Slashdot Log In
RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Feb 03, 2006 03:01 AM
from the luddite-encouragement dept.
from the luddite-encouragement dept.
boarder8925 writes "Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Drops P2P Lawsuit Strategy, Goes Local 208 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering why the RIAA hasn't announced 800 lawsuits per month any more? Well, they're still suing people, but have developed a new strategy according to Slyck.com. Instead the RIAA is looking to be more localized, focused and personal with its new strategy."
As another reader puts it, the RIAA "will opt to file lawsuits on a weekly basis and work with local media to give it a more geographically relevant feel." Perhaps they'll also pick their targets a bit more carefully.
[+]
Your Rights Online: EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror' 215 comments
nanday writes "What happens when the RIAA prosecutes people for alleged illegal music downloads? In an article on Newsforge (also owned by OSTG), lawyer Ray Beckerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the RIAA's favorite tactics, and why they play fast and loose with the law. Beckerman also explains why two of these cases may stop the RIAA in its tracks - and what you can do for help." From the article: "In UMG vs. Lindor, the defendant 'is a home house-aid who's never even used a computer,' according to Beckerman. 'She's never operated a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer. And yet she is being pursued as an online distributor in peer-to-peer file sharing.' Since Beckerman became involved in the case after it had gone to federal court, he has tried to learn the details of the charges -- so far with little success. 'The RIAA is trying to conceal the information about how it conducts its investigation,' he says. 'They have stalled every discovery request we've made' -- presumably because to reveal this information would also reveal the weakness of all the similar cases."
[+]
RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case 171 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After three years of pursuing a home health aide in Brooklyn who has never even used a computer, the RIAA has announced it's ready to throw in the towel. Only thing; it wants the dismissal to be 'without prejudice' so it won't be liable for attorney's fees. The courts have been saying that where a copyright plaintiff gives up, the defendant is presumptively entitled to an attorney's fee award. So, Ms. Lindor says 'no way.' She wants the dismissal to be 'with prejudice,' and she wants her attorney's fees."
We've been discussing this case and Ms. Lindor's fight against the RIAA for quite some time.
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Two words, please!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't jump to conclusions (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Don't jump to conclusions (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'm starting to think the RIAA picks at random. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Two words, please!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
This is costing them income and thus profit.
Them's fightin' words!
Parent
Re:Two words, please!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
Parent
That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe she is 80 years old. Personal computers started to become practical when she turned 60. She has always been a Home Health Aide, and has never had to fill out an online timesheet or purchase order.
I am sure there are lots of people like that out there, just that us geeks are not aways aware of them.
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also of course factually wrong that she has never used a computer. People use them all the them. There are embedded system in microwaves, ovens, washing machines, medical devices, etc. It would be impossible for anyone but the Unibomber to have never used anything that contained a computer... of course they mean personal computer/PC.. well, they should say that..
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Interesting)
As for medical devices, you generally have someone use them on you, you don't use them yourself, unless you guys in the US regularly conduct your own ECGs or something? (I'm in the UK).
He knows of the existence of email and has asked me to send some for him in the past. But he didn't realise that I could email someone while they were away from home.
Now this guy has a degree from Cambridge University, and speaks two languages fluently and two passably. So let's say he's above average...
Now, how do I explain to my dad what I do at work?
Ben
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is: he's not 80 and he was perfectly fine without ever touching a computer as recently as 2 years ago. It's just not a thing that a regular person can't survive without. Yet.
Parent
Grammer Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
Simple, look for an adhesive label on their lapel with an upsidedown lower case 'e' on it.
By their schwa-stickers ye shall know them.
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Funny)
I, for example, have never used a lawyer.
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Funny)
couldn't let that one slip by
Parent
Re:That's pretty shocking. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
That's easy (Score:5, Funny)
You join either the Democrat or Republican parties and attend the party congress. You will get into plenty of meaningless arguments although some say the the patriotic music offered at these events tends to be a bit cheesy. If you want to get serious about meaningless arguments you can also run for the Senate. Be warned it is an expensive hobby and you have to have your moral backbone and conscience surgically removed.
Parent
How... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How... (Score:5, Insightful)
"How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me..."
Probably one of her kids, or somebody in her hourse, was doing the actual file trading, and this woman's name happens to be on the cable or phone bill.
Parent
I get the impression.... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA: Give us the user of this IP address!!!
ISP: Why?
RIAA: We have the right to commit murder to prevent copying of our intellectual property under the DMCA! This IP was trading files! Give us the name or we'll kill you!
ISP: [flips through phonebook.....] Ok, Ok...it was....Joe Schlabotnick, of 123 Main Street, Fukyusville, Montana.
RIAA: Thank you. Well...not really. You should consider yourselves honoured to give us the information of your cruminal customer scum!
ISP: Oh, we are....we are... [giggling in background]
RIAA: SUESUESUESUESUESUE!!!! [Calls Joe Schlabotnick]
Joe: Hello?
RIAA: We know you are stealing our music using Napster! [whispering in background...What?...that's legal now....ok, then what's still illegal?......] using KaZaA, eMule, LimeWire, and Bearshare, all at once! You have no chance to survive make your time!
Joe Schlabotnick: Huh? It couldn't have been me. I don't even own a computer.
RIAA: What happen? Someone set us up the bomb!
Parent
Hooray! Field Day! (Score:5, Funny)
Ms. Lindor: "Actually, I've never used one in my life."
RIAA Lawyer: "OBJECTION, relevance!"
Parent
RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Interesting)
My mother used to get all kinda of harrasing phone calls
because there was a women on her street with the same
first and last name. The collections people would
see on in ,
and that was that.
And they would always assume that what she was telling them
was a lie to get them off her back.
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Interesting)
They did give him £50 (I think that was the amount) when they found out they'd got the wrong guy. I can sympathise with the bank though - same name, same address, must be the same person, right?
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Funny)
That's how the terminator did it....
Parent
IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Funny)
1. Rip pages out of telephone directory
2. Pin to wall as darts target
3. Throw dart
4. Sue based on the result
5. Profit!!!
(6. Repeat)
A tried and true business method
Parent
Free Range vs. Modern Husbandry (Score:5, Interesting)
While I want to agree with you, I'm going to have to call you on that. I suspect they make a lot more money by grooming particular artists and therefore knowing where their money will be coming from. To use an analogy, look at the state of animal husbandry. In medieval times, it was not uncommon to let your pig or cow free range for food. It was considered cheaper than providing for feed. Nowadays, I'm sure people would argue that it provides for a survival of the fittest, much as you state your idea regarding music. However, what typically happened was that there was little control over your animal and its productiveness. Your cow might be stolen by bandits. It might be shot by an errant poacher (or an earnest one). Even when it survived, you had no idea what it had been eating and who it was breeding with. And average production for those cows was small. With modern animal husbandry techniques, we now keep the naimals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows. Right now, the RIAA has those penned and bred cows. They know they can milk those cows and be assured of a rich bounty because they bred them that way. And you're asking them to free range their artists? It's just not a smart move for them.
I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol :)
Feh! Do you think their lawyers would let them get that far? I would not be surprised if they have a database of names which they automatically remove from consideration. At that, they probably do make a non-token effort to ascertain who's actually pirating out of the people they prosecute. It's only due to volume that we're getting these "never touched the Internet" people. If the RIAA were at all smart, they'd come out publically and state that this person was all a mistake and award her $500 worth of music from RIAA artists. It would be good publicity, the "we made a mistake and are making up for it" kind, plus it will cost them all of $5 plus shipping to do so, since they own the CDs.
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading about someone working for one of the big record labels in Germany letting something slip about the RIAA's tactics.
He hinted that it was in their interessed to create such absurd cases so their "hunt for pirates" stayed in the news. If nothing like that happens, people will forget the whole thing and start downloading again, as the papers will not print headlines "RIAA still hunting!" a few month after the first anouncements.
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Funny)
That's it! I want to sue the RIAA for deliberately trying to cause global warming!
Proven past refute by my religion:
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.ph
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth..."
"My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed..."
The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do.
"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"
The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?
Parent
Re:RIAA's investigative methods (Score:5, Insightful)
That's silly. First off Lawyers aren't supposed to lie. Yes, I know like any human they are motiated by money to some extent, but the original poster said "Let's assume" which means - well - to assume it's the truth. Given his statement if it turns out to be a lie then the rest is worthless. Like any "If..then.." statement the later clause is only relevant if the "if" part is true. That's basic programming logic and as a slashdot user I'n shocked you don't see this. It's amusing that you want the RIAA to have every case stand on it's own but lawyers in general to be derided. There is no reason to believe that this lawyer told the truth or lied, so for the sake of the original poster lets assume that he told the truth. In fact, based on your own logic you shouldn't have any rael opinion.
"The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit."
Really, do you truly believe this? If so, were I the RIAA, I would sue everyone. Those innocent would go free, those guilty would face the consequences. I'm not anti-corperation by any means (not even anti-RIAA either), but I'm anti-stupid lawsuit (nothing says the RIAA can not become a useful member of society and I wish it would). The RIAA has shown in the past a willingness to blanket sue which should be punishable. Your past actions should be part of the lawsuits. Of course, if you are guilty then what you say is true (because the prosecution has a vendetta is no reason to get off if you broke the law), but in the case of the blatantly innocent and negligent lawsuit it *should* be part of your past history that you are willing to blanket sue. It becomes important then. A simple "Each case on it's own" only works in the case where each participant is acting in good faith, once one side doesn't it needs to be punished.
"This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?"
No, after being the 100'th person who is wrongly accused and had to spend 10's of thousands in lawyers fees I would like the court system to slap the prosecution down. Wouldn't you rather that happen if you were one in a long line of wrongly accused?
Parent
TV License Parallel (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of a colleague back in the UK who was taken to court for not paying his TV license fee - when asked what his defence was he responded "I don't own one".
Apparently the judge was not amused with the prosecution for not having bothered to do even this minimal check!
If this is the case (pardon the pun) with this action then I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down. Shame on them.
Re:TV License Parallel (Score:5, Informative)
In a fair world this would be subject to a painful (for the RIAA) counter-suit. But then again, in a fair world you wouldn't have corporations running around bankrupting whoever they felt like just to make an example of them in the first place.
I for one welcome our new Corporate Overlords [riaa.com]! Oh, they aren't new...
Parent
Re:TV License Parallel (Score:5, Funny)
1. Fixed penalty ticket arrives.
2. Friend posts back a denial that he was not at the stated place on the stated day.
3. System replies, stating that his blue whatnot car with registration plate XYZ was clearly photographed by a speed camera at given location. Please see included picture.
4. Friend replies again, stating again that he was nowhere the place and could they please review included picture of Red MOTORCYCLE, registration XYZ.
5. Silence.
Parent
Re:TV License Parallel (Score:5, Funny)
You'd think they'd be able to catch the black BMW with the same registration number as a 1950s Fordson tractor, wouldn't you?
Parent
World's fastest tractor :) (Score:5, Funny)
A farmer from Wiltshire got a penalty notice accusing him of doing 85mph on his tractor in south Wales.
His tractor, however, has a top speed of 26mph and has never been to Wales. Simple case of mistaken identity: automatic numberplate reader gets the plate wrong.
The farmer's quote:
"It's a good tractor, but not that good."
Parent
Will this work?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will this work?? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for summary judgment. That's a key difference. A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.
Where a motion to dismiss says, in effect, "Even if you're right, so what?", a motion for summary judgment says "We'll show you facts that are so clear we don't even need to go through the hassle of a full trial." Then you provide evidence (usually by means of an affidavit or some other way short of the full trial-witness-cross examination thing). If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone the time and expense of a full trial.
Yes, IAAL.
Parent
hasn't used a computer yet (Score:5, Funny)
It just goes to show you ... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps this is part of a campaign to instill fear in the hearts of the "guilty" by first stringing up a few obviously innocent people.
Truth in blurb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truth in blurb? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?"
THANK YOU.
I have no idea what the full story is here. None of us do. But what I do know is that the page linked to in the writeup is that of the defendant's lawyer.
It's the lawyer's job to convince you of their client's innocence. They don't need to be fair and balanced. They don't even need to be accurate, if it promotes their agenda and helps them win the case.
It's really quite sad that so many people are reading a statement by a lawyer handling a case -- and thus whose motivation should be clear -- and are just swallowing it like it's gospel truth. Slashdotters are usually smarter than this.
Parent
Similar to earlier case (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is an article that describes recent news in that case:
http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/20
However her defense has changed slightly:Ah, yes... the old "it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it" defense. I wonder how well that one will fly.
Apparently Santangelo is receiving all kinds of donations from big hearted Internet file traders but frankly it looks like money down the drain to me. There is no way she is going to win when she's already basically admitting that she failed to supervise her kids and their friends when they were using her computer.
As far as this new case, who wants to bet that it won't turn out the same way? The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions! Saying "I didn't do it" won't help if it's your kids, like what appears to be the case with Santangelo.
Re:You certainly don't know how the law works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that's because the parent has not been performing their duty of care - an offence for which they would probably be found guilty in my hypothetical. My point is that they are not guilty of the offence the child committed.
If the police wanted to prosecute Ms Santangelo for negligance for allowing her child to use the internet unsupervised, that's one thing; but for the RIAA to be able to successfully sue her for Copyright Infringement, an offence she didn't commit, is another thing entirely, and wrong.
Parent
Lost profits! (Score:5, Funny)
Google's Ironic Quote of the Day (Score:5, Informative)
- Hunter S. Thompson [quotationspage.com]
Sadly (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA doesn't sue people for the money.
It doesn't even sue people to get them to stop doing whatever they are supposedly doing.
They sue them for the publicity.
This is worse than mere barratry: the more outrageous the abuse of the legal system, the more it suits there purpose. They'd send a spurious C&D to a deaf vegan paraplegic nun who runs a homeless shelter, if they could find one. In fact, brazenly baseless accusations are better than substantive ones; it gets the point across without the expense of a trial.
They're trying to establish a reputation like the La Cosa Nostra. And they want to use that reputation exactly the same way: to create de facto privileges that do not exist de jure, e.g. "You don't want to park there, that's Vinnie the Hatchet's spot."
And you can't call them to task for their misappropriation of state machinery to despoil private individuals of their fundamental human right to be left alone; not without talking about it, which is exactly what they want you to do.
Cease and Desist (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Steve:
Greetings. I represent the RIAA. The song "la la la - I can't hear you!" is copyrighted by BMG, an RIAA member corporation. Your appropriation of the lyrics without permission of the copyright holder is in direct violation of Title 17 USC 101-810. Indeed, your transmission of said lyrics over the internet constitutes a distribution of copyrighted material, and your use of the "online distribution system" known as "slashdot" for your criminal activity amounts to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Moreover, the use of the "moderator" system to enhance the visibility and thus the distribution of our client's intellectual property multiplies the damages significantly. Please cease and desist in the use and distribution of our client's property or face legal action.
Parent