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."
Why doesn't somebody countersue them for slander?
Excuse me, but those don't appear to be your cells. You must have downloaded them, and therefore you owe the RIAA money.
Well of course.
Just because someone's dying is no excuse for them to not pay for their music. I think the MAFIAA is acting in the artists' best interests and the interests of all concerned. /end sarcasm
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
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?
...but what does her state of health have to do with anything?
Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
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.
Read Pynchon.
Just curious, why is the health of this person relevant in the case? I assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them. Course you can always get conspiratorial about this situation.
I have nothing compelling to say
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"? When will they distance themselves from the RIAA? Or is the bling that the racket money gets them so important?
I for one hope that every single artist that works for the RIAA (yes, FOR the RIAA) will be remembered in infamy. As in "X Y was a very gifted and prolific [vocalist/composer/guitarist/drummer], but his/her work for a RIAA label has tainted his/her biography."
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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?
It's unconceivable that a sick person would illegally download music?
The title of this story should be "RIAA Sues Innocent Person". Mentioning the illness is just a weak emotional appeal (not unlike "think of the children"); if somebody breaks the law, they ought to be punished as much as the next guy. Traditionally prosecution can and will give the guy a break out of empathy and basic human dignity (yes, lawyers are humans, too), but being in a bad spot is not a blank check to get away with crime. Assuming she is innocent, that ought to be enough to deserve our scorn.
So, if a person has dysfunctional or damaged organs, it's alright for them to pirate music? I think your ignorance is showing.
This guy deserves the chair. Zaappp!
A web site where we can post the pictures and resumes of all lawyers that work on behalf of the RI/MP AA.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
While I do have sympathy for the girl, I shall certainly not condone treating people differently based on their income levels or their medical conditions (I'll grant that mental conditions are a weird case). Makes me sound like an ass, but that's what I think.
Cheers!
--
Vig
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
Nice appeal to emotion, slashdot.
Wow, they really are bottom feeding now. I guess we can expect to see future headlines like these:
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient; he responded "What's a computer?"
DHS: RIAA suspected of links with Al Qaeda.
RIAA raids wedding reception, arrests groom for illegal downloads. Bride sues.
RIAA spokesman praises Mumbai attacks: "The gunmen targeted downloaders."
Space Piracy: RIAA sues NASA over bittorrent client they claim is running on ISS computer.
Foster care agencies warned by RIAA: downloaders are criminals regardless of adoption status.
RIAA sues Dell, HP, Acer for $10B: "computers are nothing but piracy tools".
RIAA accuses NYC opera company of infringement: "Aria sounds too similar to RIAA"
RIAA claims dead man's organs as compensation for "lifetime of piracy".
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Was this girl actually served papers? Is there some sort of precedent that exists for if you're unable to make the court date due to unexpected/unavoidable causes, for example if you're served while in a coma, or you're served, hit by a bus, and then unable to make court (due to being in a coma, etc).
In this case it looks like she may have just disregarded the legal paperwork while dealing with health issues... TFA is a little light on details in that regard as all it talks about it how poor she is and unable to pay the fees due to her condition.
I seriously believe that the RIAA tactics are counterproductive, but so is running stories on every grandmother, cancer patient, orphan, or paraplegic that they sue. If the RIAA are bullies, then everyone they sue is a victim, not just the old and infirm. If the RIAA is following even marginally proper protocol in these cases, then even the old and infirm must answer for their actions. In this case, we can believe that the person is innocent simply because they have not committed a crime. This does not, however, mean that this person never downloaded a unlicensed file, something for which we know the RIAA will sue.
Let us focus on the law and order side of this travesty, not the dog and pony show.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I find it amazing that not only is there a 19 year old out there who doesn't download music, but the RIAA managed to find them! I mean what are the odds that a 19 year old the RIAA sues, HAPPENS to be one of the very few who don't pirate?
The odds are simply staggering. Why if the RIAA had those odds when it came to the lottery, they wouldn't need to sell music anymore.
i am willing to bet 1000$ this is not the end and RIAA will yet find a way to sink lower then this.
But 19-year-old Ciara Sauro strongly denies the charge and says she and her mother are overwhelmed with medical debts.
I don't see how that's relevant (if it is, the Pittsburgh Times doesn't explain it. Did the papers get lost amongst all the medical bills? Dunno). It'd be like me saying "I've just killed 20 kittens today, and I can't pay all my medical bills."
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
We **really*** don't know the details about this case more than the one side story from that lady mentioned in the article. Sure , she claims to be innocent, but that's the judges work to determine. And no, being terminally seek doesn't give you free way to break the law.
That said, I hope the RIAA goes to hell, but I really hope that slashdot gets back to serious articles and stop being a yellow tabloid. or I really hope kdawson evaporates from that editor position.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
I know it's an easy heart string to yank on but since when did being sick entitle you to ignore the law?
Yes, it's very tragic. But, to have got to this point she had to have:
As she says in the article,
"I just want them to know that I have to go through enough stress in my life with my sickness and my family, and I don't think that they should go after people just because they want money for something that's not even fair to us."
I don't think it's fair that a Ferrari costs several hundred grand. I don't think it's fair that the cops'll track me down and arrest me if I steal one from a forecourt. I don't think it's fair that I'll be required to go to court. I don't think it's fair that they'll sentence me in abstentia if I don't bother to show up.
How sick do I need to be for it to be OK to just ignore all of that? I mean, sure, a Ferrari is worth more than ten songs (though not on the $250k damages argument).
Whilst I realise "pancreatitis" and needing an "islet transplant" sound terrible, as though she's got some crazy, near fatal, cancer or leukemia, etc.... An islet transplant is a procedure used to get type one diabetics off insulin. The pancreatitis part? Most commonly caused by gallstones, second most common cause is alcohol poisoning. Sure, it's quite possible she has a herreditary autoimmune disease - but what little they actually say is also a big scary word way of saying, "She's a type 1 diabetic with gallstones who has to regularly go in to hospital for treatment."
So, if being sick, yes, tragically so, lets you ignore her set of legal predicaments... how sick do I need to get to be allowed to steal that Ferrari? Cancer's got to be good for that one, right?
I get it: She's sick, it's tragic. She got sued for stealing something many people think should be free, that's tragic too. But it doesn't meet the basic criteria of, "Which part of this would an intelligent person without a massive sense of entitlement think is OK?"
As for the RIAA sinking to new lows? It was most likely a totally form prosecution. Had she bothered, in any way, to try and defend herself, to tell them how sick she was, sure, we can accuse them of sinking to new lows. But the total disregard for her own defense implies they likely never knew. From the communications they got, she was just another self-entitled brat who thought she could ignore the [fair or otherwise] legal system. Which she was - just a sick one.
Pretending the RIAA can respond rationally is a waste of time and effort. I'm afraid that even in our modern society it is time, it's really time to apply brute force on these people. Maybe it's silly to pick out this one arena but there you have it. I think that the RIAA should be singled out for acts of terrorism against them. I think the RIAA should be targeted for killing. All they represent is fascism with a friendly face.
Yes it is extreme but that's what it will take. Sorry if you feel the need to moderate the fuck out of this. It is truly what I believe.
By calling the RIAA at 1-800-BAD-BEAT.
Seriously.
Whether or not she's a transplant patient is irrelevant. Way to go, trollmitter.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone for their liberal use of the IANAL acronym, because every time I get to read it as "I anal" and chuckle a bit to myself. Yes, I have the sense of humour of a ten-year-old sometimes.
This is kinda like the infamous McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit?
During the trial, McDonalds lawyers tried to argue that they shouldn't have to pay for Mrs. Liebeck's skin graft operations, as she was an 80 year old woman and didn't need her genitalia anymore.
Technically true from a practical standpoint, but boy-oh-boy did the jury take a disliking to them when it came time to soak them for punitive damages.
I think this will play out in a similar manner, and the RIAA is going to take a terrible beating if they try and push it. Better to simply walk away from this one.
But then, they aren't the sharpest cartridge on the turntable, are they?
Thank you, I'll be here all night. Try the buffet.
[End Of Line]
> 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.
What's next? They sue a deaf person?
That will be some delicious media coverage.
"RIAA kicks a puppy and clubs a baby seal". Come on people I doubt they targeted a sick person. I realize Hitler was a nice guy compared to the RIAA but use some common sense. You play the numbers game and eventually you'll end up with some one that's sick since as many put it "everyone does it". It's amazing for a geek site the percentage of posts that are attacking copyright and enforcement. There's a lot more happening in the world than music and movie piracy. You want something, get a job and buy it. Don't like the copy guard then don't buy it and encourage your friends to do the same to force change. I remember the time before security and it was piracy that caused it not the other way around. I stopped buying VHS movies after I had the copy guard nuke the film after the first time I watched it I didn't complain I stopped buying. I posted AC for a reason, automatic Troll post but it really pissed me off the headline. Find another subject and get a life. The more people pirate the worse it'll get and if you win you loose because if they can't make money they'll stop making content, period.
And how do you know she's innocent. Just by reading all of the articles, it's not clearly stated. The closest thing to that is that the Internet connection was in her father's name, not hers, but that doesn't mean she isn't guilty. Her saying, "I didn't do it" doesn't mean she didn't do it either (although the RIAA clearly should prove that she did if they truly believe it).
I'm sure most of us appreciate the work you do, and I'll include myself in that, but you seriously need to lay off the sensationalism.
> Innocent until proven guilty.
It doesn't hurt that the investigations are done by a for-profit, unlicensed company operating illegally[1], using suspect methodology that they were not able to justify using the relevant legal standards[2], and which has not been peer-reviewed by any independent authority.
[1] Based on the representations made by the relevant licensing bodies in the states which sent them letters.
[2] Based on their non-answers in response to one of NYCL's deposition wherein they seemed to me to be not merely ignoring the relevant legal standards for "scientific" evidence like this, but actually unaware of them. They get away with it due to an abuse of the "business records" exception which, IMHO, is ridiculous when applied to a for-profit company that profits whether or not the records are accurate (thanks to settlements and default judgments from people who can't fight back) and which does little EXCEPT produce records that are intended to be used in court.
Frankly, I can't imagine how they get away with this except insofar as judges are ignorant of their operations or perhaps of the rationale behind the business records exemption (which lets them present their records as legal evidence), because the effects are simply absurd.
Perhaps I should start a company that does "pedophile detection" using my own suspect methodology (picking names from a list of RIAA employees and lawyers) and send that to the cops to see how they like it. Won't somebody please think of the children?
Were the RIAA attorneys aware of the defendant's illness when they filed the suit? This is not clear from the article, unless I have overlooked it.
This seems to be a result of one of the RIAA fishing expeditions, rather than targeted malice. The judge would have been the best position to... well judge and was apparently unmoved by the defendant's illness. Maybe the judge should be the target of this criticism.
Read about what happens when Monsanto's patented seeds end up on a neighbor's farmland. Talk about getting the wrong kind of cells . . .
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?
it's a legitimate question: why does NYCL think people should turn a blind eye to those with illness who break the law?
the parent is not a troll. he didn't even suggest she is guilty, or that the RIAA's style of lawsuits is correct. merely that the law should be blind to illness.
but they've always had a great PR department
</sarcasm>
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
opinions are like anuses: everyone has one, but most of them stink
do not expose your mind to too much of what you find on comment boards, or you will go insane, lose all faith in humanity, etc.
most of the drek you find in comments here isn't worth your time. yes, there are a few gems. so, by all means, continue looking for those gems
but place your sleeve over your mouth, and try not to breathe too much of the foul air, all you will do is retch
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wireless mouse.
KeS
A father walks out on his wife and critically ill daughter leaving both deeply in debt - and now his wife and daughter are claiming that the downloads were made to his account at his new address.
How could they possibly know that?
There are too many missing pieces to this puzzle, too many that don't quite fit.
It would be nice to believe that the sick and diabled are as innocent as new-born lambs. But it isn't always so.
I can almost gurantee you that everyone rabbling about how you shouldn't get a free ride for being sick has at least a little bit of illegitimate data on their computer.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
There's a father, who has apparently moved out.
There's a mother, presumably the one paying the bills.
Then there's the 19 year-old daughter, who can't work.
Doesn't the RIAA normally go after whoever's name is on the ISP's bill?
Why is a very sick 19 year-old girl's name on the bill, thus on the lawsuit, instead of the mother's?
Sorry folks, but I'm smelling fish on this one. Something's not right. And it sn't just the RIAA.
NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates".
You bring up a very good point.
The problem I suppose is that we've all been led to believe we are "pirates" or "committing an act of piracy" by downloading copyrighted material without paying for it.
So if we're acquiring copyrighted content through illicit channels without paying for it, but not redistributing it for personal monetary gain (or at all), what would we be called? Infringers? Doesn't quite have the ring (or nobility, due to Johnny Depp's favorable portrayal in recent film) of "Pirate."
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
The solution I have in mind will not only instantly fix Ms. Sauro's case, but will also start turning the economy around. Given the economic problem, people and businesses that are owed money know it is unlikely they will get it, especially if the economy ends up where it is obviously headed. My solution would require Congress to pass it as a law and the (new) president to sign it. It would not be an instant fix as in bringing things back to normal overnight, but it would turn things around and start heading in the up direction. That solution is "total debt amnesty". That is, there is a declaration that every person and every business no longer owes what they owed as of a specified date (when it passes). All debts are cleared just like in discharge bankruptcy, but without the disbursement of remaining money. All civil court judgments are cleared. All records of these debts are removed (all negative entries on all credit reports are removed). Ms. Sauro's would owe no money (not even her medical bills accumulated so far). This would be a very very drastic action, but I believe it would work. Only debt collectors would be put out on the street for a while, and that's a good thing (the best ones would be slowly hired back as dumb people re-acquire debt and fail to pay). The survival of the economy isn't about the debt we have now. It's more about the confidence we (don't) have in the future.
OK, sorry, off-topic a bit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But the case against Ms. Sauro is not legally sound. They just managed to get a judgment due to an arcane provision in the law that fails to require the courts themselves to verify a complaint before letting it impact the vic^h^h^hdefendant. We would not have so many cases that end up being lost by innocent people that cannot afford a defense, if this one aspect of civil process were to be changed.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient
The RIAA sued a 19-year-old transplant patient.
Headlines are supposed to get your attention, that's the whole point of a headline.
my warning signal get automatically on.
My terminally seek gives me free way to break laws.. for great justice!!
This is an excellent point. MOD this guy up.
Oh, and by the way:
* FUCK EMI
* FUCK Sony Music Entertainment
* FUCK Universal Music Group
* FUCK Warner Music Group
Boycott ALL of them and TO HELL with the RIAA
Fuck the RIAA too, just for good measure. They may not have anything to sell but they're slimy bastard assholes all the same.
On the bottom of the ocean. What do you call that? A good start.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
"When your name is a punch line, you live in hell" -- Barry Manilow, from his article in Rolling Stone.
It's a very dark ride.
As NYCL points out, illness of this magnitude affects a person's ability to mount a legal defence. Since she was unable to appear in court, the RIAA won by default. At this point, it is not a safe assumption that she did anything wrong.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
I'm never buying music from an RIAA member again.
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members
This just in, RIAA sues house of god (Roman Catholic Church/Vatican), who allegedly designed the prototype of replicating biological machines capable of stealing online music, aka Adam and Eve.
Just stop buying music and make it clear that this kind of Nazi-bullshit from an organization that is screwing their clients on both ends (the artists on one side and the customers on the other) won't be tolerated.
FUCK the RIAA... they are irrelevant and need to be eliminated.
I'm sorry for the girl to have this illness, but having an illness doesn't mean you can't be sued and don't have to respond to legal notices.. I'm not saying she did it, but also I'm not saying she didn't. But by not responding to the lawsuit she just dug herself a deeper hole...
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient
Yeah, for downloading the same song 47 times.
It could have been an autist :)
Hi Ray,
Reading through this thread, the number of comments made by morally retarded idiots is depressing. I just wanted to say once again, as far as most of us here are concerned, you are a superhero complete with a big flappy cape. We luv ya. Keep fighting the good fight.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Why is that we the public are to be sympathetic to the RIAA's lawsuits against the public for alleged copyright violations, when the public is ignored on all levels when they insist that their leaders are held accountable for little things like treason and violations of the US Constitution; told basically that accountability is "off the table"? Until the heads of state are held accountable to the law, I highly doubt the RIAA and other business entities will be getting any sympathy from the public on observing the law. Leadership starts at the top. Lots'a luck RIAA.
Let me try and restate what I think my parent is saying, since none of you like it in its current presentation.
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?
Yes, she is innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the legal system. By saying the girl has been sued, rather than convicted, it's implied that she's innocent in that sense, so the word is superfluous.
Unless, of course, it's there to make us think that not only is she not convicted, she also haven't done any of the things she is accused of.
I think that is indeed the intent; I think it's also unnecessary, since we all already side against the RIAA. It's also unfounded; if the record was clearly showing it, how exactly would the RIAA be allowed to sue her? Wouldn't that be as close to the most frivolous lawsuit as you can come?
I dislike the RIAA's morally questionable conduct. I want to see their dragnet litigation campaign put to an end.
But let us form our opinions based on facts, not unfounded speculation about the guilt or innocence of the targets.
"There are generally-accepted procedures for determining whether she is innocent."
Don't you mean procedures for determining guilt? You don't have to prove yourself innocent. Prosecution must prove you guilty.
Not, guilty, not even possibly guilty (we are ALL possibly guilty, just astronomically miniscule chance).
Until proven guilty, she is innocent.
She IS *accused* of guilt, but that is all she is guilty of: begin accused.
Innocent.
You are presuming guilt.
You have no proof of it.
In a hypothetical situation, you are right because you are a priori assuming they are guilty. But that is an orobouros: your saying guilty because in the scenario you have, they are guilty.
This, however, is real life.
And so you don't know, any more than I know you have kiddie porn on your computer, that she is guilty.
So she is innocent.
The solution is obvious. Boycott all products that fund the RIAA. Purchase only RIAA-free content.
That said, I hope you crawl back in your little hole and quit telling Slashdot what it should be about.
Come on RIAA, come sue me, pigs. I'll be your Huckleberry. Pigs.
E
Major Label deals ain't no great thing.
Dang. My memory doesn't recall another breakdown by someone responsible in the music industry. Here, however, is Courtney Love's perspective.
http://www.aandronline.com/reading-room/courtney1.html
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Except to wonder when the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats is finding time to sue dying transplant patients, what with their busy schedule of dancing on graves and beating random street people with their suitcases.
It's time to bring RICO charges against the RIAA. In my eyes, the RIAA has become a criminal enterprise.
I hate to advocate violence here, but after reading this article I sure would like to kick someone in the balls, bust a windshield and key the MOFO's car.
Once apon a time a tanker Named the "Valdez" OWNED BY EXXON Crashed into some rocks in Alaska destroying alot of wildlife. Exxon did nothing. They were Boycotted almost entirely out of California. They only returned afte merging with mobil. They still Don't use the Exxon name here. The recording industry is doing to Americans when they accuse Americans of doing...screwing people out of thier money. Piracy is rampant in so many counties outside of America, bu they choose to screw with thier bread and butter. Hey recoding industry, Don't Sh*t where you eat! If we are really bothered by thier actions, don't buy thier products. Musicians will make thier own lables and the 6 figured people running this charade will dissapear as will thier lawyers. This is all about money! If you show them they will make less money the way they handle business, things will change. And now that things are tough finacially, it will really hurt if products are not bought. I am in no way endorsing piracy. We need to let the talent make thier own decision as to release an MP3 or sell thier stuff on Itunes, let finally cut out the middleman. there are soo many middlemen in America that drive the costs up. We need to stop This. The recording industry took advantage of talent for soo many years. Some died pennyless and homeless while the middleman drove Lincoln Towncars and Limmo's. Do any of these judgements go to the talent, I don't believe so, once again the middleman is tapping what should go to the talent. Think about it, now is the time for change. Lets make change.
From TFA, the judge ruled against her for lack of response to the suit. Actually rather correct of the judge, I'll bet what's left of my eye teeth that the RIAA did NOT say, "Oh, she's in and out of the hospital. Serving her was a real pain in the ass"... The attorney that's taking her case said something about a 60 page service. Not clear when he got the docs. So, start from the beginning. Check for defects in the proof of service then take it from there. IANAL, but I do follow this stuff as a, um, hobbyist. Who knows, they might not have libeled her, but they might have defamed her character, so that action might just be possible. Will be fun to watch, break out the popcorn. D
It's a clause in the standard "rich and famous" contract any artist signs to get their break in the industry. They sell their [soul] talent to the record label in return for the promise of the ability to pursue their passion and get paid for it. There will always be people out there willing to sign just about anything in return for a check with a phone number. The decline in the quality of the music/performers is irrelevant to the industry, as they own (actually or through whatever mechanism currently skirts payola) the outlets for distribution. New is more important than good, and new is very easy.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Donating money, anyone?
Some posts accuse me of 'bias' against the RIAA. I don't really understand. Yes I detest them and their lawyers and other running dogs, but this isn't based on some preconception, or general mistrust or malevolence, or something I read in the papers. It is based on their deeds.
If you want me to pretend to be objective and dispassionate about a gang of bullies and extortionists, who on a daily basis lie about the facts and try to twist the law... tough.
Anyone who knows me knows exactly where I stand on this issue, and where I am coming from, so no one is misled by my bias.
On my blog on a daily basis, sometimes many times a day, I present the actual underlying litigation documents, from both sides, so people can make up their own minds about how they feel, or about whether I'm making this stuff up.
As for me, I know how I feel. I am in favor of the rule of law. And I am against bullies.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't know what standard they have to meet to be declared this, but could the RIAA be declared, at least at some point, a vexatious litigant and their right to sue curtailed?
From now on I'm going to donate the money I would normally spend on music to legal funds for people being sued by the RIAA.
The RIAA lawyers are bottom feeding scum. This is a fair level under the average lawyers, who are usually considered sharks. Once you become a bottom feeding scum there is nothing you will not stoop to.
The RIAA actually makes certain mafias seem very honourable.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Give RIAA time...you know eventually they'll end up suing someone that's literally in a coma. And demand that the case be taken up in court.
This would all go away faster if more stories like this ended up on national news and not just stuck in the "nerd news". Although we're all fairly certain that the RIAA lawyers sold their souls long ago, get cases like these made very public. Get these guys publicly embarrassed to the point their own mothers disown them. (assuming they haven't sued their mothers already too)
I agree though that the artists need to start speaking out against this frivolous type of suit. This makes them look bad too.
> Let me put it differently. If you substituted a person for the "sick girl" who got screwed over in a similar fashion by the RIAA, what would that detract from the story about the current copyright war?
It would detract from the point we're trying to make about the RIAA's motives. For a matter of 10 songs (retail value: $10), they will screw someone over who, whether innocent or guilty, cannot pay them back. Let me reiterate, because you still don't get the point: they have nothing to gain from screwing her over. They will lose money screwing her over. But they will do it anyway.
RIAA lawyers are scum.
As are the people at Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG who banded together to create the RIAA in the first place.
I think I confused a few things somewhere along the way, but there are weird statutes concerning federal jurisdiction. I think I confused it with federal diversity jurisdiction (which has a different dollar figure and probably doesn't apply to this case). Too bad.
That said, the $20 clause (PDF) is quite interesting for a number of other reasons.
Seriously, when it comes to calling people a jackass, Pot, meet Kettle.
Sheesh.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Fail.
RIAA never have.
you fuckwit.
They have barely even begun to sink as low as the RIAA can, they will sink much much lower you'll see. Next they'll sue dead people, oh wait. I'm waiting for them to sue their own artists lol
I know this sounds barbaric and harsh, but the legal system doesn't work. these people are really nothing more than greedy animals who are a plague on mankind. It would really be the morally right thing to just kill these RIAA people. They and their legal team cannot be reasoned with. They will not see logic or morality. They are worthless and in the long run we are all probably better off if they were just killed.
When is it that the artists that sponsor the RIAA psychopaths, will say "enough, I don't want to be tainted with this shit"?
As soon as people start using the artists' names in these types of stories.
"Brittney Spears sues 19yo Transplant Patient" sounds a lot more direct.
Or at least start using the member company names "Sony sues 19yo Transplant Patient".
That way it starts to do actual brand damage. If people stopped buying Sony TVs because of their MAFIAA membership we might start seeing some real change.
want complain...call them
http://www.hro.com/about-us/