Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient

Posted by kdawson on from the kicking-dogs-on-the-way-home dept.

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."

7 of 663 comments (clear)

  1. Re:To Play Devil's Advocate... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 0, Troll

    Then it should have been a slam dunk for you to prove in court and counter sue. You win.

  2. Re:To Play Devil's Advocate... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 0, Troll

    You can then counter sue and get punitive damages. So, um, yes.

  3. Re:Yes it does matter IMHO by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Troll

    -I don't bring lawsuits against helpless people

    Yeah, as they have little or no means, and it's just not right.

    -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

    Ill ask then: Assuming that she IS guilty, what is a fair punishment per song, or per album?

    Yeah, 750$ min per song is just stupid, but that's the statutory punishment. And 0 doesnt work, as we do want to further the arts and sciences. Perhaps 3X the CD cost if published?

    Also, is there caselaw in which knowing of filing a lawsuit that would most assuredly shorten a lifespan considerably be actioned against? Why else would they target her, other than she is not capable biologically or financially to fight back?

    --
  4. Re:Can we PLEASE recognize the sham? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    And who runs EMI/SONY/BMG/WMG? Jews!

    "Jews Sue 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient"

    Open your eyes!

  5. Re:I hate the RIAA as much as anyone by caitsith01 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The fact she was in the hospital made it impossible for her to respond to the complaint thus why she has a default judgement on her. They likely served her, and not her parents and thus her being in the hospital meant she never opened her mail.

    So yes her being sick is relevant, they would never have gotten as far as they did if she had not been sick.

    That is a criticism of the legal process, not the RIAA. So the story should be about "Legal system fails sick girl", and would make the same point without even mentioning the RIAA and copyright. But of course that wouldn't allow us to get whipped up into a self-righteous frenzy here, would it?

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  6. Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them by jimmypw · · Score: 0, Troll

    freedom of speach == political correctness
    political correctness == Spastic gaytalk

  7. Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Troll

    Freedom of speech in terms of expression of ideas. It doesn't include fraud, libel, threats, and so on.

    Funny, there are no such stipulations in the first amendment. Or maybe you're posting from a place without those protections.

    --
    What?