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?
You probably should have put "IANAL" somewhere in that post.
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!"
...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.
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.
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.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Because in most jurisdictions court proceedings are privileged, ie cannot be the subject of a slander or libel suit.
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.
IANAL, but I think that to be accused of slander you have to be shown to be unable to provide evidence of your claims. If that's the case, then you could not be accused of slander through the mechanisms of a court case due to the fact that by sueing someone you are proposing to prove yourself correct in front of a court of law. However, I suppose it would be possible to be punished for frivilous lawsuits if you did it too often.
I think you need to take a step back, look at your post, and think about what you are saying. You are saying that because the RIAA sued her, she is probably guilty. In this legal system, the way it works is the opposite: She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty, and we should treat her as such.
Has the RIAA's marketing made you think otherwise?
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.
Do you really think the RIAA could sink any lower in the esteem of people following the trials? They've been suing everything from children to dead people, the only way to sink any lower would be to sue, I dunno, suing a fetus. And I'm fairly sure the only reason this hasn't been tried yet is that even the densest judge won't swallow the idea that a fetus can somehow use a computer from inside the womb.
If anything, the message is "We show no mercy. If we deem you our enemy, we will fight you!"
That's the kind of message I'd rather expect from a terrorist organisation than a business group, but YMMV...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
She was found guilty in absentia. Because she was hospitalised, she was unable to respond to the subpoena. The family claims that the account upon which the downloads occurred were made by the girl's father, who lives at another address. It's all in the articles linked in the summary, but in case you missed them, they're here.
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
You need to infringe on the rights of one of these posters and rip one...for posterity's sake :)
Renounce your senior discounts now, and return what you saved in child and student rate admissions over the years!
I suggest you read Slashdot
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!!
No he means that court proceedings are not subject to libel or slander rules. Mainly because they would be dealt with during the trial and possibly later on with measures related to abusing the court system.
But, IANAL, that's just my understanding.
If the sentence ended in a period wouldn't that just be bad grammar?
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.
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.
I had a case where the client suffered from severe Multiple Sclerosis, could only get around in an electric wheelchair, and suffered from severe depression. And the woman was totally innocent, had never even heard of file sharing. We begged the RIAA to drop the case. Even the judge begged them to drop the case. They refused.
I know of many other stories like that.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
calm down, fluffy... he was just implying the parent post hadn't a clue about when countersuing is possible.
that or he likes things in his rectum a lot.
even the densest judge won't swallow the idea that a fetus can somehow use a computer from inside the womb.
so that video I found on the internet, with a girl and a computer, the thing she was doing with the mouse wasn't teaching the fetus how to use the computer??? o_O
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
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.
Why is it RIAA stories always end with someone mentioning that he performs anal?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Perhaps we need to highlight the actual artists in whose name these lawsuits are being filed. If the artist doesn't wn the copyright, then, perhaps we should say "....'s label sued xyz over sharing the track abc".
There is a reason that the labels are using a faceless organization such as the RIAA for these lawsuits -- we should make the labels' and artists' faces visible.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
> 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?
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?
For a statement to be slanderous / libelous, it must be believable.
For example, were I to say, "Nasajin is from another planet -- check his car. It runs on plutonium, not gasoline," that's obviously false.
I could also say, "Nasajin is awesome. Once he bought me a car for no reason." That's not libel since it improves your reputation.
If I were to libelously say something like, "I knew Nasajin when we were in college together. He really liked young girls. Once he had a 12-year-old in his room overnight, " then that's potentially believable, so it's libelous.
So, it has to be:
1. False
2. Believable
3. Harmful
Also, slander is spoken; libel is lines (i.e. written)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I don't think calling what the RIAA is doing economic terrorism would be any kind of a stretch.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
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.
All I said is that the RIAA does quite obviously not care what kind of image it has in the eyes of someone following the suits they fling about. What I want to add is that this wouldn't be the first time they sue on quesitonable grounds, hoping the defendent has better things to worry about than a suit and wants to get it off the table by some moderately expensive settlement.
Is it me or is the RIAA by default singling out targets that are most likely unable or unwilling to deal with the time and money expense that such a trial would mean?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How many songs could you buy for the average settlement of downloading songs?
From 3030 to 3797 at Amazon, DRM-free.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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/
I hope you, and NYCL, aren't trying to claim ...
I think you might have skipped a step there. No, it isn't a free pass. That's not under discussion. But in the administration of justice there has to be a certain sensitivity to overall fairness and balance in the treatment of both sides, that's what it's all about. You don't sue people and try to score points off their inability to respond for medical reasons that are manifestly not under their control, that isn't fair. We treat gangsters better than that.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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.
Yes: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
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!
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Until the court rules, you are merely nothing.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
In case you're serious, IANAL is an acronym for "I am not a lawyer" Related acronyms for those that ARE lawyers, there are also IAAL TINLA(I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice) and IANYL(I am not your lawyer)
The judge hadn't determined her innocence. He was just asking the RIAA to drop the case because of the woman's serious medical condition.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Slander is pretty difficult to prove and prosecute. Switching the argument to Libel, which is written, I would imagine that a countersuit concerning false claims of infringement would require you to prove that the RIAA acted in bad faith; i.e. accused you of infringement while knowing you had not infringed.
If a countersuit like that were launched, they would likely hide behind whatever organisations they use to find people to sue, claiming that they were told you infringed, and believed it, thus acted in good faith.
Such a case would drag on until you ran out of money and settled.
There's the beauty though - if someone with enough dough actually takes on such a suit against them. If it can prove their methods are not valid, even if the RIAA passes the buck off to MediaSentry, it will mean that they cannot knowingly use the service of an entity that uses similar (and similarly flawed) methodologies. In the long run, a big win - though possibly not for the person bringing suit - *if* the RIAA can claim (believably) they had no idea the information wasnt sufficient to point a finger at someone.
Inotherwords, the RIAA may get off the hook - but it will probably be at the expense of them never being able to use MediaSentry (or similar) again.
The thing I see though is enough people have pointed out the fallacies of their "facts" and "methods" enough times, it would be really hard for them to pretend (ie: "claim") they had no knowledge their "evidence" well... wasnt real evidence.
Either way, the "little thing" going on in NC and elsewhere may be the beginning of the end of MediaSentry anyway. So, this isnt a battle (refuting the RIAA's methods and evidence) that I would wish on anyone regardless of how financially prepared they were for the nonsense that would ensue.
I guess time will tell...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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
Oh please, everything gets labeled terrorism these days. It's simple racketeering.
Privileged in the legal sense means confidential.
It is also used in the sense of something being immune from suit.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I read it more as them getting a default judgment against someone laid up in hospital. What's next, coma patients? "Your honor, the defendant refused to be deposed. He claims he's in a vegetative state."
In case you're serious, IANAL is an acronym for "I am not a lawyer" Related acronyms for those that ARE lawyers, there are also IAAL TINLA(I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice) and IANYL(I am not your lawyer)
or IUWTMA
(I use way too many acronyms)
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Because the MAFIAA isn't interested in willing anal.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
IANYL(I am not your lawyer)
What about IANNYCL?
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.
The first amendment protects the free expression of ideas and opinions in a peaceable manner on PUBLIC property only.
No, that's wrong. The First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." There is no mention of public or private property. Congress cannot pass a law restricting free speech on private property. A private property owner is not restricted by the First Amendment, but it's certainly not true that the First Amendment ceases to apply on private property.
No, you would have to be threatened to be sued and offered the settlement and actually take it to come out ahead.
A settlement means that you settled without the courts imposing judgment. Otherwise it would be a judgment. RIAA generally shows the intent to sue then offers the settlement before complaints are actually filled. Anyways, if you get sued, it could backfire and you could be out a lot more then the typical settlement which would make the 4000 songs still a loss for you.
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."
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...
Maybe you'll wind up in the same hole same day.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
IANNYCLBMHWCIOTT.
(I Am Not New York Country Lawyer But Maybe He Will Chime In On This Thread).
IANYCL.
SW?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Hey guys, what's up?
Oh, sorry I thought someone called me...
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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
Why not just use real bullets ? That would be a public service act!
Well, not in this case. The RIAA approach you with a promise to end legal threats concerning the specifics in question. So it wouldn't be quite a threat or extortion. The settlement is the settling of the legal question/cllaims which they asserted as the threat or threat of intents so there is a give and take away from it directly related to the case even if it hasn't been filed.
Imagine it this way, I enter your property and because you removed the snow but didn't remove the ice, I mistake a snow removed shoveled sidewalk as safe then slip and fall injuring myself. I threaten to sue for my injuries and damages. You offer to pay my bill and compensate me for being laid up and off work. You have settled my claims without me having to file them with a court. This is the same thing except the person notifying you of the claim has taken the added step of including what it would take to stop me from going to court. Either way, the outcome effects my legal position and would settle the question if you chose to comply with my wishes.
I'll grant that it gives the appearance of extortion. In fact, I would suggest that the settlement amounts could be argued as evidence of the real and actual damages from a copyright claim making the larger statutory amounts excessive and not in line with reality.