Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The 83-Year-Old Dead File Swapper

Posted by CowboyNeal on Fri Feb 04, 2005 02:48 PM
from the posthumous-distribution dept.
Government The Courts Media Music The Internet News
93,000 writes "Gertrude Walton, a deceased eighty-three-year-old woman, was named as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a group of record companies. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name 'smittenedkitten.' Needless to say, the suit has since been dropped."
+ -
unknown
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The 83-Year-Old Dead File Swapper 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • From TFA (Score:5, Funny)

    by k4_pacific (736911) <k4_pacific.yahoo@com> on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575370) Homepage Journal
    "Walton could not be reached for comment."

  • They dropped the case? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575372)
    Man, the RIAA is getting soft.

  • Well that's (Score:5, Funny)

    by CodeHog (666724) <joe.slacker@NosPam.gmail.com> on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575376) Homepage
    one way to keep from getting sued for swapping mp3s.

  • Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigtallmofo (695287) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575379)
    She's also reported to have voted in the last presidential election in OH.

  • Let that be a lesson to you, (Score:5, Funny)

    by scrame (767779) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575384) Homepage Journal
    file trading kills.

  • Cause of death? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bongoots (795869) * on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575387) Homepage
    Does anyone know what the officially recorded cause of death was?

  • let it go to court! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575388) Homepage Journal

    From the article: Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.

    She should have let the whole thing go to court. It would make the RIAA look far sillier when a computer illiterate dead woman's name is cleared in front of a judge rather than before hand.
    • She should have let the whole thing go to court. It would make the RIAA look far sillier when a computer illiterate dead woman's name is cleared in front of a judge rather than before hand.

      IANAL (Surprise, surprise, surprise!), but I'd think the judge would be rather upset if one of the parties could have taken simple, reasonable, steps, that would have a good chance of the suit being dropped before hogging the court's time. Faxing a death certificate looks like a simple, reasonable, step. (Personally, I'dve sent a notarized copy by registered mail as well).

      Armed with that evidence, the defense would probably have a good chance at having the case dropped with prejudice by a pissed off judge if the plaintiff decided to pursue it anyway.

      • It wouldn't have been thrown out (Score:5, Informative)

        by donutello (88309) on Friday February 04 2005, @03:32PM (#11575860) Homepage
        This was a civil, not a criminal case. In the event that the RIAA had won the case, any judgement would have been awarded against the defendants estate. You don't need to be alive to be sued in civil court.

        The RIAA didn't need to drop the case just because the defendant was dead.

        However, this was mostly a PR case. The lawsuite was not filed with the purpose of recovering damages. The real reason they filed the case was as a PR suit to make an example of the person and with the person being dead, the only PR results would have been to make them look like bigger scum than they already do. That's why they withdrew the case.

        • Re:let it go to court! (Score:5, Funny)

          by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Friday February 04 2005, @03:37PM (#11575906)
          A week after my mother died she recieved jury duty notificaiton. I called the courthouse and tried to explain. I was told I had to come in within the next two working days to get paperwork from three different offices. I told her, "No, thanks."

          She was like, "You have to, its the law. Otherwise she won't be excused from jury duty. Make sure you get this finished within two days, and you better call ahead to find out what documents you need to bring with you."

          I stated that I had in fact done them a favor, but it wasn't my problem, it was their problem.

          She sputtered. "But you have to. You can't expect your mother to fill out her own paperwork to excuse herself from jury duty, she's dead! Someone has to do this!"

          I agreed that someone had to do something, but it wasn't my concern. She was still sputtering self-importantly when I said goodbye and hung up.
            • You don't inherit lawsuits

              Actually, you do.

              Civil suits against deceased persons can easily be refiled against their estates, and if the suit is sucessfull, there is now a claim against the estate. Guess what, you just inherited a loss against your inheritance (though it can't exceed it).

              Further more, while the executor does not inherit the suit, they have a fiducary duty to the estate to handle it when the estate is served. This can be a real problem because if the executor does not handle it "properly" (i.e. gives up and settles without a fight), the beneficaries can have a good case for suing the executor. It can turn into a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of problem for the executor: spend too much of the estates assets in defense and get sued. Spend too little, and lose the case, and get sued. Furthermore the will may limit the executor's freedoms in responding (though this can be a blessing for the executor as they can't be held liable for performance of duty if they are restrained from performing said duty).

              It should have been obvious when mentioning defendents that I was referring to all present (deceased) and possible future defendents (the estate) in this case.

              The bottom line is that judges do not like to see their courts clogged with frivolous cases because some now-present defendent blew off a plaintif. Due process is slow, and while necessary to protect everyone's rights, takes up the court's time (well the time of court clerks until a case comes to trial). Most reasonable people try to stave off likely problems they see on the horizon. I can not see the court looking disfavourably at a defendent that took steps to try to avert a trial for a case without merit.

  • Wow, just wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MattyCobb (695086) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:50PM (#11575389)
    Shouldn't they be held liable (for more than just court fees) for wasting our justice system's already limited time with junk like this? After all, this isn't the first time something like this has happened :/

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by |>>? (157144) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:52PM (#11575402) Homepage
    if there is now a way that this can be used to stop these kinds of lawsuits althogether, in that it shows that the whole concept of going after file swappers in this way is bogus.

  • Just proves.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2005, @02:52PM (#11575403)
    that file swapping is a grave matter.

  • What's more disturbing? (Score:4, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman (627248) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:52PM (#11575408) Journal
    That they are trying to sue a dead person, or an 83 year old woman called herself "smittenedkitten"?

    *shudder* The horror... the horror...

    I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.

    Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up. :-)

    • Re:What's more disturbing? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead (54550) on Friday February 04 2005, @03:04PM (#11575569)
      > That they are trying to sue a dead person, or an 83 year old woman called herself "smittenedkitten"?
      >*shudder* The horror... the horror...
      >I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.
      >Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up. :-)

      "Every time you share an MP3, [RIAA chairman] Mitch Bainwol kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens."

      (You want disturbing? I almost typed "Hilary Rosen". My head asplode, my Fark account surrenders, and after a Hilary Rosen dead kitten joke, you really don't want to think about what your dog wants.)

  • the "it wasn't me" defense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BaldGhoti (265981) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:52PM (#11575413) Homepage
    Since she (obviously) didn't offer those files for download, and since this isn't the first such case of mistaken identity in these matters, doesn't this negatively affect the RIAA's potential success in future lawsuits?

    Of course, I don't think anyone's been convicted of anything yet--people have only settled out of court, right?

    • Re:the "it wasn't me" defense (Score:4, Informative)

      by ari_j (90255) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:58PM (#11575504)
      I don't think anyone's been convicted of anything yet--people have only settled out of court, right?

      You're confusing civil and criminal law. This was a civil case. Criminal cases have convictions and acquittals. Civil cases have judgments for either the plaintiff or defendant.

      In reality, this has done nothing to militate against the RIAA's potential success in future lawsuits. This is actually the equivalent of settling out of court, albeit very early on in the process and with no money paid by the defendant.

  • Tin Foil? (Score:4, Funny)

    by phaetonic (621542) * on Friday February 04 2005, @02:52PM (#11575416)
    This proves what I've been saying for months. RIAA will kill you if you share more than 700 songs on a P2P application.

  • Why "needless to say"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by redelm (54142) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:53PM (#11575429) Homepage
    It is perfectly possible to sue the estate of a dead person for torts they committed while alive. A bit tougher if the estate has passed probate, but there are also limitations (typ 2 yrs) on any tort claim.

  • TFA text, site getting slow. (Score:4, Informative)

    by NetNifty (796376) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:55PM (#11575458) Homepage
    Gertrude Walton of Fayette County hated computers, her daughter said.

    That did not stop the recording industry from accusing the now deceased 83-year-old Mount Hope woman of illegally trading music over the Internet.

    More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name "smittenedkitten."
    - advertisement-

    On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.

    "Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

    Walton's daughter, Robin Chianumba, lived with her mother for the last 17 years of her life and said her mother objected to having a computer in the house. Chianumba said she didn't know anything about the record company's claims. And she said she does not know anything about the screen name.

    "My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer," Chianumba said. "My mother wouldn't know how to turn on a computer."

    The case demonstrates the imperfections of the record industry's two-year old effort to hunt down and sue people who put hundreds, even thousands, of copyrighted songs onto file-sharing networks on the Internet.

    The industry tracks down file-swappers using the Internet Protocol addresses attached to their relatively anonymous screen names.

    The IP addresses are useful because they identify computers on the Internet. But investigators cannot use the numeric codes to figure out who is using a particular computer. Often, they can only use the IP address to learn who is getting billed for the computer's Internet service.

    In more than a handful of cases, the record industry has sued a person for file-swapping, then later learned that they were really after the defendant's child or grandchild.

    Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.

    "I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Chianumba said. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park [where she is buried] to attend the hearing. I don't know if this is a scheme to get money, I just don't know what's going on. I am concerned."
    - advertisement-

    When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.

    Could smittenedkitten be one of them? The RIAA declined to say.

    To contact staff writer Toby Coleman, use e-mail or call 348-5156.

  • smittenedkitten (Score:5, Funny)

    by clem (5683) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:55PM (#11575459) Homepage
    Bet this new information has left certain folks out there feeling a little queasy after having taken up smittenedkitten's requests to cyber.
    sirL@nc3@lot> Ok, got the knitting needles. What do u want me to do now?

  • Smittenedkitten is dead?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday February 04 2005, @02:56PM (#11575468) Homepage Journal
    WTF? She told me she was 18, blonde, slender and hot!

  • Good for Gertrude (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seniorcoder (586717) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:57PM (#11575477)
    I personally lament Gertrude's passing away. What a great memorial. Just prior to death, put a file server away in a hidden closet in a house with many years of ISP paid for in advance. Serve up those files with no possible recourse from RIAA and other leeches. Maybe a foundation could be started such that the file repository is transferred from near-death person to near-death person. As the slow wheels of the RIAA start legal proceedings, the person becomes beyond even their reach. Not so much the "make a wish" foundation as the "make a statement" foundation.

  • Shocking. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InvalidError (771317) on Friday February 04 2005, @02:57PM (#11575478)
    The RIAA/MPAA/etc. have been making fortunes off dead people's backs for decades, it would be a logical next step to eventually extend this to dead customers.

  • The RIAA's legal counsel (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday February 04 2005, @03:04PM (#11575571) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure if Jenner & Block [jenner.com] is the only firm the RIAA uses, but they are already drawing increasing flak from some people in the ALA (American Library Association) for potential conflicts of interest, as the ALA uses Jenner & Block as well.

    One wonders how a big, powerful law firm staffed with smart people could have made such an enormous blunder, if in fact Jenner & Block was the firm doing the work on this.

    I'd be interested to find out how many lawyers the RIAA employs and/or keeps on retainer.

  • inspiring (Score:4, Funny)

    by sacrilicious (316896) on Friday February 04 2005, @06:34PM (#11578171) Homepage
    Gertrude Walton, a deceased eighty-three-year-old woman, was named as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a group of record companies. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name 'smittenedkitten.'

    I'm just glad Walton had the balls to demand a trial rather than knuckling under and paying the typical $3,000 settlement.

  • What’s the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nasor (690345) on Friday February 04 2005, @07:08PM (#11578486)
    Although the article says that this woman was computer illiterate and "objected to having computers," it never actually says that there wasn't a computer in her house. It's curious that although the article spends a lot of time talking about how she didn't like/know about them, it never explicitly states that she didn't have one in the house. It also states that she had family members living with her, and that she has 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Odds are that one of them were using her internet account for file-sharing, so she was busted for it. The fact that they filed the suit even though they had already received a copy of the death certificate can be attributed to the ordinary bureaucratic mix-ups that happen routinely in large offices, and shouldn't surprise anyone who has ever worked for a company with more than ten employees.

    I don't see the point of this being on slashdot.

    • Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by the_mad_poster (640772) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Friday February 04 2005, @03:00PM (#11575530) Homepage Journal
      What's the point indeed.

      Despite what the ravenous morons on this site will now scream, the RIAA was collecting information and planning BEFORE she died. They just happened to file the lawsuit AFTER she died. They got the wrong person, yes, but it's only coincidence that she happened to be dead by the time they actually filed the suit.

    • Re:Stupid story (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jxyama (821091) on Friday February 04 2005, @03:06PM (#11575597)
      indications are that she was not violating copyright.

      if she was alive, she probably would have had to settle (i.e. pay RIAA money) because if she's like most people, she wouldn't be able to afford to go to the court simply to defend herself.

        • Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy (Score:5, Informative)

          by zenyu (248067) on Friday February 04 2005, @06:46PM (#11578276)
          There *is* a legal transgression that is taking place daily and it is impacting the industry in an enormous way. The courts have sided almost exclusively with the consumer (thankfully we haven't started to lose that many civil rights yet), and the RIAA has only one course of action left open to it: lawsuits.

          Look EMI sent my ISP a nastygram that resulted in my losing internet service for a week. I work from home so this was a real hardship. I had never heard of the bands listed, the IP address listed wasn't even being used at the time, and I've never downloaded a song at home*. Music just doesn't matter much to me.

          *I downloaded a public domain performance of a public domain song from Napster when they first started at work just to show my boss how cool the technology was.

          Now lets look at losses: about $1000 for me, about $300 in customer acquisition costs for the ISP I dumped for not informing me of the letter they got before cutting off service. For EMI, $1. They obviously just did some brain dead port scan and hired someone not capable of cut and paste to write the nastygram.

          This is a case that never went past the nasty-gram stage, just immagine the legal transgressions they are committing on the scale of our economy... I will gladly join a class action against them when it comes. They are impacting the nation in an enormous way. There is only one course of action left open to freedom loving Americans: lawsuits.

          As I understand it though, the RIAA has constructed a "repent" clause in to all of their suits which gives you a get-out-of-jail free card in return for a signed promise of non-recidivism.

          The innocent are the most impacted by this type of "repent" clause, it reminds me of our broken criminal "justice" system. Punish the innocent, pardon the guilty. It's just not right.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.