Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Sues Homeless Man

Posted by kdawson on from the just-leave-the-summons-on-the-heating-grate dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Manhattan case, Warner v. Berry, the RIAA sued a man who lives in a homeless shelter, leaving a copy of the summons and complaint not at the homeless shelter, but at an apartment the man had occupied in better times, and had long since vacated. The RIAA's lawyers were threatened with sanctions by the Magistrate Judge in the case, for making misleading representations to the Court which the Magistrate felt were intentional. The District Judge, however, disagreed with imposing sanctions, giving the RIAA's lawyers 'as officers of the Court the benefit of the doubt,' and instead concluded — in his 6-page opinion (PDF) — that the RIAA's lawyers were just being 'sloppy' and had not made the misstatements for an improper purpose.'"

10 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong, wrong, wrong! by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'as officers of the Court the benefit of the doubt,'
    Wrong!
    As officers of the Court they should be held to a higher standard. Sloppy isn't an excuse.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please mod parent up.

      "Sloppy" should not be in a lawyer's vocabulary. In court, "sloppy" can land somebody in jail, backrupt them, cause divorce, take away their children, and destroy their life altogether in a myriad of ways.

      "Sloppy" is what a McDonalds' burger maker does. When lawyers serve a subpoena that's about as accurate as addressing McCain as "Mrs Clinton", there should certainly be repercussions.

      Otherwise, what prevents them from being "sloppy" and just file papers against every single college student in the United States?

    2. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly what he said AND think about it, if you or I go into a court representing ourselves and are sloppy.... well, the court normally does not look favorably upon people who waste the court's time with 'sloppy' actions.

      Having said that, court systems 'seem' to be the daytime hangout of a rather large boy's club in many places around the country. The lawyer defending you probably plays golf with either the judge or your opponents lawyer, or both!

      IANAL, but I've had happy hour beers with a few. Sloppy is what you do when you think the court will be benevolent toward your actions. If the court has a reputation for seriousness and crossing-tees-dotting-eyes behavior, sloppy is NOT what you do.

      Personally, you and I know that the judge in this case has heard about the stories of the **AA's actions around the country. It would be professionally negligent to not have been following those stories. So, to give them any slack when they are sloppy and wasting court time and resources is tantamount to saying "plaintiff wins, next case!"

      I seriously don't think this homeless guy has a snowball's chance in hell.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    3. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, and what everyone witnessed there was the "Good ol' Boy" network in operation.

      Justice in the american legal system has always been only for those with he largest bank accounts.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! by KGIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I tend to think of it as the Just Us Department really.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. What's next guys, raping a nun? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Every day these guys sink to new lows. It's a shame that Lou Dobbs or some other "crusader" type TV pundit hasn't jumped on this saga yet. The RIAA would give a lot of ammo to any pundit looking to rant about something outrageous every day.

    The sad thing is, there are real legal issues here. The RIAA is using the American court system as an vehicle of intimidation, and to give a mask of legality very illegal activities (like investigating people with unlicensed private investigators, shotgun lawsuits that target innocent people, organized extortion, etc.). Meanwhile, the courts seem all too willing to just sit back and let them do it, with no acknowledgement that this is part of an organized campaign. I guess the Supreme Court has more important things to deal with.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. WTF!?!?!? by Black-Six · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How in the world can you sue someone who is homeless and has no internet access, take them to court, get shot down, and then have a district judge say "We think you, the RIAA, had the right intentions but the wrong paper work."? They let murders off for clerical errors, but get caught downloading tunes and its a trip to the financial electric chair.

    If this isn't proof positive that our court system is completely wanked, I don't know what is. And people wonder why our society is going to hell in a hand basket.... Kill someone and get off scott free vs. download tunes and go bankrupt paying the fines.

    1. Re:WTF!?!?!? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let me be clear from the start that I have a ton of sympathy for the homeless, and absolutely none for the RIAA and its lawyers.

      How in the world can you sue someone who is homeless and has no internet access, take them to court, get shot down, and then have a district judge say "We think you, the RIAA, had the right intentions but the wrong paper work."? As I read the article, the judge said RIAA was sloppy about how they delivered the summons and not about the merits (if any) of the case. And as heartless as it may sound, there is nothing improper (in a legal sense) about suing a homeless man. He may not have been homeless and/or may have had internet access when he allegedly committed the "crime" the RIAA claims.

      To take an extreme example, imagine that one of the Enron executives drove themselves to destitution and was living in a homeless shelter. Just because they're down and out does not excuse them from being prosecuted for any crimes they committed.
      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  4. Because his boss says not too by hellfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a shame that Lou Dobbs or some other "crusader" type TV pundit hasn't jumped on this saga yet.

    You realize there are only 4 major media companies in the world right now. Lou's bosses reports to a producer who works for a company that is owned by one of these media conglomerates, who also owns several major recording labels. The moment Lou reports that the RIAA is doing something evil, Lou and his producer immediately get fired for casting the company in a bad light and Lou gets blacklisted.

    Now... I am surprised that the BBC and NPR haven't picked up on this yet. Maybe they have, but can't devote a 2 minute segment to it each and every day so I may have missed one of their special reports, but considering there are, seriously, more important stories to run such as olympic protests, government upheavals, elections here and abroad, etc, I'm not entirely surprised. It sucks, but put into perspective of US National and world news, is it as important?

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  5. Re:I'm amazed by remmelt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, I thought the real question was: did the allegedly homeless man share any files illegally? Allegedly?