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."
If the defendant is served papers and then doesn't request an extension or delay and then doesn't show up, generally victory is granted to the present party. Unless there are extenuating circumstances like these.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
except that the letters for subpeana have to be witnessed that the person served actually did recieve them, e.g. in the mail isn't good enough to prove that the person they were intended for actually got them. IANAL.
ps. IORAL2.
She was found guilty in absentia. Because she was hospitalised, she was unable to respond to the subpoena. The family claims that the account upon which the downloads occurred were made by the girl's father, who lives at another address. It's all in the articles linked in the summary, but in case you missed them, they're here.
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
The US court system goes out of its way to royally screw defendants, innocent or guilty.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
For a statement to be slanderous / libelous, it must be believable.
For example, were I to say, "Nasajin is from another planet -- check his car. It runs on plutonium, not gasoline," that's obviously false.
I could also say, "Nasajin is awesome. Once he bought me a car for no reason." That's not libel since it improves your reputation.
If I were to libelously say something like, "I knew Nasajin when we were in college together. He really liked young girls. Once he had a 12-year-old in his room overnight, " then that's potentially believable, so it's libelous.
So, it has to be:
1. False
2. Believable
3. Harmful
Also, slander is spoken; libel is lines (i.e. written)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Assuming that she IS guilty, what is a fair punishment per song, or per album?
She is not guilty, she is innocent. But to answer the larger question you ask: if a person had committed the copyright infringement alleged, the appropriate damages would be from 1 to 9 times the actual damages sustained, depending on the facts of the case. In most of the cases -- typically with 6 downloaded song files -- the damages would be approximately from $2.10 to $18.90, total.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
How many songs could you buy for the average settlement of downloading songs?
From 3030 to 3797 at Amazon, DRM-free.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Please, Ray, for the benefit of those of us playing at home who may not have your superior moral knowledge and judgment, at what point should we wash our hands of legal recourse against a person for personal issues?
Interesting sophistry, but neither you nor I can discuss the entire universe of legal rights and wrongs and remedies. It suffices to say that anyone with half a brain who's been paying attention already knows that, wherever we want to draw the line, the RIAA lawsuits against ordinary people are way over that line.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the crux of the problem is that there are still legal questions here. Now that she's in this legal fix, what is her recourse? Is there an effective legal defense that that would help her?
Thanks, Jeff. Well there is a strong public policy against default judgments, and she has a capable pro bono attorney, so it is a foregone conclusion that the default judgment will be vacated. And assuming the facts are as stated in the Pittsburgh article, she has a complete defense, and will win the case. The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
Privileged in the legal sense means confidential.
It is also used in the sense of something being immune from suit.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The first amendment protects the free expression of ideas and opinions in a peaceable manner on PUBLIC property only.
No, that's wrong. The First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." There is no mention of public or private property. Congress cannot pass a law restricting free speech on private property. A private property owner is not restricted by the First Amendment, but it's certainly not true that the First Amendment ceases to apply on private property.