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."
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?
IANAL but it seems that you can say anything about anyone in a court of law and have it be outside the normal rules of slander. I think that's why there's a growing movement against harassment-by-the-court; it's been a venue where you can slander someone with impunity for far too long. Also, does the RIAA think that they're doing themselves a favor by suing people like this? If these court cases are really a PR stunt to get people afraid of copyright violations (deterrence being the main point of most laws, right?) then you'd think that they'd vet their cases a little bit more so that they don't look like such schmucks. Of course, maybe their strategy is to scare people by saying, "look, we'll even sue the terminally ill if they cross us!"
They have some pretty interesting ad campaigns out at my university. In the dormitory food court, there are posters up that say the average out of court settlement of downloading 10 songs, and compare it to how much Ramen noodles you could buy. It is kind of funny actually.
IANAL
She can't have been served without the papers actually being given directly to her. A court summons sent by mail or handed to a relative is not guaranteed to reach the person, and the court MUST do due diligence in informing a person that they are being sued.
I'm with the GP, this is typical RIAA nonsense with a cheap emotional twist. I can't wait to see the furor over them suing a quadruple amputee, even those such people are perfectly capable of piracy and the RIAA has no way of knowing their amputee status until they meet in court.
OMG THEY SUED A SICK PERSON! I bet they didn't even know she was sick.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Renounce your senior discounts now, and return what you saved in child and student rate admissions over the years!
I suggest you read Slashdot
1. You're misusing the term "pirate". In copyright law parlance, a copyright pirate is someone who reproduces a large number of exact copies for resale and commercial gain. NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates". See, e.g. US Dept of Justice brief (pdf) at page 4 and footnote 4 on page 5; see also decision of Judge Michael J. Davis at pp. 40-43.
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They may not be as staggering as you think. I'm 20 and I download music, but I do it from legal sources. I do know a fair number of others my age who don't pirate music either.
And as soon as I stumbled across Slashdot and became more informed about issues like this, I decided to boycott music from RIAA-associated labels.
So yes, regardless of our age, some of us "young kids" do have principles, don't necessarily do anything wrong, and are fed up with being treated like criminals just because of our age.
> 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.
Harmful is more for assessing damages. If Nasajin was a well known bad-ass who spend time on TV talking up his bad-assery then it might be damaging to his reputation to be a car gifting nice guy ;)
Believable also means that the slanderer has to be believable. If I was to say that Calista Flockhart is a slut, and I saw her in a four-way - nobody is going to believe ozphx on slashdot. However if I was Channel 93 News, it would be a different story.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
The case doesn't make any sense. I live in Pittsburgh, and I can't imagine this case going anywhere. It seems they are giving her trouble over not replying in a timely fashion to the suit placed against her, but she has a legitimate excuse. Over a few songs, c'mon. It seems like a waste of time for the RIAA to even bother with such a small fish.
It is not like she is pirating and then trying to make a profit off of bootlegging copies for friends, etc.
I do agree that sickness is not a reason to not take care of your responsibilities, but in her case she is hospitalized. I am assuming her family would help with that. What a bunch of crap the RIAA is really, anal withstanding, LOL What a bizarre article. http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
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.
I agree with you.
The fact that the RIAA and its legal team are dirty rotten scumbags isn't really news.
You say it's a moral question, but 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?
So if I download more than 4000 songs, and I get sued, I'm still coming out ahead.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Aren't you supposed to have, you know, evidence that the person you're suing actually did what you're accusing them of?
If you worked at the RIAA's law firm and raised that question, they'd fire you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful