Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Just when you think they've reached rock bottom, it seems the RIAA always finds room to sink a little lower. This time they've sued an innocent, 19-year-old transplant patient, hospitalized with pancreatitis and needing islet cell transplants. Although the young Pittsburgh lady claims that she did not infringe any copyrights, she failed to answer the complaint in time, and a default judgment was taken against her. A Pittsburgh area lawyer has stated that he will represent her pro bono and make a motion to open up the default."
Why doesn't somebody countersue them for slander?
Excuse me, but those don't appear to be your cells. You must have downloaded them, and therefore you owe the RIAA money.
Well of course.
Just because someone's dying is no excuse for them to not pay for their music. I think the MAFIAA is acting in the artists' best interests and the interests of all concerned. /end sarcasm
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
She is guilty because she didnt respond in time? WTF is this? Guilty until proven innocent?
Why even hold a trial? Why not just delare the person with the most expensive lawyer the victor?
I think it's ethically wrong, but as far as not responding to the judgment, is there a solid legal ground for a motion to reopen the case? Is it mainly down to the judge's discretion?
...but what does her state of health have to do with anything?
Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
This type of emotive argument is fairly silly and pointless. This person being sued is no worse an example than that of anyone else who is sued by these thugs.
Read Pynchon.
Just curious, why is the health of this person relevant in the case? I assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them. Course you can always get conspiratorial about this situation.
I have nothing compelling to say
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"? When will they distance themselves from the RIAA? Or is the bling that the racket money gets them so important?
I for one hope that every single artist that works for the RIAA (yes, FOR the RIAA) will be remembered in infamy. As in "X Y was a very gifted and prolific [vocalist/composer/guitarist/drummer], but his/her work for a RIAA label has tainted his/her biography."
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It's unconceivable that a sick person would illegally download music?
The title of this story should be "RIAA Sues Innocent Person". Mentioning the illness is just a weak emotional appeal (not unlike "think of the children"); if somebody breaks the law, they ought to be punished as much as the next guy. Traditionally prosecution can and will give the guy a break out of empathy and basic human dignity (yes, lawyers are humans, too), but being in a bad spot is not a blank check to get away with crime. Assuming she is innocent, that ought to be enough to deserve our scorn.
So, if a person has dysfunctional or damaged organs, it's alright for them to pirate music? I think your ignorance is showing.
This guy deserves the chair. Zaappp!
A web site where we can post the pictures and resumes of all lawyers that work on behalf of the RI/MP AA.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Nice appeal to emotion, slashdot.
Wow, they really are bottom feeding now. I guess we can expect to see future headlines like these:
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient; he responded "What's a computer?"
DHS: RIAA suspected of links with Al Qaeda.
RIAA raids wedding reception, arrests groom for illegal downloads. Bride sues.
RIAA spokesman praises Mumbai attacks: "The gunmen targeted downloaders."
Space Piracy: RIAA sues NASA over bittorrent client they claim is running on ISS computer.
Foster care agencies warned by RIAA: downloaders are criminals regardless of adoption status.
RIAA sues Dell, HP, Acer for $10B: "computers are nothing but piracy tools".
RIAA accuses NYC opera company of infringement: "Aria sounds too similar to RIAA"
RIAA claims dead man's organs as compensation for "lifetime of piracy".
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I think you need to take a step back, look at your post, and think about what you are saying. You are saying that because the RIAA sued her, she is probably guilty. In this legal system, the way it works is the opposite: She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty, and we should treat her as such.
Has the RIAA's marketing made you think otherwise?
There's nothing to be guilty of because these copyright laws are stupid bullshit meant to protect a racket that finances cocaine fueled child molestation parties, so by default, she's innocent. Stop being so obtuse.
Was this girl actually served papers? Is there some sort of precedent that exists for if you're unable to make the court date due to unexpected/unavoidable causes, for example if you're served while in a coma, or you're served, hit by a bus, and then unable to make court (due to being in a coma, etc).
In this case it looks like she may have just disregarded the legal paperwork while dealing with health issues... TFA is a little light on details in that regard as all it talks about it how poor she is and unable to pay the fees due to her condition.
I find it amazing that not only is there a 19 year old out there who doesn't download music, but the RIAA managed to find them! I mean what are the odds that a 19 year old the RIAA sues, HAPPENS to be one of the very few who don't pirate?
The odds are simply staggering. Why if the RIAA had those odds when it came to the lottery, they wouldn't need to sell music anymore.
i am willing to bet 1000$ this is not the end and RIAA will yet find a way to sink lower then this.
But 19-year-old Ciara Sauro strongly denies the charge and says she and her mother are overwhelmed with medical debts.
I don't see how that's relevant (if it is, the Pittsburgh Times doesn't explain it. Did the papers get lost amongst all the medical bills? Dunno). It'd be like me saying "I've just killed 20 kittens today, and I can't pay all my medical bills."
I knew when I posted this that a certain significant minority of Slashdotters, or AC's, would come out of the woodwork saying that the defendant's illness and poverty are irrelevant, so I'll say this once:
-I'm a lawyer
-I don't bring lawsuits against helpless people
-I wouldn't accept any client who wanted me to do that
-yes she is innocent, as anyone knows who RTFA
-it is not really newsworthy that she is innocent because of the 40,000 people sued by the RIAA, probably 20,000 to 30,000 are innocent
-yes defendant's illness makes it harder for her to deal with the case and defend it
-yes defendant's illness makes it more morally opprobrious to sue her, without at least investigating beforehand to make sure she is in fact liable for copyright infringement, especially when -- as in these cases -- the plaintiffs' actual damages are probably in the neighborhood of $3 or $4
-yes it matters that she is sick and impoverished because being subjected to a lawsuit gives such people more anxiety and depression, and more severely impairs their health, than it would to someone who is healthy and has plenty of money
-these types of cases demonstrate more vividly than others how ridiculous, cruel, and immoral the RIAA's suits are, and what an embarrassment they are to the federal court system which has permitted them to exist
-yes her poverty and illness and depression were factors in her failing to respond on time, since it is usually impossible for someone in her position to get a lawyer to take her case.
And to those of you who think that it's okay to bring suits against helpless people, I repeat what I've said to you before; that is not a legal question, it's a moral question. And if you really believe what you're saying, you have different morals than I have. And if you think it's okay, my personal moral evaluation is as follows: you can rot in hell along with the RIAA ghouls who do this sort of thing.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't think I'm saying that. At least, I'm pretty sure that's not what I intended to say.
What I'm saying is, there's no justification for making any declaration on innocence or guilt unless you have access to some sort of evidence. I don't think we should treat her as guilty, but nor do I think we should make a factual claim that she IS innocent.
Based off the RIAA's history I think it's likely she is innocent of the offences they're levelling against her. But do I claim to know it? No.
I suppose it's just a case of being pedantic, but I find people claiming to know things without evidence to be distateful. That's what I saw the submitter of this story as doing.
How about you get cancer or aids or something and then I'll sue you for supposdly pirating music and I win because you can't respond being in the hospital and all and you owe me tons of money. How would that make you feel?
But if we are talking about the legal determination of guilt and innocence then yes, she is technically innocent. But it is also true that not one person has ever been served for a crime he or she was guilty of because they are being served to determine "guilt" or "innocence" in a court of law. I think the parent poster is referring to the logical independence of the statements "actually committed act X in the past" and "is currently in hospital".
(I prefer to think of the terms "guilt" and "innocence" in terms of whether you committed the act or not, and that a courts determination of guilt or innocence as akin to legal fiction. This explains why we say we extend the accussed the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, rather than claiming that they are actually innocent until proven otherwise.)
Renounce your senior discounts now, and return what you saved in child and student rate admissions over the years!
I suggest you read Slashdot
Not proof of course but it will be easy enough for the lawyer to check it and bring it to court. Between that and the fact that it is a common stunt amongst the poor to open an account in their child's name when their own credit is messed up already, I would tend to believe them here. That putting their child's credit at risk is more acceptable when it means getting water/sewer, gas or electricity turned on where the child is living then it is for snagging internet or utilities for themselves away from where the child lives.
Would be nice if this being in the news brought some attention to the girl from the Pirates, the Steelers or some charity etc, sounds like they need more help then just getting this copyright infringement case cleared up.
We **really*** don't know the details about this case more than the one side story from that lady mentioned in the article. Sure , she claims to be innocent, but that's the judges work to determine. And no, being terminally seek doesn't give you free way to break the law.
That said, I hope the RIAA goes to hell, but I really hope that slashdot gets back to serious articles and stop being a yellow tabloid. or I really hope kdawson evaporates from that editor position.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Pretending the RIAA can respond rationally is a waste of time and effort. I'm afraid that even in our modern society it is time, it's really time to apply brute force on these people. Maybe it's silly to pick out this one arena but there you have it. I think that the RIAA should be singled out for acts of terrorism against them. I think the RIAA should be targeted for killing. All they represent is fascism with a friendly face.
Yes it is extreme but that's what it will take. Sorry if you feel the need to moderate the fuck out of this. It is truly what I believe.
Certain exceptions must be made; If she was infringing their copyrights then yes she should ultimately make good on her liabilities. She should not be found liable without the opportunity to defend herself in the civil preceding because a medical condition prevented he from responding. The decision should be vacated at the trial held off until she fairly defend herself. Suppose you were in the hospital to sick to read you mail and I sue you. You get served but are physically and mentally unable to respond. A court unaware of your condition says you get 30 days to file or I win be default. You think it fair that I should just win? I don't.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Had she bothered, in any way, to try and defend herself, to tell them how sick she was, sure, we can accuse them of sinking to new lows.
I had a case where the client suffered from severe Multiple Sclerosis, could only get around in an electric wheelchair, and suffered from severe depression. And the woman was totally innocent, had never even heard of file sharing. We begged the RIAA to drop the case. Even the judge begged them to drop the case. They refused.
I know of many other stories like that.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't think it's fair that a Ferrari costs several hundred grand. I don't think it's fair that the cops'll track me down and arrest me if I steal one from a forecourt
Could you please explain to me what theft has got to do with copyright infringement?
This is not about guilt or innocents! This is civil matter she is liable or not liable for infringing copyrights.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
You are saying that because the RIAA sued her, she is probably guilty.
Nope, I'm saying she's 19 and has an internet connection* so she is probably guilty.
* the article is actually pretty light on this and she might not have an internet connection. Although if she didn't have one, I think that'd be MUCH more relevant then her being ill and so would have been mentioned.
I absolutely agree that under the law, individuals must be equal, but this is about the RIAA being 'bottom-feeders'. Because the RIAA really needs the $8,000 from a family who is certainly struggling with serious medical bills. As if the recession wasn't bad enough. While the law stands as it is, it must be obeyed. That being said, what good is the RIAA doing the people? In the same way that I support the ACLU and their legal battles, I despise the RIAA and their legal battles.
By calling the RIAA at 1-800-BAD-BEAT.
Seriously.
Whether or not she's a transplant patient is irrelevant. Way to go, trollmitter.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone for their liberal use of the IANAL acronym, because every time I get to read it as "I anal" and chuckle a bit to myself. Yes, I have the sense of humour of a ten-year-old sometimes.
This is kinda like the infamous McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit?
During the trial, McDonalds lawyers tried to argue that they shouldn't have to pay for Mrs. Liebeck's skin graft operations, as she was an 80 year old woman and didn't need her genitalia anymore.
Technically true from a practical standpoint, but boy-oh-boy did the jury take a disliking to them when it came time to soak them for punitive damages.
I think this will play out in a similar manner, and the RIAA is going to take a terrible beating if they try and push it. Better to simply walk away from this one.
But then, they aren't the sharpest cartridge on the turntable, are they?
Thank you, I'll be here all night. Try the buffet.
[End Of Line]
Can you stop being a Mucking Foron for a minute, and go READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE?
Are you new to this? Were you born yesterday? RIAA have been doing this stupid thing for years, and their dirty immoral tactics have been well documented. The fact is that THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING PROPER PROTOCOL!
Yet another Mucking Foron
Why the fuck is the presumption that she pirated crap? Where is the innocent until proven guilty? Just because RIAA says she is guilty, then she is?
You are a Class 1 Mucking Foron
As long as I really did pirate music and you can prove it, be my guest.
This is a common misconception. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty; that is not the same as actually being innocent until proven guilty.
Then it should have been a slam dunk for you to prove in court and counter sue. You win.
> Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
No, there's a suggestion that they're not in this for the money. In spite of their claims about this being about economic recovery, they're wasting thousands of dollars on lawyers to screw someone over further who will never be able to pay them back. Read that again: someone who will never be able to pay them back.
Would you be so petty as to screw someone like that over a matter of 10 songs ($10 on iTunes, $20 if they were all on the same CD)? Frankly, he should have asked them to dismiss it from federal court on Constitutional grounds (you can't sue in federal court for matters of less than $20 per the Constitution, and you can't sue over copyrights anywhere else, though the statutory damages could easily push it over the cap if there's precedent to that effect and I have no idea if they've ever argued that the $20 was in 1776 dollars, and should be adjusted for inflation).
> That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
No one is arguing that (nor have I seen someone make that argument on any prior story, ever, in all the times this has come up). Moreover, this person does profess innocence and is entitled to that presumption until and unless the RIAA provides evidence to the contrary (you don't need too much to win a default judgment when there's no one pointing out that your investigators are unlicensed and possibly operating illegally).
While I can understand why you might not believe that, combined with the previous point, it makes their prosecution of this case questionable. IBM dropped their patent claims against SCO because they knew they couldn't pay, and SCO was as guilty as they come!
That's normal legal practice, which shows how the RIAA's campaign is something else. Or do you think this woman, who allegedly cost them a grand total of $10, is worse than SCO?
(That's a rhetorical question. I don't seriously think you believe that, but people don't seem to recognize rhetorical questions online...)
> That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
Certainly not. The only suggestion is that she's in no position to fight back and that the RIAA is a bully to screw over some poor, sick young lady over $10 of songs. Thankfully, a lawyer has been able to donate services this time, but that won't happen all the time. The lawyers can't afford to work for free all the time any more than most of us can.
> This type of emotive argument is fairly silly and pointless. This person being sued is no worse an example than that of anyone else who is sued by these thugs.
This point has been addressed in essentially every article until now with pretty much the same arguments I'm giving now. While I would suggest to NYCL that he start preempting them in his submission, these arguments are pretty much common knowledge by now and he has, in fact, raised them in plenty of comments in plenty of stories until now.
So you know or should know that this isn't an attempt at the logical fallacy of ad misercordiam, but rather an attempt to provide more evidence that the RIAA's campaign is one of extortion and fear rather than a wronged party trying every reasonable measure to recover what's rightfully theirs.
Could someone add this to a FAQ? Do I need to write up one of those checklists like the one for "solutions" to spam that someone can post every time? Because this is old, man. You should know what we're arguing and why by now if you read these things. This question is really old by now.
What's next? They sue a deaf person?
That will be some delicious media coverage.
Based off the RIAA's history I think it's likely she is innocent of the offences they're levelling against her. But do I claim to know it? No.
I think you are innocent too. But I also think the RIAA needs to go after you so you can prove your innocence. Until then, our pretending to be knowledgeable of your innocence is distasteful.
Just because you think it isn't fair doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it.
Being pedantic just means stating the obvious. You are being stupid. If the court system says that you're innocent until proven guilty, then you are *INNOCENT* to start with, until the court finds you guilty. There's no "we should treat her as guilty or we should not treat her as guilty".
"RIAA kicks a puppy and clubs a baby seal". Come on people I doubt they targeted a sick person. I realize Hitler was a nice guy compared to the RIAA but use some common sense. You play the numbers game and eventually you'll end up with some one that's sick since as many put it "everyone does it". It's amazing for a geek site the percentage of posts that are attacking copyright and enforcement. There's a lot more happening in the world than music and movie piracy. You want something, get a job and buy it. Don't like the copy guard then don't buy it and encourage your friends to do the same to force change. I remember the time before security and it was piracy that caused it not the other way around. I stopped buying VHS movies after I had the copy guard nuke the film after the first time I watched it I didn't complain I stopped buying. I posted AC for a reason, automatic Troll post but it really pissed me off the headline. Find another subject and get a life. The more people pirate the worse it'll get and if you win you loose because if they can't make money they'll stop making content, period.
you think?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
And how do you know she's innocent. Just by reading all of the articles, it's not clearly stated. The closest thing to that is that the Internet connection was in her father's name, not hers, but that doesn't mean she isn't guilty. Her saying, "I didn't do it" doesn't mean she didn't do it either (although the RIAA clearly should prove that she did if they truly believe it).
I'm sure most of us appreciate the work you do, and I'll include myself in that, but you seriously need to lay off the sensationalism.
It's a civil case, so she's innocent not until proven guilty, but innocent until a preponderance of the evidence pointing towards guilt.
i.e. If it is deemed that there is a 51% chance of her being guilty and only a 49% probability she's innocent, the court can award the RIAA all damages they ask for.
And does the RIAA then pay ALL of your costs?
Perhaps we need to highlight the actual artists in whose name these lawsuits are being filed. If the artist doesn't wn the copyright, then, perhaps we should say "....'s label sued xyz over sharing the track abc".
There is a reason that the labels are using a faceless organization such as the RIAA for these lawsuits -- we should make the labels' and artists' faces visible.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
> Innocent until proven guilty.
It doesn't hurt that the investigations are done by a for-profit, unlicensed company operating illegally[1], using suspect methodology that they were not able to justify using the relevant legal standards[2], and which has not been peer-reviewed by any independent authority.
[1] Based on the representations made by the relevant licensing bodies in the states which sent them letters.
[2] Based on their non-answers in response to one of NYCL's deposition wherein they seemed to me to be not merely ignoring the relevant legal standards for "scientific" evidence like this, but actually unaware of them. They get away with it due to an abuse of the "business records" exception which, IMHO, is ridiculous when applied to a for-profit company that profits whether or not the records are accurate (thanks to settlements and default judgments from people who can't fight back) and which does little EXCEPT produce records that are intended to be used in court.
Frankly, I can't imagine how they get away with this except insofar as judges are ignorant of their operations or perhaps of the rationale behind the business records exemption (which lets them present their records as legal evidence), because the effects are simply absurd.
Perhaps I should start a company that does "pedophile detection" using my own suspect methodology (picking names from a list of RIAA employees and lawyers) and send that to the cops to see how they like it. Won't somebody please think of the children?
Were the RIAA attorneys aware of the defendant's illness when they filed the suit? This is not clear from the article, unless I have overlooked it.
This seems to be a result of one of the RIAA fishing expeditions, rather than targeted malice. The judge would have been the best position to... well judge and was apparently unmoved by the defendant's illness. Maybe the judge should be the target of this criticism.
Read about what happens when Monsanto's patented seeds end up on a neighbor's farmland. Talk about getting the wrong kind of cells . . .
I'm not entirely sure their goal was to equate theft to copyright infringement in this matter, but instead to say that committing a crime and being let off the hook because you're sick is bullshit.
It's been said before but apparently just won't sink in...
The RIAA is a sham, a FRONT for the organizations that we should actually be hating, namely;
* EMI
* Sony Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group
They have built this front so they can treat their paying customers like criminals without it affecting their corporate image or SALES.
We vent our hate on the RIAA and the record companies can continue screwing both the artists and the music buying public.
If every time someone spouted "Fuck the RIAA" they just substituted any (or all 4) of the companies driving the RIAA's actions it would be a very different story.
Think about it, the RIAA sells NOTHING so you can't boycott them, you can't affect them in any way.
YOU aren't their customers.
So we are powerless to do anything about;
"RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient".
However,
"EMI/SONY/BMG/WMG Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient"
Lets us know who NOT to buy music from if we think their actions stink.
Lets keep repeating this till the mainstream press starts repeating it eh?
You can then counter sue and get punitive damages. So, um, yes.
Civil court: Innocent as long as she and her pro bono lawyer can keep the team of lawyers with plenty of resources and "expert witnesses" from convincing a judge that she's probably guilty of copying a file or two.
I wish her the best of luck and hope the good people with experience battling the RIAA in court come to her aide so she can concentrate on her health.
*unless* proven guilty. "Until" sounds like they will eventually be shown guilty, even if they're not.
Where did it say that the defendant was white?
Oh, then every person they go against is innocent then. So why even bother to list it?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Or, they could stop screening their lists for people that are capable of fighting back. I would agree with you entirely were it not for the fact that one they had to serve the papers and two they've already been caught not suing the child of one of the music execs.
The selectivity and the amazing ability they have for targeting those that are less likely to be able to fight back is a serious part of the problem. It's not an accident that only one trial has gone to completion. And that one ended up being set for retrial by the judge afterwards.
Either this is a serious problem or it's not. With all the people paying up without a signal successful court case makes this look a whole lot more like a protection racket than a legitimate court campaign. This has been going on far too long for them to not have won even a single court case.
On the first item, bear in mind that the RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to laser printers stating that the RIAA had proof the printer had been sharing files on a P2P network. The laser printer in question didn't have any sort of P2P software at all in it's on-board ROMs. This would indicate to me that the RIAA's methods aren't reliable and that their claims are probably not any indication of actual activity.
it's a legitimate question: why does NYCL think people should turn a blind eye to those with illness who break the law?
the parent is not a troll. he didn't even suggest she is guilty, or that the RIAA's style of lawsuits is correct. merely that the law should be blind to illness.
but they've always had a great PR department
</sarcasm>
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
opinions are like anuses: everyone has one, but most of them stink
do not expose your mind to too much of what you find on comment boards, or you will go insane, lose all faith in humanity, etc.
most of the drek you find in comments here isn't worth your time. yes, there are a few gems. so, by all means, continue looking for those gems
but place your sleeve over your mouth, and try not to breathe too much of the foul air, all you will do is retch
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I see you're new to Soviet America.
Common violations of law are exactly that- common, and your probablies are completely immaterial to the RIAA suit. This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed. The fact is, they caught a computer and not a person, but a judgment was still entered against a person whose health made it difficult to defend herself. This is obnoxious and bullying behavior.
Due to the granted default judgment, the court has deemed this defendant guilty. As such, any claim to innocence must be "re-established" by the overturning of the default judgment.
Until then, this defendant is guilty in the eyes of the law.
So right now, this defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
Wireless mouse.
KeS
Hey Mr. Pedantic,
This is not about guilt or innocenCE. This is A civil matter. She is liable or not liable for ALLEGEDLY infringing copyrights.
Your friend,
Pedantic law student.
P.S. It may be about neither guilt NOR innocence too.
P.P.S. I am well aware of the ridiculousness of postscripts in online writing.
A father walks out on his wife and critically ill daughter leaving both deeply in debt - and now his wife and daughter are claiming that the downloads were made to his account at his new address.
How could they possibly know that?
There are too many missing pieces to this puzzle, too many that don't quite fit.
It would be nice to believe that the sick and diabled are as innocent as new-born lambs. But it isn't always so.
I can almost gurantee you that everyone rabbling about how you shouldn't get a free ride for being sick has at least a little bit of illegitimate data on their computer.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Until the court rules, you are merely nothing.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
I had a case... And the woman was totally innocent, had never even heard of file sharing. We begged the RIAA to drop the case. Even the judge begged them to drop the case. They refused.
The judge begged them to drop the case, they refused, and... the case went on? So, the judge realized that they had actually shown a prima facie case of infringement sufficient to defeat summary judgment against them? And so the woman perhaps wasn't "totally innocent", or at least enough questions existed that a reasonable jury could decide against her?
I'm thinking there's a little bit more here than you're telling us.
The judge hadn't determined her innocence. He was just asking the RIAA to drop the case because of the woman's serious medical condition.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There's a father, who has apparently moved out.
There's a mother, presumably the one paying the bills.
Then there's the 19 year-old daughter, who can't work.
Doesn't the RIAA normally go after whoever's name is on the ISP's bill?
Why is a very sick 19 year-old girl's name on the bill, thus on the lawsuit, instead of the mother's?
Sorry folks, but I'm smelling fish on this one. Something's not right. And it sn't just the RIAA.
NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates".
You bring up a very good point.
The problem I suppose is that we've all been led to believe we are "pirates" or "committing an act of piracy" by downloading copyrighted material without paying for it.
So if we're acquiring copyrighted content through illicit channels without paying for it, but not redistributing it for personal monetary gain (or at all), what would we be called? Infringers? Doesn't quite have the ring (or nobility, due to Johnny Depp's favorable portrayal in recent film) of "Pirate."
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
The solution I have in mind will not only instantly fix Ms. Sauro's case, but will also start turning the economy around. Given the economic problem, people and businesses that are owed money know it is unlikely they will get it, especially if the economy ends up where it is obviously headed. My solution would require Congress to pass it as a law and the (new) president to sign it. It would not be an instant fix as in bringing things back to normal overnight, but it would turn things around and start heading in the up direction. That solution is "total debt amnesty". That is, there is a declaration that every person and every business no longer owes what they owed as of a specified date (when it passes). All debts are cleared just like in discharge bankruptcy, but without the disbursement of remaining money. All civil court judgments are cleared. All records of these debts are removed (all negative entries on all credit reports are removed). Ms. Sauro's would owe no money (not even her medical bills accumulated so far). This would be a very very drastic action, but I believe it would work. Only debt collectors would be put out on the street for a while, and that's a good thing (the best ones would be slowly hired back as dumb people re-acquire debt and fail to pay). The survival of the economy isn't about the debt we have now. It's more about the confidence we (don't) have in the future.
OK, sorry, off-topic a bit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But the case against Ms. Sauro is not legally sound. They just managed to get a judgment due to an arcane provision in the law that fails to require the courts themselves to verify a complaint before letting it impact the vic^h^h^hdefendant. We would not have so many cases that end up being lost by innocent people that cannot afford a defense, if this one aspect of civil process were to be changed.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient
The RIAA sued a 19-year-old transplant patient.
Headlines are supposed to get your attention, that's the whole point of a headline.
I hope you were working pro bono, because that sounds like a pretty weak defense strategy!
In this legal system, the way it works is the opposite: She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty, and we should treat her as such.
No fucking way.
She is presumed innocent of the crime until proven guilty.
And not only that. As the Hans Reiser case showed, she is presumed innocent of the crime by the court until proven guilty. Anybody else can presume anything they like about her.
my warning signal get automatically on.
My terminally seek gives me free way to break laws.. for great justice!!
Oh. You don't know her like I do. She's guilty alright...
Okay, important point people somehow miss: There is NO 'innocence until proven guilty'. There is PRESUMPTION of innocence until proven guilty. People always conflate knowledge with reality and it's just stupid.
But to move on: Presumption of innocents means you require proof to declare them guilty, not that people (and especially journalists) should declare them innocent. Slashdot clearly doesn't follow the journalistic neutral point of view, but they shouldn't baselessly make up facts when reporting on a lawsuit.
This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed.
Only if you assume they got her name out of a phone book. I'm pretty sure that ISN'T the RIAA's strategy (no matter how much we hate them I think we can all agree they're not doing that).
then you are *INNOCENT* to start with, until the court finds you guilty.
Whether you're innocent or guilty is a fact, irrespective of what and when the court decides. You don't become a murderer when the jury finds you guilty; you become a murderer when you murder someone. The fact that the legal system presumes someone is innocent before the trial is a completely separate matter.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
This is an excellent point. MOD this guy up.
Oh, and by the way:
* FUCK EMI
* FUCK Sony Music Entertainment
* FUCK Universal Music Group
* FUCK Warner Music Group
Boycott ALL of them and TO HELL with the RIAA
Fuck the RIAA too, just for good measure. They may not have anything to sell but they're slimy bastard assholes all the same.
Given what I know of their 'investigative techniques' I'd say it's a better than even chance she's not guilty. :)
Damn it. No attorney to represent them. No no fair trial to prove anything. Default judgment. It's disgusting!
On the bottom of the ocean. What do you call that? A good start.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
No, they got her name off the computer they caught, which is my point. They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence. I would hate to be responsible for every violation that came from a computer for which I'm a registered user. Furthermore, I know teenagers who share accounts on all kinds of services to avoid paying multiple access fees or dodge a parent's restrictions, even though this usually violates the ToS. But violating the ToS isn't anything the RIAA can sue over, unless it's their ToS the kid violates. Which is why I have a problem with the parent's statement that because she was 19 and has internet access, she is probably guilty. Whether or not she did it is beside the point. The cause they based their suit on wasn't specific enough to sue her. Had they sent a goon to the hospital to question her about it, I would not feel it was an exploitation of my tax dollars to make her do their job for them and figure out who downloaded music illegally.
They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence.
If she refuses to co-operate (as she surely would given she's got more important things to do with her time), what is the RIAA suppose to do? Drop the case? So if no copyright infringer co-operates, that means they all get away scott free?
That doesn't sound right.
"When your name is a punch line, you live in hell" -- Barry Manilow, from his article in Rolling Stone.
It's a very dark ride.
As NYCL points out, illness of this magnitude affects a person's ability to mount a legal defence. Since she was unable to appear in court, the RIAA won by default. At this point, it is not a safe assumption that she did anything wrong.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
I'm never buying music from an RIAA member again.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members
They did investigate as far as they should do, which was to contact the ISP, who provided them with the information. Personally, I'd rather they not come and question anybody about it. I much prefer this sort of thing to be dealt with in a court.
No, presumed innocent. The story says she is innocent, apparently based solely on the fact she is sick and so couldn't possibly be downloading music!?
This just in, RIAA sues house of god (Roman Catholic Church/Vatican), who allegedly designed the prototype of replicating biological machines capable of stealing online music, aka Adam and Eve.
While it appeals to one's sense of egalitarianism that all people should be treated equally, in reality, some people do need extra care from society during some parts of their life, or during their entire life. Try to imagine the alternative. Do you think that old people should be left to starve to death because they aren't able to work anymore? Do you think we should euthanize the mentally challenged because they will always be more of net drain to society than they contribute?
What I'm trying to say is, as a society, we try to help those who are less fortunate for a reason. Human life has an intrinsic value in and of itself, beyond what one can contribute to society. So, the social mechanisms which encourage one to contribute to the best of one's abilities and the social mechanisms which encourage one to follow the rules need to be tempered by other social mechanisms such as charity and compassion for the less fortunate. Anything less is animal savagery, and I guarantee that none of us would want to live in that kind of world.
I realize I conflated two ideas, but the premise still stands. We are not savages.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
How different would things be if it was "Innocent unless proven guilty"?
>>....we can accuse them of sinking to new lows.
>I know of many other stories like that.
Please don't get me wrong: I totally agree they've sunk to pretty terrible depths, time and again.
But, just like I object to hyperbole in their part, when they claim piracy cost statistics by assuming every copy would have been a sale or that it all funds terrorism, I object to hyperbole on the other side too, starting a post with, "Just when you think they've reached rock bottom, it seems the RIAA always finds room to sink a little lower." - describing them as sinking even lower for something that didn't have malice of forethought in this case and, sucky as it may be, isn't any lower than - as you, yourself say - they've gone time and again before.
The tragic thing about the whole debate is that, like so many arguments, both sides have got so entrenched in their rhetoric and pointing out the obvious holes in the other side's rhetoric, going for cheap victories rather than really debating the points, most of America has just shrugged and turned its back on it.
What sucks is that, with both sides so entrenched, only willing to discuss the outrageous examples of the other side, no one's any closer to a reasonable solution after ten years of this and a whole hell of a lot of innocent people have got caught in the crossfire - be that musicians that can't find work from labels who only bet on safe bets or people who've never heard of filesharing getting sued.
The original article was written by and for one side in the debate, paraphrased to appeal to a community that tends to jump firmly on one side of it too. Pretty much any argument can be taken that way. It just tends not to do a great job of getting anyone any closer to a sane middle ground that stops dragging the rest of the world in to it. That, to me, is a shame.
Just stop buying music and make it clear that this kind of Nazi-bullshit from an organization that is screwing their clients on both ends (the artists on one side and the customers on the other) won't be tolerated.
FUCK the RIAA... they are irrelevant and need to be eliminated.
Or the account they are saying the music was downloaded from was open at a different address?
This is not the funny you're looking for.
I'm sorry for the girl to have this illness, but having an illness doesn't mean you can't be sued and don't have to respond to legal notices.. I'm not saying she did it, but also I'm not saying she didn't. But by not responding to the lawsuit she just dug herself a deeper hole...
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient
Yeah, for downloading the same song 47 times.
It could have been an autist :)
Hi Ray,
Reading through this thread, the number of comments made by morally retarded idiots is depressing. I just wanted to say once again, as far as most of us here are concerned, you are a superhero complete with a big flappy cape. We luv ya. Keep fighting the good fight.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Why is that we the public are to be sympathetic to the RIAA's lawsuits against the public for alleged copyright violations, when the public is ignored on all levels when they insist that their leaders are held accountable for little things like treason and violations of the US Constitution; told basically that accountability is "off the table"? Until the heads of state are held accountable to the law, I highly doubt the RIAA and other business entities will be getting any sympathy from the public on observing the law. Leadership starts at the top. Lots'a luck RIAA.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
By RTFA of course.
Let me try and restate what I think my parent is saying, since none of you like it in its current presentation.
This time they've sued an innocent, 19-year-old, transplant patient, hospitalized with pancreatitis and needing islet cell transplants.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Yes, she is innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the legal system. By saying the girl has been sued, rather than convicted, it's implied that she's innocent in that sense, so the word is superfluous.
Unless, of course, it's there to make us think that not only is she not convicted, she also haven't done any of the things she is accused of.
I think that is indeed the intent; I think it's also unnecessary, since we all already side against the RIAA. It's also unfounded; if the record was clearly showing it, how exactly would the RIAA be allowed to sue her? Wouldn't that be as close to the most frivolous lawsuit as you can come?
I dislike the RIAA's morally questionable conduct. I want to see their dragnet litigation campaign put to an end.
But let us form our opinions based on facts, not unfounded speculation about the guilt or innocence of the targets.
"There are generally-accepted procedures for determining whether she is innocent."
Don't you mean procedures for determining guilt? You don't have to prove yourself innocent. Prosecution must prove you guilty.
Not, guilty, not even possibly guilty (we are ALL possibly guilty, just astronomically miniscule chance).
Until proven guilty, she is innocent.
She IS *accused* of guilt, but that is all she is guilty of: begin accused.
Innocent.
You are presuming guilt.
You have no proof of it.
In a hypothetical situation, you are right because you are a priori assuming they are guilty. But that is an orobouros: your saying guilty because in the scenario you have, they are guilty.
This, however, is real life.
And so you don't know, any more than I know you have kiddie porn on your computer, that she is guilty.
So she is innocent.
I probably downloaded more music during the recovery for my transplant than at any other time in my life.. there's little else to do when you're stuck in a bed going 'ow' every few minutes (gotta love that morphine though :p).
Being ill != unable to download.
Regardless of God's take on things, nature does not create all people equal. It is to those less fortunate than ourselves that good people strive to aid.
The solution is obvious. Boycott all products that fund the RIAA. Purchase only RIAA-free content.
That said, I hope you crawl back in your little hole and quit telling Slashdot what it should be about.
Come on RIAA, come sue me, pigs. I'll be your Huckleberry. Pigs.
E
Major Label deals ain't no great thing.
Dang. My memory doesn't recall another breakdown by someone responsible in the music industry. Here, however, is Courtney Love's perspective.
http://www.aandronline.com/reading-room/courtney1.html
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
I'm not entirely sure their goal was to equate theft to copyright infringement in this matter, but instead to say that committing a crime and being let off the hook because you're sick is bullshit.
While in legal terms it is BS, in moral terms, as NYCL pointed out, it isn't.
Suing someone who you have no concrete evidence that they committed a crime and cannot make it to the court, is a rather underhanded way of making money.
Except to wonder when the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats is finding time to sue dying transplant patients, what with their busy schedule of dancing on graves and beating random street people with their suitcases.
"She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty"....in a criminal case. This is civil. See OJ.
It's time to bring RICO charges against the RIAA. In my eyes, the RIAA has become a criminal enterprise.
I hate to advocate violence here, but after reading this article I sure would like to kick someone in the balls, bust a windshield and key the MOFO's car.
While I do have sympathy for the girl, I shall certainly not condone treating people differently based on their income levels or their medical conditions
Until the guy with diabetes gets you off the plane that's been sitting on the tarmac for 9 hours.
Everything is relative in these situations. Was she unable to take a phone call? Probably not. Was she unable to respond, legally, to the subpoena? Probably.
Once apon a time a tanker Named the "Valdez" OWNED BY EXXON Crashed into some rocks in Alaska destroying alot of wildlife. Exxon did nothing. They were Boycotted almost entirely out of California. They only returned afte merging with mobil. They still Don't use the Exxon name here. The recording industry is doing to Americans when they accuse Americans of doing...screwing people out of thier money. Piracy is rampant in so many counties outside of America, bu they choose to screw with thier bread and butter. Hey recoding industry, Don't Sh*t where you eat! If we are really bothered by thier actions, don't buy thier products. Musicians will make thier own lables and the 6 figured people running this charade will dissapear as will thier lawyers. This is all about money! If you show them they will make less money the way they handle business, things will change. And now that things are tough finacially, it will really hurt if products are not bought. I am in no way endorsing piracy. We need to let the talent make thier own decision as to release an MP3 or sell thier stuff on Itunes, let finally cut out the middleman. there are soo many middlemen in America that drive the costs up. We need to stop This. The recording industry took advantage of talent for soo many years. Some died pennyless and homeless while the middleman drove Lincoln Towncars and Limmo's. Do any of these judgements go to the talent, I don't believe so, once again the middleman is tapping what should go to the talent. Think about it, now is the time for change. Lets make change.
From TFA, the judge ruled against her for lack of response to the suit. Actually rather correct of the judge, I'll bet what's left of my eye teeth that the RIAA did NOT say, "Oh, she's in and out of the hospital. Serving her was a real pain in the ass"... The attorney that's taking her case said something about a 60 page service. Not clear when he got the docs. So, start from the beginning. Check for defects in the proof of service then take it from there. IANAL, but I do follow this stuff as a, um, hobbyist. Who knows, they might not have libeled her, but they might have defamed her character, so that action might just be possible. Will be fun to watch, break out the popcorn. D
Not guilty isn't the same thing as innocent.
It's a clause in the standard "rich and famous" contract any artist signs to get their break in the industry. They sell their [soul] talent to the record label in return for the promise of the ability to pursue their passion and get paid for it. There will always be people out there willing to sign just about anything in return for a check with a phone number. The decline in the quality of the music/performers is irrelevant to the industry, as they own (actually or through whatever mechanism currently skirts payola) the outlets for distribution. New is more important than good, and new is very easy.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Donating money, anyone?
Some posts accuse me of 'bias' against the RIAA. I don't really understand. Yes I detest them and their lawyers and other running dogs, but this isn't based on some preconception, or general mistrust or malevolence, or something I read in the papers. It is based on their deeds.
If you want me to pretend to be objective and dispassionate about a gang of bullies and extortionists, who on a daily basis lie about the facts and try to twist the law... tough.
Anyone who knows me knows exactly where I stand on this issue, and where I am coming from, so no one is misled by my bias.
On my blog on a daily basis, sometimes many times a day, I present the actual underlying litigation documents, from both sides, so people can make up their own minds about how they feel, or about whether I'm making this stuff up.
As for me, I know how I feel. I am in favor of the rule of law. And I am against bullies.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't know what standard they have to meet to be declared this, but could the RIAA be declared, at least at some point, a vexatious litigant and their right to sue curtailed?
I swear... I know there is more to the story, but still - it's pretty obvious the RIAA wouldn't get their "winnings" if they managed to do so, I'm sure she was on a VERY limited income, even if there was one - so the whole point would have been fear mongering at the expense of someone who didn't need any more fear in their life.
I'm half way tempted to download (sole intent on "stealing") 10,000's of MP3's - spend a small fortune on CD's. Burn them with my own compilation and spend some dark night decorating the down town trees for XMas...
Wouldn't solve a damn thing except to "physically" redistribute their precious property, that they seem to be willing to kill for.
Mod me, flame me, what ever - the point being that if their shit is this valuable, fuck 'em... Physically give them something to go after, not this imaginary bull shit.
And the out come of this was ???
From now on I'm going to donate the money I would normally spend on music to legal funds for people being sued by the RIAA.
The RIAA lawyers are bottom feeding scum. This is a fair level under the average lawyers, who are usually considered sharks. Once you become a bottom feeding scum there is nothing you will not stoop to.
The RIAA actually makes certain mafias seem very honourable.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Give RIAA time...you know eventually they'll end up suing someone that's literally in a coma. And demand that the case be taken up in court.
This would all go away faster if more stories like this ended up on national news and not just stuck in the "nerd news". Although we're all fairly certain that the RIAA lawyers sold their souls long ago, get cases like these made very public. Get these guys publicly embarrassed to the point their own mothers disown them. (assuming they haven't sued their mothers already too)
I agree though that the artists need to start speaking out against this frivolous type of suit. This makes them look bad too.
> Let me put it differently. If you substituted a person for the "sick girl" who got screwed over in a similar fashion by the RIAA, what would that detract from the story about the current copyright war?
It would detract from the point we're trying to make about the RIAA's motives. For a matter of 10 songs (retail value: $10), they will screw someone over who, whether innocent or guilty, cannot pay them back. Let me reiterate, because you still don't get the point: they have nothing to gain from screwing her over. They will lose money screwing her over. But they will do it anyway.
RIAA lawyers are scum.
As are the people at Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG who banded together to create the RIAA in the first place.
I think I confused a few things somewhere along the way, but there are weird statutes concerning federal jurisdiction. I think I confused it with federal diversity jurisdiction (which has a different dollar figure and probably doesn't apply to this case). Too bad.
That said, the $20 clause (PDF) is quite interesting for a number of other reasons.
Seriously, when it comes to calling people a jackass, Pot, meet Kettle.
Sheesh.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Fail.
RIAA never have.
you fuckwit.
Every time this comes up I feel the need to correct it. IANAL, but I think I understand the difference.
RIAA is bringing civil suits against all those victims. Innocent until proven guilty motto only applies to criminal lawsuits. A civil lawsuit is a 50/50 decision and victory is handed to the party that shows to be at least 51% in the right. Regardless of whether two different parties are people, or one of the parties is big and evil corporation.
They have barely even begun to sink as low as the RIAA can, they will sink much much lower you'll see. Next they'll sue dead people, oh wait. I'm waiting for them to sue their own artists lol
I know this sounds barbaric and harsh, but the legal system doesn't work. these people are really nothing more than greedy animals who are a plague on mankind. It would really be the morally right thing to just kill these RIAA people. They and their legal team cannot be reasoned with. They will not see logic or morality. They are worthless and in the long run we are all probably better off if they were just killed.
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"?
As soon as people start using the artists' names in these types of stories.
"Brittney Spears sues 19yo Transplant Patient" sounds a lot more direct.
Or at least start using the member company names "Sony sues 19yo Transplant Patient".
That way it starts to do actual brand damage. If people stopped buying Sony TVs because of their MAFIAA membership we might start seeing some real change.
I think that only applies to criminal cases.
want complain...call them
http://www.hro.com/about-us/