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."
We all know the ill and disable are pure of heart, love their moms and are made of kitten whiskers. Slashdot is getting seriously pathetic trotting out extremist nonsense like this.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Having a stroke and/or receiving disability payments renders one incapable of copyright infringement? Does the BitTorrent client refuse to install if it detects a Social Security check in the vicinity?
Being disabled isn't evidence of innocence, unless the disability is such that one is incapable of even using a computer. If the guy broke the law, he broke the law. I happen to think the law sucks and needs to be changed post haste, but it sucks for everyone, not just stroke victims and the handicapped.
In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases.
The more I hear "RIAA" the more I wonder what it's really for. It seems like whenever stuff like this happens, we say the RIAA is suing a stroke victim. The RIAA sues dead people. It seems like the RIAA is doing a great job redirecting all of the bad press for this campaign. To me it looks like Warner is suing this guy, not the RIAA. Let's at least identify who is calling the shots here. Maybe if more people heard about Warner's actions, they would buy CDs from other record labels. (Yes, I know other labels sue people just as much, but it'd be nice if there was some bad press to come with stuff like suing disabled people.)
I should totally be taxed on something I intend to store family photos on or backup my legally purchased digital downloads on and that profit should go right to the RIAA and MPAA and BSA who have nothing to do with the medium and content I'm placing on it.
Look at all the bullshit this nation is willing to put up with!
Do you really think this means anything?
The American ideal is dead. We are all just trying to keep our heads down and to survive the machine we have built.
Frankly, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to purchased $21 CDs with two good tracks because we dont have the principles to really boycott the industry.
You are, by purchasing their steaming piles of shit (err, music). Well, possibly not you personally, but the royal You, as in everyone who supports the extortionist business model on the back end.
At this point, I doubt it would matter. If we stopped buying the cds they would claim it as proof of pirating.
RIAA is a fanaticle group. Any traditional tactic that could be used to display displeasure of something is only fuel to their cause. It is past the point were a boycot could work. It is past the point were you or i could make a difference. And that is because we could never make a difference. RIAA is the sole reaction to the market trying to prove a point.
What RIAA is doing right now is covering for lack of sale and bad business decisions. They are giving the recording industry excuses for artist not making the money they deserve and they are giving excuses to share holders for producing run of the mill stuff and passing it off as something it isn't. The more RIAA sues, the more smoke covers how the artis is being treated and paid.
Why not? People without children pay taxes to run elementary schools. People without cars pay taxes to build roads. Living in a civilized society means sometimes making sacrifices for the benefit of the group as a whole.
Instead of using RIAA start calling it the record labels. Now they're just pushing the bad pr over to an organisation that has nothing to lose.
How do you prove you did not commit anything ? Find an alibi ? That's right : in most of the case you won't be able to prove you DID NOT commit anything. Proving a negative/absence of crime is illogical and neigh impossible. That should be the RIAA job to prove you commited infringement without reasonable doubt.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Do you understand this logic?
Distributing something across the internet would be considered large scal productions. If you have a torrent and there are 20 people leaching from your half downloaded song and then you leave the torrent for a week, you have effectivly let several thousand people have the song. You are a large scale producer/pirater. And you need to get it from somewhere so you will need to have some large scale pirating system set up to get the ball rolling.
Otherwise, you have exactly what we have today but now RIAA gets a cut from every picture CD you make of you last trip. Riaa gets a profit from you doing a backup to DVD of your documents. The only difference would be RIAA getting money for stuff totaly unrelated.
This is an Appeal to Pity.
Yes, we all know the RIAA kills puppies and causes gout. But is it too much to ask to find articles about the RIAA that simply tell the facts as they are about them? They're bad enough, and they'll stand on their own.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Why not? People without children pay taxes to run elementary schools. People without cars pay taxes to build roads. Living in a civilized society means sometimes making sacrifices for the benefit of the group as a whole.
The difference is that there are credible arguments for education and road building being of help to society as a whole. Thus it is perfectly possible that people without children may derive a benefit from everyone being given a basic education and people without cars may derive a benefit from the existance of roads.
The difference is that there are a lot fewer aguments in favour of supporting an obsolete business model. At least from the point of view of society as a whole.
I like http://www.metropolis-records.com/
I know about RIAA Radar, the site that lists music that IS RIAA owned, but is there a site that reviews music that ISN'T owned by them? I'm an Industrial/DnB fan and I'd like to not give money to people who sue children and the disabled.
This is just insane but it doesn't do much good for us all to sit here and whine about it to ourselves. *we* are not the market that keeps funding these people. Howver, *we* have a responsibility to mobilize and get the word out to the *regular public*. Call every talk show you can print flyers.. Spread the word, while we still have the right of "freespeech" on our side.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They could try, but when the artists they claim to be protecting start to scream for the heads of the lawyers, things would change.
It would only take a 20 - 30% drop in a short period to get their attention. The trick is getting the boycott organized and getting publicity.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
someday...
someone with nothing to lose will stroll into the RIAA headquarters strapped with explosives. Who will be the first martyr?