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."
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone (Score:2, Insightful)
...but what does her state of health have to do with anything?
Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
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.
How is their health relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Wait, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's unconceivable that a sick person would illegally download music?
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:IANAL, so a question (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:nt (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:0, Insightful)
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: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:What is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, people who serve papers can easily lie.
Re:nt (Score:1, Insightful)
Not proof of course but it will be easy enough for the lawyer to check it and bring it to court. Between that and the fact that it is a common stunt amongst the poor to open an account in their child's name when their own credit is messed up already, I would tend to believe them here. That putting their child's credit at risk is more acceptable when it means getting water/sewer, gas or electricity turned on where the child is living then it is for snagging internet or utilities for themselves away from where the child lives.
Would be nice if this being in the news brought some attention to the girl from the Pirates, the Steelers or some charity etc, sounds like they need more help then just getting this copyright infringement case cleared up.
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: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.
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:To Play Devil's Advocate... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think it's fair that a Ferrari costs several hundred grand. I don't think it's fair that the cops'll track me down and arrest me if I steal one from a forecourt
Could you please explain to me what theft has got to do with copyright infringement?
Re:What does one have to do with the other? (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 information that is available and decide if she could have responded to the court, if the answer is no then the decision case should be reopened if she could reasonably responded then the decision should stand.
Re:How is their health relevant? (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:To Play Devil's Advocate... (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.
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?
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?
Re:kdawsonfud (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
and you can jam your fucking morals. that's god speak. you probably want id taught in biology classes too. mercy is for weak little bible beaters.
No, it's not "god speak". It's character, a trait you clearly lack (along with the ability to reason, humor, empathy).
Bravado is not a substitute for strength.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think calling what the RIAA is doing economic terrorism would be any kind of a stretch.
Re:How is their health relevant? (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: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:Yes it does matter IMHO (Score:1, Insightful)
no 'small guy' should ever be sued by a whole team of lawyers.
I think you are on to something there.
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: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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why doesn't somebody countersue them (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the MAFIAA isn't interested in willing anal.
Re:kdawsonfud (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:What is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you mean 'sadly'? It's good it works that way. Otherwise, anyone guilty in any civil case could simply not respond and escape liability.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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:hmm... (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.
Re:What is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm defending the RIAA.
Then what were you doing?
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:4, Insightful)
Why not just use real bullets ? That would be a public service act!
Re:How is their health relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except their are legally responsible for knowing who they are suing
No they aren't. They're legally responsible for providing evidence that the defendant did what they're accusing them of doing. They have no need to do research on the defendant's health, finances, or anything.
the default ruling is a result of failure on the RIAA's part to put forward a legitimate case.
No, the default judgment is a result of the defendant's failure to show up. The RIAA hadn't even gotten to the point where they had to prove their case (legitimate or otherwise).