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."
This time they've sued an innocent, 19-year-old, transplant patient, hospitalized with pancreatitis and needing islet cell transplants.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
I'm not a fan of RIAA legal tactics, or anything connected with them really, but it's quite possible that this girl is indeed 'guilty' of the offense of infringing on copyrights that the RIAA is accusing her of infringing.
I once spent a significant amount of time in the hospital, does that have any relevance to the question of if I've infringed on copyrights or not?
I understand the desire to show how hard done by she is in the hopes of mobilizing additional resources to defend her, but does that make her innocent? Does anything mentioned in the summary or articles?
So wait, if I've got cancer then I can get whatever I want, for free?
how does her disease change her guilt? If she did download them, she is guilty. If not, then she is innocent. To say she is innocent because she is sick is simply stupid. There are plenty of terminally ill people who are horrible people and should face the consequences of their actions. Just having a terminal illness and/or being poor does not give you a get out of jail free card (however being a protected minority might...)
So wait, if you're sick, you get to break the law with impunity? If you're sick, it's ok to plagiarize? If you're sick, you can do what you want and get a moral pass? why? Justice is blind. If you want help for sick people, see Charity, not Justice, wrong window. Record companies are not charities. They have to pay for artists and advertising. That means you have to pay, too.
Kill 'em all! Kill 'em all!! Kill 'em all!!!
just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
Then it should have been a slam dunk for you to prove in court and counter sue. You win.
I dont care if she is guilty or not. But the summary is quite biased to imply that she is innocent BECAUSE she is sick. That is entirely different than being innocent AND sick.
I dont care if she is guilty or not. I'm saying the summary is quite biased and implies that she is innocent BECAUSE she is sick. To be innocent AND sick is very different.
And after I did RTFA (which it doesn't actually link too, it links to a link) there is nothing in there to really imply that she IS innocent. No denial of the charges nor claim of innocence. However there is a quote saying something about how little she makes and "What am I to do?" Well, genius, how about NOT BREAK THE LAW?
You can then counter sue and get punitive damages. So, um, yes.
Right. How stupid of us. Illness is a get out of everything free card. I bet you voted for Obama, didn't you? You fucking moron.
this bullshit only got modded up because the riaa is the prosecution. had this been a neo-nazi getting off the hook for some crime because of an illness people here would be howling that it's bullshit and illness plays no role in law.
so basically, fucktard, you only got modded up because your post essentially leaves the riaa in a bad light. nothing more. most people around here have no real morality.
no go back to beating your bible like how you beat your meat. bitch. now go suck your savior's cock like a good little faggot.
-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?
And who runs EMI/SONY/BMG/WMG? Jews!
"Jews Sue 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient"
Open your eyes!
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.
freedom of speach == political correctness
political correctness == Spastic gaytalk
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?