Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues Homeless Man
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.'"
I had a few mod points to spend and clicked before it was modded troll. To my total surprise, that link launched X11 (along with numerous popups). How can this be possible? See how naive I can be: since I surfed with Safari 3.1.1 on a up-to-date mac (don't hate me too much, I use Debian at work ;-), I though nothing really bad could happen. I don't think anything bad actually happened, but how come can X11 be launched by a website?! Thanks for any explanation :-D
Animoog.org
I'm fairly certain that you have over-simplified and caricatured the situation a bit. The court system isn't, as a whole, broken. It's part of our checks and balances. What is broken is that federal judges are too hesitant to impose sanctions on those who deserve them.
Seriously, when it became obvious that this guy was homeless (what, he totes around a laptop, getting mobile Internet access using Sprint or AT&T???), the RIAA should have dropped the case as this is an amazing case of "getting blood from a turnip." The RIAA seems dumber by the day. Let's see...
1) RIAA physically finds homeless man to sue. Serves with papers.
2) RIAA extorts (er, "offers settlement") to homeless man.
3) Homeless man appears in court for trial, maybe even with pro-bono attorney. (Free heat, maybe even free food. Could judge offer temporary housing--like sequestering a jury???)
4) Homeless man loses case big time, owing hundreds of thousands of $$$.
5) Homeless man declares bankrupcy.
6) Homeless man sues RIAA for mental stress.
Seriously, under what circumstance could the RIAA win? Bragging rights?
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Actually, the writers at the Onion have been known to make the same complaint that other satirists in the past have made: Their job is constantly made difficult by the way that real people keep doing things far more bizarre and funny than anything they'd dare to publish.
...
The Onion may have some of the best satirists around right now, but that doesn't make their job any easier. Not with our current crop of politicians and corporate managers that are competing to outdo the Onion's writers with stories like this.
And it seems that even some judges are taking part in the competition
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Essentially, yes it does... For example, a lawyer can make a claim in a court and the judge can ask that the jury disregard it for a technicality... But, how do you forget? It still plays a role at decision time even if it "officially" isn't part of the record or decision.
Further, if thee lawyers bring another flimsy case forward, a review of precedent can show the same lawyer bringing frivolous cases forward in the past and eventually that will lead to harsher punishments by the courts.
And if nothing else, if the lawyer goes for a job with a new firm, then a review of that lawyer's previous cases will show that a judge had it entered into the court record that he/she was incompetent.
And that brings up the question of what the RIAA was expecting to gain? Maybe they wanted him to have free housing for a few years on the governments purse.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Link in parent is malicious. Do not click. AVG just shit a break about that page containing a worm/virus/trojan.
Considering the notice was sent to his apartment, Im assuming what happened is that he did download movies, later lost his home, and is now getting legal action.
As much as I dont like the RIAA and the rest, the real problem is tort legislation in America, not the lawyers who abuse it or make an honest mistake. Change torts, change everything. These guys shouldnt be allowed to sue like this without some kind of real damages threshold, and in case of IP law they should pay the court if they lose.