Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."
Satan must be a pirate too, cause these guys seem to be trying to get an express ticket to his crib.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_ the_dead/
They're not claiming he pirated music AFTER he had the stroke. The fact that he had a stroke and his alleged pirating could be completely unrelated.
I don't believe pirating music should be illegal or a civil offense, but I take the laws as they're given to me, and the disabled are not exempt from them.
You are correct in that a civil trial uses "preponderance of evidence" rather then "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the burden in criminal trials.
However, it is still the burden of the RIAA to prove him civilly liable. It is assumed that the defendant is innocent of any charges leveled against him in a court of law. Not just a court of criminal law, but civil law as well.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
2. That is a complete fabrication about the law; there is no such thing as "selective prosecution" in civil litigation. (In fact, even in criminal law it's a concept that exists on paper, but is almost never an issue in reality. Prosecutors are supposed to be selective and have "prosecutorial discretion" to pick some cases as worthy of prosecution, and others not.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It's a reference to an episode where Homer is mistaken for Krusty the Klown and tries to convince the mafiosi he's someone else. The exchange went pretty much as described:
Homer: I'm not Krusty, I'm Homer Simpson!
Maifia: The same Homer Simpson who...?
etc.pp.
As someone who speaks to the victims of the RIAA lawsuits on a daily basis, I can definitely say that this stuff causes extreme anxiety and stress, and I'm sure it has contributed to depression and even to deaths.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There are, in fact, several documentary films about it in the works right now as we speak.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I've been collecting a list of links I call Liberated Music.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Try Jamendo. All music on the site is entirely free to listen to and download.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Yes it is a problem, only I'm not sure the system does allow it. They are getting their head handed to them in Capitol v. Foster, and I am hopeful the 'system' is catching up to them elsewhere.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The mention of the stroke does indeed have a purpose beyond emotional appeal. The medical bills from the stroke, combined with the fact that his base income is already small if he's on Social Security Disability, give the distinct impression that he might have financial difficulty mounting a strong defense in a case such as this.
The whole point is that the RIAA is suing someone, who based on the evidence available is most likely innocent, just because he probably doesn't have the money to defend himself successfully. They probably hope he'll cave in and settle because it'll cost less than the extended legal battle he might face.
I think NewYorkCountryLawyer included the medical information because it has a direct bearing on the interpretation of the RIAA's actions in this case. If all you saw was an appeal to pity, then maybe you need to re-read the summary again.