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."
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 basically the same as house robbers robbing people who are on vacation. They aren't around to see what you are doing and cannot respond in time to stop you.
Easy money.
Send your lawsuit letters to people you know are not home to receive them, and profit.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
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?
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 assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them.
I thought that was part of why people disagree with what the RIAA is doing here. How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
Unfortunately, people who serve papers can easily lie.
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!!
How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
Thank you. A civilized person. How refreshing after reading several posts suggesting that this sort of thing is okay.
It is not okay in the America I come from.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
> 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?
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?
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