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."

Comments

What is this?

[moniker127]

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?

Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them

[Walpurgiss]

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.

Re:How is their health relevant?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.