RIAA Sues Homeless Man

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.'"

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[LWATCDR]

'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.

Fine...

[imstanny]

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.

What's next guys, raping a nun?

[elrous0]

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.

I don't know...

[sm62704]

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!?!?!?

[Black-Six]

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:Doubt?

[autocracy]

There are few clearer examples of "double standard" than when the deciding party declares that it's different because they're "one of us." Mrrr.

Translation

[MarkGriz]

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 ... that the RIAA's lawyers were just being 'sloppy' and had not made the misstatements for an improper purpose.'

Or, to quote Hanlon [wikipedia.org]....

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[TheMeuge]

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!

[gruvmeister]

Officers of the court? Bullshit, we're talking about some sleazebag millionaire lawyers who would drag their own mothers into court if there was a percentage in it for them. These guys don't represent the court - on the contrary, these are the guys the court needs to be on the lookout for, as they're the ones who will manipulate it to serve their (clients') purposes.

Re:WTF!?!?!?

[njfuzzy]

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:Are you kidding

[Black-Six]

When talking about the RIAA, mind-boggling acts of stupidity are just par for the course.

Re:What's next guys, raping a nun?

[FrozenFOXX]

I have to admit, I'm genuinely curious as to how in the hell this got not even a slap on the wrist. Seriously, a HOMELESS guy? If that's not proof of them ramrodding random people for cash I have no idea what is.

I always thought judges were supposed to be called, "your honor." Guess we can scratch one.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[zappepcs]

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:WTF!?!?!?

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Re:What's next guys, raping a nun?

[tompaulco]

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.

Filesharing at the time of not being homeless?

[Loconut1389]

The linked blog does not make it clear whether or not the man was sued for filesharing that occurred after the date he lost his place of residence/computer. Without reading the 6 page order, what's the real deal? The kneejerk from everyone is to think this man could not possibly have done P2P since he's now homeless. What's the real answer? How did they come to accuse him in the first place? Blog and summary seem short on details.

Re:Translation

[deniable]

Or Clarke's Second Law of Management: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

This could also be a judge being subtle. In six pages he says "You're not evil, just stupid."

Because his boss says not too

[hellfire]

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:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Lumpy]

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.

I'm amazed

[Moryath]

I'm amazed nobody has asked the real question yet.

Namely: how much money did the MafiAA pay the district judge for this ruling?

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[KGIII]

I tend to think of it as the Just Us Department really.

Re:I'm amazed

[remmelt]

Oh, I thought the real question was: did the allegedly homeless man share any files illegally? Allegedly?

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Mister Whirly]

A public defender beating and getting money from the RIAA lawyer team. Nice pipe dream.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Mister Whirly]

"What prevents all you fucking thieves from having any moral values?"

Offhand, I would say pricks like you trying to impose your own "moral values" on the rest of us...

And for the 8 millionth time here, it isn't "thievery" - it is copyright violation. Get it right!

Hold the Phone!

[mpapet]

Personally, you and I know that the judge in this case has heard about the stories of the **AA's actions around the country

That's not likely. First and foremost he's vested in keeping his job so that means he's up to his eyeballs in the political machinations of his region and processing cases as quickly as possible. Unless it's some sort of hobby for him like it is for NewYorkCountryLawyer.

Which takes less time, giving prosecutors a free-pass or generating MORE work calling the RIAA lawyers out on their shennanigans? Which one gets him re-elected?

We're talking about "The Law" and intellectual property machinations where 2 + 2 can equal 5. It's quite likely he's vested in the RIAA's pablum.

Re:Judges are out of touch...

[AnomaliesAndrew]

Adding to that... in years past, judges were elders with vast wisdom about virtually all facets of life. Now they're just referees.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[An ominous Cow art]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems (based on my Slashdot reading, anyway) that the RIAA lawyer team isn't exactly the sharpest bunch money can buy. I think it's likely that we hear more about their failures and blunders, though.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I disagree with you, UnknowingFool..... A pattern of misconduct in other cases is quite relevant. Also there is no way this was mere sloppiness. They clearly made a misrepresentation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge had it right. I personally think Judge Baer knew the Magistrate Judge had it right, but felt a little squeamish about imposing sanctions, so he gave them "the benefit of the doubt" as "officers of the Court". I don't think he'll be giving them the "benefit of the doubt" next time.... and knowing these lawyers, there will be a next time.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[LWATCDR]

"But watching a movie you were never planning on buying anyways is NOT stealing." If it isn't worth paying for is it worth watching? Sorry but that just justifying it. I don't think people have the legal right to take it for free because they don't think it is worth the price the owners want.

And yes I can oppose the RIAA and MPAA and the media companies left right and sideways and still support the idea that people shouldn't pirate stuff. The RIAA and MPAA are trying to take away peoples rights. I really don't like that but the real truth is downloading a torrent of a movie IS NOT fighting the abuses of the RIAA and MPAA. It is just pirating a movie you want to see but don't want to pay for.