The 83-Year-Old Dead File Swapper 446
93,000 writes "Gertrude Walton, a deceased eighty-three-year-old woman, was named as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a group of record companies. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name 'smittenedkitten.' Needless to say, the suit has since been dropped."
From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
At least the RIAA is better than a lawyer, here's the age old joke.
What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
The hooker stops after your dead.
Be careful with those lawyer jokes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Be careful with those lawyer jokes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's more to the story (Score:3, Interesting)
The two guys would stand in line with the public, and tell lawyer jokes at the lawyers as they exercised their special privilege.
It was a form of protest: it is unfair that "some people are more special than others".
Which, frankly, I can agree with.
How would you deal this: some idiot decides to se
Re:From TFA (Score:2)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Well, one thing's for sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Remember: Every time you share a song, a kitten dies...
Re:Well, one thing's for sure... (Score:4, Funny)
"Remember: Every time you share a song, a kitten dies..."
Don't you mean that every time you share a song, a 'smittenedkitten' dies?They dropped the case? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you Joking!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They dropped the case? (Score:2)
Re:They dropped the case? (Score:2)
Re:They dropped the case? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They dropped the case? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They dropped the case? (Score:3, Funny)
Because the woman was too hard.
Well that's (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well that's (Score:5, Funny)
Dead people do.
Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:2)
Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:2)
Re:Gertrude Walton has been up to a lot of things (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks! You've saved us all!
Re:Actually, she could have (Score:3, Funny)
she only died on December 11
Only? That seems like a fairly important event of a lifetime to me.
Let that be a lesson to you, (Score:5, Funny)
Remember kids (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let that be a lesson to you, (Score:5, Funny)
Cause of death? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cause of death? (Score:5, Funny)
let this be a lesson to all!
Re:Cause of death? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cause of death? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cause of death? (Score:4, Funny)
let it go to court! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article: Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.
She should have let the whole thing go to court. It would make the RIAA look far sillier when a computer illiterate dead woman's name is cleared in front of a judge rather than before hand.
Re:let it go to court! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:let it go to court! (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL (Surprise, surprise, surprise!), but I'd think the judge would be rather upset if one of the parties could have taken simple, reasonable, steps, that would have a good chance of the suit being dropped before hogging the court's time. Faxing a death certificate looks like a simple, reasonable, step. (Personally, I'dve sent a notarized copy by registered mail as well).
Armed with that evidence, the defense would probably have a good chance at having the case dropped with prejudice by a pissed off judge if the plaintiff decided to pursue it anyway.
Re:let it go to court! (Score:3, Informative)
Although corporations own nearly every facet of American life, we are still free to ignore correspondence from them. Subpeonas are still necessary to compel a response.
It wouldn't have been thrown out (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA didn't need to drop the case just because the defendant was dead.
However, this was mostly a PR case. The lawsuite was not filed with the purpose of recovering damages. The real reason they filed the case was as a PR suit to make an example of the person and with the person being dead, the only PR results would have been to make them look like bigger scum than they already do. That's why they withdrew the case.
Re:It wouldn't have been thrown out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:let it go to court! (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is she was probably responsible for taking care her Mom's estate. Not responding to the RIAA would just make things more difficult. She would have to make sure the Estate was represented in court. Worse case scenario, they sue the Estate and end up taking everything (if she had anything left) that should have gone to her family.
Re:let it go to court! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm being serious. If she had any estate of any value, even just a house worth say $50,000 - $100,000 - a claim can be made against the estate. There is a period of time after the death that any claims can be made (usually medical bills, etc.). Once that time period has past, the no claims can be made. That's why lawyers often get involved with Estates, especially if the person that died was well off (and a paid-off house, even if it is of modest value, is worth protecting).
Once the claim is mad
Re:let it go to court! (Score:5, Funny)
She was like, "You have to, its the law. Otherwise she won't be excused from jury duty. Make sure you get this finished within two days, and you better call ahead to find out what documents you need to bring with you."
I stated that I had in fact done them a favor, but it wasn't my problem, it was their problem.
She sputtered. "But you have to. You can't expect your mother to fill out her own paperwork to excuse herself from jury duty, she's dead! Someone has to do this!"
I agreed that someone had to do something, but it wasn't my concern. She was still sputtering self-importantly when I said goodbye and hung up.
Re:let it go to court! (Score:3, Informative)
I had assumed that she was the executor of the estate, otherwise, you (and other posters) are correct in that there was no compelling reason for her to respond.
As for not having to respond, without a summons, this is likely true, but I still think that a j
Re:let it go to court! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, you do.
Civil suits against deceased persons can easily be refiled against their estates, and if the suit is sucessfull, there is now a claim against the estate. Guess what, you just inherited a loss against your inheritance (though it can't exceed it).
Further more, while the executor does not inherit the suit, they have a fiducary duty to the estate to handle it when the estate is served. This can be a real problem because if the executor does not handle it "properly" (i.e. gives up and settles without a fight), the beneficaries can have a good case for suing the executor. It can turn into a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of problem for the executor: spend too much of the estates assets in defense and get sued. Spend too little, and lose the case, and get sued. Furthermore the will may limit the executor's freedoms in responding (though this can be a blessing for the executor as they can't be held liable for performance of duty if they are restrained from performing said duty).
It should have been obvious when mentioning defendents that I was referring to all present (deceased) and possible future defendents (the estate) in this case.
The bottom line is that judges do not like to see their courts clogged with frivolous cases because some now-present defendent blew off a plaintif. Due process is slow, and while necessary to protect everyone's rights, takes up the court's time (well the time of court clerks until a case comes to trial). Most reasonable people try to stave off likely problems they see on the horizon. I can not see the court looking disfavourably at a defendent that took steps to try to avert a trial for a case without merit.
Wow, just wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frivolous lawsuits are destroying America! (Score:5, Insightful)
carry on...
Re:Wow, just wow... (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04, @02:54PM (#11575442)
No. Why should they be?*
you stupid? when they filed that stuff they made a 'promise' that they had done their homework on the case and had proof that the defendant did it.
you don't care if they waste your tax money either?
Re:Wow, just wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you sue a company pro se for a piddling amount in small claims court only to have that company turn around and sue you for a much larger amount in retribution, knowing full well you can't afford to defend against the action and knowing it will force you to drop the original suit, you might
I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
It doesn't invalidate the concept of going after file swappers. It does demonstrate that the *AA's don't actually have a clue of how to do it or that it's not very practical.
However, once they demonstrate they're completely incapable of doing it themselves, they'll buy a law that says since they couldn't it's now up to law enfo
Just proves.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just proves.... (Score:5, Funny)
~X~
*bang* flop.
What's more disturbing? (Score:4, Funny)
*shudder* The horror... the horror...
I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.
Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up. :-)
Re:What's more disturbing? (Score:5, Funny)
>*shudder* The horror... the horror...
>I guess she was "smittened" with something terminal.
>Ha hee heh hee... computers... terminal... I crack me up.
"Every time you share an MP3, [RIAA chairman] Mitch Bainwol kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens."
(You want disturbing? I almost typed "Hilary Rosen". My head asplode, my Fark account surrenders, and after a Hilary Rosen dead kitten joke, you really don't want to think about what your dog wants.)
Could have been worse... (Score:2)
*ducks*
the "it wasn't me" defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I don't think anyone's been convicted of anything yet--people have only settled out of court, right?
Re:the "it wasn't me" defense (Score:4, Informative)
You're confusing civil and criminal law. This was a civil case. Criminal cases have convictions and acquittals. Civil cases have judgments for either the plaintiff or defendant.
In reality, this has done nothing to militate against the RIAA's potential success in future lawsuits. This is actually the equivalent of settling out of court, albeit very early on in the process and with no money paid by the defendant.
Yeah, really! (Score:3, Funny)
Tin Foil? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tin Foil? (Score:2)
If that is in RIAA numbers, it means that anyone actually sharing over 120 songs is a target!
Why "needless to say"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why "needless to say"? (Score:2)
However (Score:3, Insightful)
Dead Fileswapper ? (Score:2)
Re:Dead Fileswapper ? (Score:2)
TFA text, site getting slow. (Score:4, Informative)
That did not stop the recording industry from accusing the now deceased 83-year-old Mount Hope woman of illegally trading music over the Internet.
More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name "smittenedkitten."
- advertisement-
On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.
"Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."
Walton's daughter, Robin Chianumba, lived with her mother for the last 17 years of her life and said her mother objected to having a computer in the house. Chianumba said she didn't know anything about the record company's claims. And she said she does not know anything about the screen name.
"My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer," Chianumba said. "My mother wouldn't know how to turn on a computer."
The case demonstrates the imperfections of the record industry's two-year old effort to hunt down and sue people who put hundreds, even thousands, of copyrighted songs onto file-sharing networks on the Internet.
The industry tracks down file-swappers using the Internet Protocol addresses attached to their relatively anonymous screen names.
The IP addresses are useful because they identify computers on the Internet. But investigators cannot use the numeric codes to figure out who is using a particular computer. Often, they can only use the IP address to learn who is getting billed for the computer's Internet service.
In more than a handful of cases, the record industry has sued a person for file-swapping, then later learned that they were really after the defendant's child or grandchild.
Chianumba said she faxed a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company officials several days before the lawsuit was filed. She said she did that in response to a letter from the company regarding the upcoming legal filing.
"I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Chianumba said. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park [where she is buried] to attend the hearing. I don't know if this is a scheme to get money, I just don't know what's going on. I am concerned."
- advertisement-
When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.
Could smittenedkitten be one of them? The RIAA declined to say.
To contact staff writer Toby Coleman, use e-mail or call 348-5156.
Old P2Per mind trick! (Score:3, Funny)
Weak-minded fool!
smittenedkitten (Score:5, Funny)
Re:smittenedkitten (Score:2)
Smittenedkitten is dead?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!? (Score:2)
Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!? (Score:3, Funny)
literally!
Re:Smittenedkitten is dead?!? (Score:3, Funny)
Good for Gertrude (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good for Gertrude (Score:2)
Re:Good for Gertrude (Score:3, Insightful)
Shocking. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Total BS! I hope Bush will fix this! (Score:3, Funny)
This needs legislation!
Just because you die doesn't mean that you shouldn't be sued!
She shouldn't have downloaded Videodrome... (Score:2)
Grandma Walton... (Score:2)
John-boy, wipe that grin off'n yer face!
The RIAA's legal counsel (Score:4, Insightful)
One wonders how a big, powerful law firm staffed with smart people could have made such an enormous blunder, if in fact Jenner & Block was the firm doing the work on this.
I'd be interested to find out how many lawyers the RIAA employs and/or keeps on retainer.
Well they don't keep musicians on retainer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Long dead musicians or fools who signed their rights away are the RIAA's stoc in thare.
Anything 'new' is hyped, churned, produced in such a way as to bankrupt he musician (see/hear Wall*Mart,) and put into the remainder bin.
That's why you have Golden Oldies stations.
It ain't good music. Its merely the most profitable.
The RIAA is to music what a Mortician is to a beauty parlor.
Damn (Score:2)
Man, smittenedkitten is dead? Where the hell am I going to get that Benny Goodman and Frank Sinatra now? I am so bummed. Damn mortality anyway.
Sole defendant (Score:2)
When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.
If the RIAA had done a little more research, they could have had 55 defendants instead of 1.
Anyone who disagrees with the RIAAs tactics should boycott legal music downloads on April 1, 2005.
Netcraft Confirms (Score:2)
...sorry, I just can't finish this crap joke.
inspiring (Score:4, Funny)
I'm just glad Walton had the balls to demand a trial rather than knuckling under and paying the typical $3,000 settlement.
What’s the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the point of this being on slashdot.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what the ravenous morons on this site will now scream, the RIAA was collecting information and planning BEFORE she died. They just happened to file the lawsuit AFTER she died. They got the wrong person, yes, but it's only coincidence that she happened to be dead by the time they actually filed the suit.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2, Interesting)
But it was not a coincidence that she was the wrong person (actually they knew she was dead because the death certificate was sent to record officials before the suit was filed, they are even more ridiculous).
Re:They don't know who they are even suing (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the feeling they don't care. Just grab an IP off the log and sue it. Who cares if it's the actual file sharer or not, we deserve compensation.
Re:**AA (Score:2)
Nevermind: (Score:2)
The truth about stem cells........ (Score:2)
The only way to stop that is BAN STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Re:Stupid story (Score:2)
The point is that the RIAA failed to take virtually any action to determine whether that somebody actually did anything wrong before suing them.
Re:Stupid story (Score:5, Insightful)
if she was alive, she probably would have had to settle (i.e. pay RIAA money) because if she's like most people, she wouldn't be able to afford to go to the court simply to defend herself.
Re:Could be... (Score:3, Funny)
Instead of a tombstone, I think that a life-size statue of myself sitting on a horse with a sword in my hand would be cool.
Facing forward on the horse would be a plus.
Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yeah. The RIAA is trying to track down anonymous people against whom they have a legitimate beef, but just because they have valid complaints doesn't mean they have a valid complaint against you.
Lawsuits are extremely disruptive, and it's vitally important that the RIAA know who it's suing. If I were to be sued by the RIAA, I have the choice of a lengthy defense (expensive in both my time and money
Re:Nice Slippery Slope Strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Look EMI sent my ISP a nastygram that resulted in my losing internet service for a week. I work from home so this was a real hardship. I had never heard of the bands listed, the IP address listed wasn't even being used at the time, and I've never downloaded a song at home*. Music just doesn't matter much to me.
*I downloaded a public domain performance of a public domain song from Napster when they first started at work just to show my boss how cool the technology was.
Now lets look at losses: about $1000 for me, about $300 in customer acquisition costs for the ISP I dumped for not informing me of the letter they got before cutting off service. For EMI, $1. They obviously just did some brain dead port scan and hired someone not capable of cut and paste to write the nastygram.
This is a case that never went past the nasty-gram stage, just immagine the legal transgressions they are committing on the scale of our economy... I will gladly join a class action against them when it comes. They are impacting the nation in an enormous way. There is only one course of action left open to freedom loving Americans: lawsuits.
As I understand it though, the RIAA has constructed a "repent" clause in to all of their suits which gives you a get-out-of-jail free card in return for a signed promise of non-recidivism.
The innocent are the most impacted by this type of "repent" clause, it reminds me of our broken criminal "justice" system. Punish the innocent, pardon the guilty. It's just not right.
Re:So let's see... (Score:3, Insightful)
sure they are. i post all the time complaining about how the riaa refuses to pay artists the money they deserve, and uses their illegally-gotten and abused monopoly power to strong arm artists into unfair record contracts, followed up by their tried-and-true, proven method of routinely "forgetting" to pay even the pittance they racketeered the artists into agreeing to.
that is, in fact, one of the things that I believe DOES justi
Re:So let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. Just like it's okay to smoke weed. Copyright and prohibition are both wrong. They put the manufacture and distribution into the hands of criminals. I'd rather not deal with criminals. Real businesses have better quality control.
If so, does that mean nobody should bitch in the next "GPL source code theft" article?
Yes. "GPL source code theft" is impossible. There's nothing to stop anyone from using, sharing, giving, selling it. With that in mind, how is any me