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."
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?
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
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?