Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Sues Homeless Man

Posted by kdawson on Fri Apr 18, 2008 09:02 AM
from the just-leave-the-summons-on-the-heating-grate dept.
Government The Courts News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Manhattan case, Warner v. Berry, the RIAA sued a man who lives in a homeless shelter, leaving a copy of the summons and complaint not at the homeless shelter, but at an apartment the man had occupied in better times, and had long since vacated. The RIAA's lawyers were threatened with sanctions by the Magistrate Judge in the case, for making misleading representations to the Court which the Magistrate felt were intentional. The District Judge, however, disagreed with imposing sanctions, giving the RIAA's lawyers 'as officers of the Court the benefit of the doubt,' and instead concluded — in his 6-page opinion (PDF) — that the RIAA's lawyers were just being 'sloppy' and had not made the misstatements for an improper purpose.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Firehose:RIAA sues homeless man by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
[+] Your Rights Online: NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP 291 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "At Fordham Law School's annual IP Law Conference this year, Slashdot member NewYorkCountryLawyer had a chance to square off with Kenneth Doroshow, a Senior Vice President of the RIAA, over the subject of copyright statutory damages. Doroshow thought the Jammie Thomas verdict of $222,000 was okay, he said, since Ms. Thomas might have distributed 10 million unauthorized copies. NYCL, on the other hand, who has previously derided the $9,250-per-song file verdict as 'one of the most irrational things [he has] ever seen in [his] life in the law', stated at the Fordham conference that the verdict had made the United States 'a laughingstock throughout the world.' An Australian professor on the panel said, 'The comment has been made a few times that America is out of whack and you are a laughingstock in the rest of the world. As the only non-American on the panel, that's true. We do see the cases like Thomas in our newspapers, and we think: "Wow, those crazy Americans, what are they up to now?" This whole notion of statutory damages is not something that we have within our Copyright Act. You actually have to be able to prove damage for you to be able to be compensated for that.' NYCL also got to debate the 'making available' issue, saying that there was no 'making available' right in US copyright law, despite the insistence of the program's moderator, the 'keynote' speaker, and a 'majority vote' of the audience that there was such a right. The next day, two decisions came down, and a month later yet another decision came down, all rejecting the 'making available' theory."
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.

RIAA Sues Homeless Man 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Wrong, wrong, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:04AM (#23116116) Homepage Journal
    'as officers of the Court the benefit of the doubt,'
    Wrong!
    As officers of the Court they should be held to a higher standard. Sloppy isn't an excuse.

    • Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:18AM (#23116248) Homepage
      Please mod parent up.

      "Sloppy" should not be in a lawyer's vocabulary. In court, "sloppy" can land somebody in jail, backrupt them, cause divorce, take away their children, and destroy their life altogether in a myriad of ways.

      "Sloppy" is what a McDonalds' burger maker does. When lawyers serve a subpoena that's about as accurate as addressing McCain as "Mrs Clinton", there should certainly be repercussions.

      Otherwise, what prevents them from being "sloppy" and just file papers against every single college student in the United States?

      • Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zappepcs (820751) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:38AM (#23116444) Journal
        Exactly what he said AND think about it, if you or I go into a court representing ourselves and are sloppy.... well, the court normally does not look favorably upon people who waste the court's time with 'sloppy' actions.

        Having said that, court systems 'seem' to be the daytime hangout of a rather large boy's club in many places around the country. The lawyer defending you probably plays golf with either the judge or your opponents lawyer, or both!

        IANAL, but I've had happy hour beers with a few. Sloppy is what you do when you think the court will be benevolent toward your actions. If the court has a reputation for seriousness and crossing-tees-dotting-eyes behavior, sloppy is NOT what you do.

        Personally, you and I know that the judge in this case has heard about the stories of the **AA's actions around the country. It would be professionally negligent to not have been following those stories. So, to give them any slack when they are sloppy and wasting court time and resources is tantamount to saying "plaintiff wins, next case!"

        I seriously don't think this homeless guy has a snowball's chance in hell.

      • Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:59AM (#23116690) Homepage
        Exactly, and what everyone witnessed there was the "Good ol' Boy" network in operation.

        Justice in the american legal system has always been only for those with he largest bank accounts.

  • The District Judge, however, disagreed with imposing sanctions, giving the RIAA's lawyers 'as officers of the Court the benefit of the doubt,' and instead concluded â" in his 6-page opinion (PDF) â" that the RIAA's lawyers were just being 'sloppy' and had not made the misstatements for an improper purpose.'"
    In related news, District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., the same judge in the Warner V. Berry case has recently acquired a huge estate in the Hamptons valued at between $20 and $25 million dollars. When a reporter asked Judge Baer how he could afford such a state on a his public servants' salary, Baer simply said that "he had recently come into some money."

  • Fine... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:06AM (#23116136)
    So make some sanctions against 'sloppy' work. I dissent with the judge's ruling. This is clearly grossly negligent conduct by the lawyers. Any minimal due diligince in this case would have eliminated the error immediately.

  • Default dismissal by precedence? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:08AM (#23116148)
    I hope some judges (especially those that sign those search warrants) light up in the light of this. Could you imagine something like this in the future?

    (cue judge, asked for a warrant)

    A search? Why? The RIAA thinks someone's downloading their stuff? The organisation that randomly sues people, from grannies to bums? Get outta my courtroom before I have you thrown out the window!

  • What's next guys, raping a nun? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday April 18 2008, @09:10AM (#23116170)
    Every day these guys sink to new lows. It's a shame that Lou Dobbs or some other "crusader" type TV pundit hasn't jumped on this saga yet. The RIAA would give a lot of ammo to any pundit looking to rant about something outrageous every day.

    The sad thing is, there are real legal issues here. The RIAA is using the American court system as an vehicle of intimidation, and to give a mask of legality very illegal activities (like investigating people with unlicensed private investigators, shotgun lawsuits that target innocent people, organized extortion, etc.). Meanwhile, the courts seem all too willing to just sit back and let them do it, with no acknowledgement that this is part of an organized campaign. I guess the Supreme Court has more important things [nytimes.com] to deal with.

    • It's a shame that Lou Dobbs or some other "crusader" type TV pundit hasn't jumped on this saga yet.

      You realize there are only 4 major media companies in the world right now. Lou's bosses reports to a producer who works for a company that is owned by one of these media conglomerates, who also owns several major recording labels. The moment Lou reports that the RIAA is doing something evil, Lou and his producer immediately get fired for casting the company in a bad light and Lou gets blacklisted.

      Now... I am surprised that the BBC and NPR haven't picked up on this yet. Maybe they have, but can't devote a 2 minute segment to it each and every day so I may have missed one of their special reports, but considering there are, seriously, more important stories to run such as olympic protests, government upheavals, elections here and abroad, etc, I'm not entirely surprised. It sucks, but put into perspective of US National and world news, is it as important?

      • Re:What's next guys, raping a nun? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tompaulco (629533) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:42AM (#23116482) Homepage Journal
        Seriously, a HOMELESS guy? If that's not proof of them ramrodding random people for cash I have no idea what is.
        How much cash do homeless people have? Maybe I should be panhandling from them.
        While it is deplorable that the RIAA seems to be so fixated on suing those with the least means to defend themselves, being poor doesn't make one above the law. Both sides of this issue pretty much top my list of people that the world can do without.

  • I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:12AM (#23116190) Journal
    I don't know what outrages me more, the RIAA suing a homeless man or the judge for not imposing sanctions.

    I can only hope that the judge is elected rather than appointed and that the voters fire him next election. To not lay down sanctions against this agregious behavior is itself sloppy. A lawyer has no more right to be sloppy than a surgeon does.

  • WTF!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black-Six (989784) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:13AM (#23116200)
    How in the world can you sue someone who is homeless and has no internet access, take them to court, get shot down, and then have a district judge say "We think you, the RIAA, had the right intentions but the wrong paper work."? They let murders off for clerical errors, but get caught downloading tunes and its a trip to the financial electric chair.

    If this isn't proof positive that our court system is completely wanked, I don't know what is. And people wonder why our society is going to hell in a hand basket.... Kill someone and get off scott free vs. download tunes and go bankrupt paying the fines.

    • Re:WTF!?!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ari_j (90255) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:27AM (#23116338)
      I'm fairly certain that you have over-simplified and caricatured the situation a bit. The court system isn't, as a whole, broken. It's part of our checks and balances. What is broken is that federal judges are too hesitant to impose sanctions on those who deserve them.

    • Re:WTF!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by njfuzzy (734116) <[ian] [at] [ian-x.com]> on Friday April 18 2008, @09:28AM (#23116356) Homepage
      People seem to be overlooking the possibility that they are suing him for something he did when his means were more significant. He lived in an apartment at some point, where he presumably could have had internet access.

    • Re:WTF!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ClickOnThis (137803) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:41AM (#23116462) Journal
      Let me be clear from the start that I have a ton of sympathy for the homeless, and absolutely none for the RIAA and its lawyers.

      How in the world can you sue someone who is homeless and has no internet access, take them to court, get shot down, and then have a district judge say "We think you, the RIAA, had the right intentions but the wrong paper work."?
      As I read the article, the judge said RIAA was sloppy about how they delivered the summons and not about the merits (if any) of the case. And as heartless as it may sound, there is nothing improper (in a legal sense) about suing a homeless man. He may not have been homeless and/or may have had internet access when he allegedly committed the "crime" the RIAA claims.

      To take an extreme example, imagine that one of the Enron executives drove themselves to destitution and was living in a homeless shelter. Just because they're down and out does not excuse them from being prosecuted for any crimes they committed.

  • New case in the works... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wobedraggled (549225) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:16AM (#23116224) Homepage
    RIAA sues a rock, infringing on the musical style.

  • The RIAA gets dumber by the day... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BUL2294 (1081735) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:53AM (#23116604)
    Seriously, when it became obvious that this guy was homeless (what, he totes around a laptop, getting mobile Internet access using Sprint or AT&T???), the RIAA should have dropped the case as this is an amazing case of "getting blood from a turnip." The RIAA seems dumber by the day. Let's see...
    1) RIAA physically finds homeless man to sue. Serves with papers.
    2) RIAA extorts (er, "offers settlement") to homeless man.
    3) Homeless man appears in court for trial, maybe even with pro-bono attorney. (Free heat, maybe even free food. Could judge offer temporary housing--like sequestering a jury???)
    4) Homeless man loses case big time, owing hundreds of thousands of $$$.
    5) Homeless man declares bankrupcy.
    6) Homeless man sues RIAA for mental stress.

    Seriously, under what circumstance could the RIAA win? Bragging rights?

  • You know the lawyers at RIAA are insane... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Garabito (720521) on Friday April 18 2008, @09:58AM (#23116672)
    You know the lawyers at RIAA are insane when actual headlines like these read like if they were from The Onion

    • Re:Trawling (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Friday April 18 2008, @09:57AM (#23116662) Homepage Journal

      It's just like when fishing fleets trawl the bottom of the ocean trying to catch scallops or mussels ... they end up dragging all kinds of other species into the boat. RIAA is looking for file-sharers, and if they dredge up the occasional homeless man, or dead person, or bubble-boy ... no biggie ... just move on.
      Interesting you should say that, because the RIAA has itself used the term "fishing with a net". Actual quote from RIAA spokesman:

      "When you go fishing with a net, you sometimes are going to catch a few dolphin."
      Dennis Roddy, "The Song Remains the Same" [postgazette.com], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 14, 2003, quoted in amicus curiae brief [ilrweb.com] (pdf) of American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, American Association of Law Libraries, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, submitted in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], 2007 WL 1028532 (W.D. Oklahoma 2007), brief at page 8.

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.