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
It is times like this that I wish America would switch over to a system where blank media is taxed and they don't prosecute piracy. Sure it might stretch the bottom line for the Mafiaa, but wouldn't it be beneficial to society at large? Hopefully in a decade or so it will be a big enough hot-button topic to spur actual political change. Until then keep it up RIAA... if you stop being the stereotypical evil corporation all we will have left to overthrow when the revolution comes is Microsoft :-)
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.
How long until they start suing dead people? ...
They haven't sued dead people, have they?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
At this point, I doubt it would matter. If we stopped buying the cds they would claim it as proof of pirating.
Then let them. Claims don't keep their business afloat, money does. They can't make you buy CDs, they can only stop illegal copying. If all this anti-piracy crap doesn't increase their sales numbers they'll run out of options sooner or later.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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