, dropped items, unfortunate encounters with the police, or falling asleep under the wrong tree and being awakened by the police (or worse). Heavy use of hard or debilitating drugs is also discouraged--habitual use of cocaine, crack cocaine, or crystalline methamphetamine will cause you to become involved with people who will only see you as a potential slave. Habitual use of marijuana isn't, in and of itself, terribly debilitating but be forewarned that "street demons" look for marijuana users and prey on them to satisfy their addiction to the harder drugs. Don't worry about showers. During the summer time spend time on beaches or at parks where you can sponge bath (a bathing suit comes in handy) off after a good sweat. Don't worry much about body odor--with proper self-care and maintenance it will eventually moderate itself.

Learn to deal with hunger. You will have days where you are hungry--COPE. As long as you have water the human body can go for, probably, months without a good meal. I can personally go for abou