RIAA Sues 19-Year-Old Transplant Patient 663
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."
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.
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.
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Informative)
except that the letters for subpeana have to be witnessed that the person served actually did recieve them, e.g. in the mail isn't good enough to prove that the person they were intended for actually got them. IANAL.
ps. IORAL2.
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, people who serve papers can easily lie.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in a lawsuit that involved needing to serve papers to someone who had disappeared. After hiring people to try and find him and waiting a month, the court decided it would be adequate to serve papers to his parents, as he'd listed his residence there at one point.
It's possible that's what happened here: they served papers to her parents, and they didn't get the information to her for whatever reason.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm defending the RIAA.
Then what were you doing?
IANAL, so a question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL either, but simply not being able to respond, seems solid enough.
On the other hand, the RIAA has been suing dead people, too, and they definitely couldn't respond, either.... hmmm.....
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
How is their health relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright doesn't work the way the RIAA would like it to work. Unfortunately, the court system doesn't work the way any sane person would like it to work, either.
Giving out monopolies powers was never a good idea. It was suffered because the benefit was considered greater than the harm. The RIAA is just making it painfully obvious that this is no longer the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was really surprised to see your preemptive strike against those damned Mucking Forons, but it appears that it was necessary, and and they still came anyway.
Like night follows day, as soon as they hear about another RIAA suit against a defenseless person, they come out from under their rocks to proclaim that bringing garbage lawsuits against poor and disabled people is fine. So it's become quite predictable. Who these people are, I really can't fathom, but I certainly wouldn't care to have a beer with them.
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:4, Funny)
Being a bigoted maggot, I fail to see what right you have to speak of decent people. ;-)
Well, since, as you say, you're a "bigoted maggot", I guess it doesn't matter what you "fail to see".
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:4, Informative)
1. They don't have to file the lawsuits.
2. The lawsuit in the post isn't about getting information, it's a lawsuit to recover damages and an injunction.
3. There is no "crime". These are civil cases.
4. Most of the judges have NOT required the RIAA to come up with "evidence".
5. Most of the judges have not required the RIAA to come up with "identifying information".
6. The court does not "decide whether or not to push for discovery".
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."
What does one have to do with the other? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree the summary is badly written. Her medical condition is relevant because this was a default decision. She was not represented and did not represent herself because she failed to respond. If the reason she failed to respond is because she could not do so for medical reasons then basic fairness is that the decision should be vacated in light of that fact and she should get a civil trial. Since the matter is more then $20 she is even entitled to a jury if she wants one.
A judge needs to examine the i
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They may not be as staggering as you think. I'm 20 and I download music, but I do it from legal sources. I do know a fair number of others my age who don't pirate music either.
And as soon as I stumbled across Slashdot and became more informed about issues like this, I decided to boycott music from RIAA-associated labels.
So yes, regardless of our age, some of us "young kids" do have principles, don't necessarily do anything wrong, and are fed up with being treated like criminals just because of our age.
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?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of "she is not guilty, RTFA" you do not get?
Mucking Foron
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.
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.
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:4, Informative)
lawyers don't even fight 'right and wrong'. those are concepts for kids. lawyers fight legal vs non-legal (in criminal) or 'can I sue you can win' in civil. its only *sometimes* about such grand concepts as Right(tm) and Wrong(tm). am I right? ;)
No you're not Right. You're Wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Re:If you show no mercy you will be shown none (Score:4, Insightful)
They're screwing with people's survival. They're no different than a criminal gang.
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?
The rest of the story? (Score:3)
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.
Re:The rest of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was you, and you knew you didn't do the downloading, and you knew that your absent father had opened an internet account in your name, and you were charged with downloading, wouldn't you conclude it must have been him? I sure would.
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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
IANYL(I am not your lawyer)
What about IANNYCL?
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?
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
Hey guys, what's up?
Oh, sorry I thought someone called me...
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the MAFIAA isn't interested in willing anal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just use real bullets ? That would be a public service act!
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Funny)
If the sentence ended in a period wouldn't that just be bad grammar?
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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Funny)
You need to infringe on the rights of one of these posters and rip one...for posterity's sake :)
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.
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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 kin
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think calling what the RIAA is doing economic terrorism would be any kind of a stretch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 expen
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
kdawsonfud (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:kdawsonfud (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you stupid? Because it really sounds like you are. She's not getting off (nor would your idiot child for robbing a bank), she's just being given a chance at a FAIR trial.
You can get trials continued [wikipedia.org] if you're unable to attend for a valid reason. It's actually fairly common. That doesn't mean you don't ever go to court, but you just do so later, when you're able.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do have a point to the extent that there's definitely additional emotion due to the illness. But by the same token, she would have had to have received the papers in the hospital, only an idiot would assume somebody would be proactively hospital bound to avoid a lawsuit they don't know about.
The implication is that either they didn't properly serve the papers or they knowingly served them to somebody layed up in the hospital.
Then there's the point where the RIAA has been purposefully filing suits pointe
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Must we go through this EVERY time? (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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.
Re:nt (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
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?
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Until the court rules, you are merely nothing.
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".
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA sues Somalis for piracy, Somalis return fire
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dying (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient
Yeah, for downloading the same song 47 times.
Re:Dying (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA sues entire universe over ever-expanding light-shell of radio broadcasted music.
Re:(shrug) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does her condition matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Renounce your senior discounts now, and return what you saved in child and student rate admissions over the years!
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:To Play Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Informative)
Ms. Sauro's case not legally sound (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no proof that the person whose name the internet account is in is the owner of all the computers connected, was the person who downloaded the items in question, or got the IP address 5 minutes after the idiots who "investigate" these matters
Picky picky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.