Slashdot Log In
RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Dec 07, 2008 07:26 PM
from the kicking-dogs-on-the-way-home dept.
from the kicking-dogs-on-the-way-home dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Informative)
If the defendant is served papers and then doesn't request an extension or delay and then doesn't show up, generally victory is granted to the present party. Unless there are extenuating circumstances like these.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy money.
Send your lawsuit letters to people you know are not home to receive them, and profit.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
They are not. But their lawyer or anyone representing her can inform the court of this and all reasonable courts will make adjustments pending her outcome and ability to show up.
Something as simple as her parents or boyfriend or best friend or whatever going to the court house of record and saying So and So is hospitalize and won't be able to make this appearance date and we need it rescheduled would have been enough. Of course the people at the court house can't act as your attorney but they have to make reasonable exceptions to people with medical disabilities and this would qualify.
I was getting sued for a utility bill where an ex-roommate took service out in my name years after we have lived together and failed to pay the bills. I found out about it when I was on vacation three states away and ended up sending my brother down to explain that I would be late coming back and we needed to postpone the trial until I could make it home. I'm not sure why, when you give your SS# to get the service, they didn't think of serving papers or informing you that service was taken out somewhere else to my residence where I had service in my name instead of sending everything to the fictitious residence.
If there is a legitimate reason that you can't make it, simply letting them know about it is generally enough to get it rescheduled.
Parent
IANAL, so a question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IANAL, so a question (Score:5, Funny)
When human life is involved, this case regarding the RIAA's profits should take a back seat in any civilized and just society.
Agreed, but what about in the USA? :) /me ducks
Parent
Artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
I find it amazing (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
-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.
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I agree with you.
The fact that the RIAA and its legal team are dirty rotten scumbags isn't really news.
You say it's a moral question, but the crux of the problem is that there are still legal questions here. Now that she's in this legal fix, what is her recourse? Is there an effective legal defense that that would help her?
Parent
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
the crux of the problem is that there are still legal questions here. Now that she's in this legal fix, what is her recourse? Is there an effective legal defense that that would help her?
Thanks, Jeff. Well there is a strong public policy against default judgments, and she has a capable pro bono attorney, so it is a foregone conclusion that the default judgment will be vacated. And assuming the facts are as stated in the Pittsburgh article, she has a complete defense, and will win the case. The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
Parent
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming that she IS guilty, what is a fair punishment per song, or per album?
She is not guilty, she is innocent. But to answer the larger question you ask: if a person had committed the copyright infringement alleged, the appropriate damages would be from 1 to 9 times the actual damages sustained, depending on the facts of the case. In most of the cases -- typically with 6 downloaded song files -- the damages would be approximately from $2.10 to $18.90, total.
Parent
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Please, Ray, for the benefit of those of us playing at home who may not have your superior moral knowledge and judgment, at what point should we wash our hands of legal recourse against a person for personal issues?
Interesting sophistry, but neither you nor I can discuss the entire universe of legal rights and wrongs and remedies. It suffices to say that anyone with half a brain who's been paying attention already knows that, wherever we want to draw the line, the RIAA lawsuits against ordinary people are way over that line.
Parent
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
2. I have a simple "solution". The judges should apply the law, like this one [blogspot.com] and this one [blogspot.com] and this one [blogspot.com]. And if all federal judges just applied the law, this RIAA litigation plague would be over.
Parent
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't you supposed to have, you know, evidence that the person you're suing actually did what you're accusing them of?
If you worked at the RIAA's law firm and raised that question, they'd fire you.
Parent
If you show no mercy you will be shown none (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Can we PLEASE recognize the sham? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
A word about 'bias' (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [blogspot.com] 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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
You probably should have put "IANAL" somewhere in that post.
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
IANYL(I am not your lawyer)
What about IANNYCL?
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
IANNYCLBMHWCIOTT.
(I Am Not New York Country Lawyer But Maybe He Will Chime In On This Thread).
IANYCL.
SW?
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
Hey guys, what's up?
Oh, sorry I thought someone called me...
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
If the sentence ended in a period wouldn't that just be bad grammar?
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Informative)
How many songs could you buy for the average settlement of downloading songs?
From 3030 to 3797 at Amazon, DRM-free.
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Interesting)
So if I download more than 4000 songs, and I get sued, I'm still coming out ahead.
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
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
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Informative)
Privileged in the legal sense means confidential.
It is also used in the sense of something being immune from suit.
Parent
Re:kdawsonfud (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time I'm making near minimum wage and my kid is hospitalized for something like this I'll tell him to go rob a bank since apparently you can get away without going to court if you're sick...
How would you like to have your hospitalized kid sentenced to jail because he can't show up in court, regardless whether he actually robbed that bank? That's what the article was about.
Parent
Re:nt (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Parent
Absolutely. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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?
Parent
Re:nt (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Dying (Score:5, Funny)
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".
Parent
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA sues Somalis for piracy, Somalis return fire
Parent
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient
Yeah, for downloading the same song 47 times.
Parent
Re:(shrug) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them.
I thought that was part of why people disagree with what the RIAA is doing here. How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
Parent
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
Thank you. A civilized person. How refreshing after reading several posts suggesting that this sort of thing is okay.
It is not okay in the America I come from.
Parent
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Parent
Re:I hate the RIAA as much as anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL
She can't have been served without the papers actually being given directly to her. A court summons sent by mail or handed to a relative is not guaranteed to reach the person, and the court MUST do due diligence in informing a person that they are being sued.
I'm with the GP, this is typical RIAA nonsense with a cheap emotional twist. I can't wait to see the furor over them suing a quadruple amputee, even those such people are perfectly capable of piracy and the RIAA has no way of knowing their amputee status until they meet in court.
OMG THEY SUED A SICK PERSON! I bet they didn't even know she was sick.
Parent
Re:I hate the RIAA as much as anyone (Score:5, Informative)
The US court system goes out of its way to royally screw defendants, innocent or guilty.
Parent
Re:To Play Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:To Play Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent