Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the luddite-encouragement dept.

637

boarder8925 writes "Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."

cancel ×

637 comments

Two words, please!!!! (5, Funny)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633284)

Punitive Damages !!!!

Don't jump to conclusions (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633357)

This woman does laundry a lot and has no dryer, so she hangs her clothes to dry. When the RIAA said she was using an "online distribution system" to make plaintiff's music files available, they were not referring to a computer; what they meant was that she is often heard whistling copyrighted songs while she hangs clothes on the line; hence, "online distribution system." Typical slashbots rush to this criminal's defense when it is clear she was openly and shamelessly stealing music and she was caught red-handed. Meanwhile, the RIAA music executives are being deprived of a living (or at least of a third yacht) thanks to the lawless actions of such criminals. Eventually this will kill music, as the RIAA warned us about home taping so long ago -- why would an artist bother creating or recording new songs when any old lady can just come by forty years later and whistle it without paying the company that distributes your cds a dime?

Re:Don't jump to conclusions (5, Funny)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633388)

her neighbor listens too, thus, public exhibition- an even more severe offense.

Re:Two words, please!!!! (1)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633545)

Two better words:

Vexatious Litigant

Look it up...you'll find it works almost as well as

Disbarred Assholes

That's pretty shocking. (5, Funny)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633289)

I mean she's NEVER used a computer?

Re:That's pretty shocking. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633301)

Me neither.

Re:That's pretty shocking. (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633309)

I mean she's NEVER used a computer?

Maybe she is 80 years old. Personal computers started to become practical when she turned 60. She has always been a Home Health Aide, and has never had to fill out an online timesheet or purchase order.

I am sure there are lots of people like that out there, just that us geeks are not aways aware of them.

Re:That's pretty shocking. (5, Insightful)

hhawk (26580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633498)

Sounds like some one in her home used her name/credit to buy Net Access leading them to sue her rather than whoever used the computer. Or perhaps this is a case of an identity thef!

It is also of course factually wrong that she has never used a computer. People use them all the them. There are embedded system in microwaves, ovens, washing machines, medical devices, etc. It would be impossible for anyone but the Unibomber to have never used anything that contained a computer... of course they mean personal computer/PC.. well, they should say that..

Re:That's pretty shocking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633549)

Only the very pedantic would call using something with an embedded processor "using a computer". To even argue it would be idiotic (yes I realise this is Slashdot)

Re:That's pretty shocking. (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633505)

As improbable as it may seem, there remain some people who exist outside of the modern economy.

I, for example, have never used a lawyer.

Re:That's pretty shocking. (5, Funny)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633550)

I mean she's NEVER used a computer?
I know... like, how the hell does she pirate music and have meaningless arguments with strangers?

How... (5, Interesting)

Parham (892904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633294)

How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me... It just goes to show you that you can't get away from the RIAA even if you've never used a computer in your life. They managed to find one of only a handful of people who has never used a computer and sue her... I should be scared for my parents right now.

Re:How... (3, Insightful)

Flyboy Connor (741764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633443)

How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me...

Oh, that is simple. The RIAA imagines that everyone uses a computer and shares music, and is therefore a thief. And when they have convinced themselves of that, they just have to open the phonebook and pick any name to sue.

Re:How... (4, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633454)

"How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me..."

Probably one of her kids, or somebody in her hourse, was doing the actual file trading, and this woman's name happens to be on the cable or phone bill.

Re:How... (3, Funny)

Basehart (633304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633500)

She's obviously lying, or demented.

Trading files all night long, then helping houses or whatever during the day.

It happens all the time!

Digg repost (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633296)

Wasn't this posted to digg a few hours ago with almost the same wording?

Re:Digg repost (0, Offtopic)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633305)

"Wasn't this posted to digg a few hours ago with almost the same wording?"

So?

Re:Digg repost (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633465)

Uh, well it suggests that the so-called 'Editors' here at Slashdot have only two sources: Digg, and, of course, Roland Piquepaille...

Attorneys fees (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633298)

Looks like a nice steady income awaits Mr Morlan Rogers.

Never used a computer? (1)

Himuanam (852822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633300)

And the RIAA executive thought he was just having another wet dream!

RIAA's investigative methods (5, Insightful)

bombboyer (948246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633302)

Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods? Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth, she has in fact never touched a computer in her life, therefore she has not downloaded the music in question. Meaning she has been FALSLY IDENTIFIED by the RIAA's investigative methods (whatever those may consist of).

My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (4, Interesting)

Carthag (643047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633310)

I can't even begin to figure out how they would identify her as a "pirate". I thought they usually went by IP addresses and such, but how can you tie one to someone who doesn't have a computer?

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (3, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633333)

identity theft perhaps? (i dunno, just a possibility)

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (5, Interesting)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633358)

Name similarity.

My mother used to get all kinda of harrasing phone calls
because there was a women on her street with the same
first and last name. The collections people would
see on in ,
and that was that.

And they would always assume that what she was telling them
was a lie to get them off her back.

IP (4, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633378)

Yeah but when they come to break down your door they need a geographic address, not an IP address -- presumably the address you signed up for your ISP with. So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name.

Re:IP (2, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633470)

"So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name."

Yup... like one of her kids. Remember when you were under 18, and your phone and cable bills were in your parent's name?

The RIAA has already sued a lot of parents over the actions of their kids. So far, "I didn't know my kids were using my computer to break the law" has not been an effective loophole.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (3, Interesting)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633317)

Has anyone been convicted? I thought that all of the RIAA cases were either settled or dismissed. Has any of these cases gone the distance?

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633370)

It's not a criminal act.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (5, Funny)

n54 (807502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633321)

"Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods?"

1. Rip pages out of telephone directory
2. Pin to wall as darts target
3. Throw dart
4. Sue based on the result
5. Profit!!!
(6. Repeat)

A tried and true business method :)

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (2, Funny)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633450)

> 1. Rip pages out of telephone directory

You mean I'm immune to the RIAA if I don't have a landline or list my number in the phonebook? :P

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

drstock (621360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633541)

It would have been a hell of a lot funnier if it wasn't true.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633372)

what does this mean to those that have already been convicted?

Who's been convicted of piracy by the RIAA? There are plenty of people who've settled for $3000 or whatever.

I've had it with this nonsense. I don't buy CDs from RIAA affiliates anymore and neither should anyone else.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633459)

I igree, boycot RIAA altogether, meaning don't pirate the music either.

Check your CD's/songs: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com]

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (5, Interesting)

mano_k (588614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633391)

I remember reading about someone working for one of the big record labels in Germany letting something slip about the RIAA's tactics.

He hinted that it was in their interessed to create such absurd cases so their "hunt for pirates" stayed in the news. If nothing like that happens, people will forget the whole thing and start downloading again, as the papers will not print headlines "RIAA still hunting!" a few month after the first anouncements.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

Imsdal (930595) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633555)

I call urban legend on that.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633392)

My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted?

No one's been convicted, as no one has been arrested. That is, the RIAA bringing a suit against you is a civil matter, not criminal.

So most of those the RIAA have accused have settled. I personally wonder if a few refused to play ball and vowed to fight back in a public way and the RIAA quietly settled with them in exchange for their silence. I would guess-- but of course I have nothing to back this up so take it with a grain of salt-- that the RIAA knows they have a good thing going in that they have generated enough publicity to scare the casual downloaders (for example, parents are certainly paying more attention to what their kids are doing) and don't want to rock the boat by losing a high profile case.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (3, Interesting)

Kuukai (865890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633400)

Presumably the RIAA actually offers "overwhelming evidence" against the people it brings to court, which probably amounts to a fast-talking lawyer. I wish she would have waited until the last possible minute to disclose this piece of information before court, once the RIAA had its (marked) cards on the table she might have caught them lying through their teeth. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the process works, it's probable the RIAA needs to submit that evidence in order to accuse her. In which case, I hope the judge looks over the RIAA's papers very carefully...

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (4, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633413)

"Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth..."

"My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed..."

The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do.

"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"

The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

bombboyer (948246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633433)

Except in this case, it looks like it is feasible that the lawyer is telling the truth. She's 80 years old, PCs didn't become widespread (and ceratinly not practical) until she was about 60. I know plenty of 80 year olds in nursing homes that still listen to the RADIO, because they prefer it to TV. Not everyone is moving as rapidly into the "technology age" as Slashdot readers.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (4, Funny)

Plunky (929104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633473)

Well, I'm not going to inquire what kind of social life *you* have if you claim to know plenty of 80 year olds in nursing homes..

but funny aside, I am half that age and I listen to the radio, I prefer it to TV too!

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

bombboyer (948246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633452)

In addition, courts of law make extensive use of previous decisions as guidelines and precidence for current cases. See Sony v. Betamax [wikipedia.org] for an example.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (2, Interesting)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633517)

See the thing about people who follow the law blindly and don't realize that it should always be followed in spirit not letter is that they act holier than thou while at the same time breaking almost as many rules.

Somewhere in your dark little mind is the niggling sensation "At least I'm not as bad as..." as you break EULA's don't read legal agreements, break driving laws, don't file every item on your income taxes... etc.

Have you had your car checked for emissions? Might want to do that EVERY day...

These law suits are charging people who wouldn't be buying the product anyway and unlike stealing they aren't costing the recording industry anything except better publicity and a few initial sales.

The truth is Britney is a big star on radio and TV but she won't be on the internet, while these people are downloading music from these mainstream artists they are keeping their industry alive instead of building it's replacement.

These lawsuits are very much like witch trials, charging people for something society doesn't really know anything about and hasn't decided what to do about because they're afraid it's going to get out of control.

In this case the music industry is done,it's over,finished, kaput... so people aren't going to stop pirating until the next musical economy starts up.

The chances of that new economy having space for lexus driving, music hating, marketting statistic driven executives is pretty slim and for most of the people on slashdot... We don't care. We won't miss them, they're not on stage they aren't doing sound checks and they aren't really helping to encourage artists who are great.

What they are doing is building a marketing machine to ensure only their music reaches your ears... these lawsuits are just a continuation of that.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1, Offtopic)

CZA2006 (901842) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633419)

Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?
She said ARRR!!! But I don't think I've fingered you.. Or at least I hope not.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (1)

wrmrxxx (696969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633460)

what does this mean to those that have already been convicted?

Hardly anyone (or maybe no-one?) has been convicted. They've just settled and paid damages because they can't compete with the RIAA's legal budget. If things never get tried in court, justice is not really done - it's just bullying. Punishing someone that has obviously done no wrong doesn't seem much worse than punishing someone who has never been shown to be guilty, as they should both be considered innocent.

Re:RIAA's investigative methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633508)

"incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate"
not an image I wanted with my morning cup of coffee.
aaaarrrgghhh jim lad.

TV License Parallel (5, Interesting)

chris_bloke (738605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633306)

Reminds me of a colleague back in the UK who was taken to court for not paying his TV license fee - when asked what his defence was he responded "I don't own one".

Apparently the judge was not amused with the prosecution for not having bothered to do even this minimal check!

If this is the case (pardon the pun) with this action then I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down. Shame on them.

Re:TV License Parallel (5, Informative)

alan.briolat (903558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633383)

... I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down.
Yes, we could hope that. The same way we hope for it every other time they do something REALLY stupid. Instead they will most likely drop charges, pay fees, and make up some story about how they were the "good guys" in all this allowing this person to not be financially ruined. If it was a normal person bring a claim against the defendant, it would be thrown out, but the RIAA keeps a few people in the legal system employed with the number of high-profile cases they keep bringing, so it isn't in their (the court's) best interest to publically humiliate one of their sources of work.

In a fair world this would be subject to a painful (for the RIAA) counter-suit. But then again, in a fair world you wouldn't have corporations running around bankrupting whoever they felt like just to make an example of them in the first place.

I for one welcome our new Corporate Overlords [riaa.com] ! Oh, they aren't new...

Re:TV License Parallel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633502)

In a fair world this would be subject to a painful (for the RIAA) counter-suit.
s/fair/litigous/

Re:TV License Parallel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633397)

Embarrassed? You don't know the RIAA.

Re:TV License Parallel (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633511)

To be fair, I've been in the same situation. They send a few letters (4 or 5). They come around to the house. They send a final notice with instructions on how to notify them that you don't have a TV, and then they eventually issue a summons. I assume your friend was just as much of an arsehole as we were, and wanted to "stick it to the man". Hell, we were students, what was his excuse ?

Back then (more years ago than I care to remember) it seemed pretty damn funny. These days, I (almost :-) blush to recall what we got up to ... all part of growing up I suppose.

We railed against the system for forcing us to pay for a licence that we might not have wanted (actually there were 3 TV's in the house, just none when the TV inspectors came with their warrants). It wasn't right. There were plenty of opportunities to correct any mistake. Frankly it became something of a game *because* there were so many hoops you had to jump through to get to court... We had a daily bulletin-board message about it... yeah, this was before things like /. ...

I guess the point I'm making is that you can disagree with the TV licence (but those that do don't tend to be those subjected to US TV!), but you have to go out of your way to actually be prosecuted. Frankly, given how easy it is to circumvent prosecution, I'm amazed *anyone* is successfully prosecuted...

Simon

Re:TV License Parallel (5, Funny)

15Bit (940730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633527)

I remember a friend got a uk speeding ticket with a similar absence of checks. The events went along the lines of:

1. Fixed penalty ticket arrives.

2. Friend posts back a denial that he was not at the stated place on the stated day.

3. System replies, stating that his blue whatnot car with registration plate XYZ was clearly photographed by a speed camera at given location. Please see included picture.

4. Friend replies again, stating again that he was nowhere the place and could they please review included picture of Red MOTORCYCLE, registration XYZ.

5. Silence.

idiots... (0, Troll)

scchu (513182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633311)

idiots...

Re:idiots... (0, Troll)

trezor (555230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633354)

Greedy idiots is more like it.

I hope they get smacked bad for this one.

not having ever used a computer (3, Funny)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633314)

i'm assuming she doesn't have broadband either. what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are.

Re:not having ever used a computer (2, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633462)

"i'm assuming she doesn't have broadband either. what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are."

A much more likely scenario is that somebody else in her household was doing the file trading, and her name happened to be on the cable or phone bill. It's a very common scenario for the cable or phone bill to be in the name of an adult (typically a parent or guardian), while a child or teenager uses the Internet connection to do something the parent/guardian doesn't know about. Might be downloading porn, might be sharing MP3 files. But it happens... a lot.

Re:not having ever used a computer (1)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633499)

Then they actually can't sue the woman for something she hasn't done, can they? I mean, they might have some [bogus?] evidence that there was actual file trading over that line, but they can't sue her for it. It's like she getting charged with murder because there was one at her place.

If they happened to find the trader (say, her child, grandchild, whatever), and she's legally in charge of him, they could sue him and she'd get responsible for it. But then, they'd have to identify who was it.

They can't sue anyone blindly (warning: "can't" means "should not be able to in a world that makes sense") and hope to get away with it by burying them in bureaucracy and lawyer talk... right?

Re:not having ever used a computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633475)

what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are.


They pinged her from 666.666.666.666, obviously. Evil knoweth and obeyeth not the 8 bit field constraint.

Will this work?? (4, Insightful)

MagicDude (727944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633316)

Can this work? The entire request to dismiss the case was one paragraph, with only one sentence stating that the defendant never used a computer. Wouldn't some investigation or proof be required in order for a case to be dismissed?

Re:Will this work?? (1)

chris_bloke (738605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633328)

It's very hard to prove a negative - in this case I would hope that it now falls on the prosecution to provide some rebuttal to this - which (if what the letter says is correct) may be fairly hard..

Re:Will this work?? (2, Insightful)

ZenShadow (101870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633330)

I would think that some sort of evidence or proof would be required to prevent the case from being dismissed. But that's just me.

--S

Re:Will this work?? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633361)

Does presumption of innocence apply here? I guess that's mostly for criminal trials, but still, I can't see the judge requiring the defendent to spend a ton of money for a lawyer over such a relatively trivial issue.

Re:Will this work?? (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633366)

Television should not be construed as legal advive. The burden of proof is upon the RIAA - she is not required to prove she didn't do something; instead, they are required to find the evidence she did use a computer and downloaded songs during the times they specified. If she wins, her case could be used as precedent to dismiss other similar cases. She may also countersue for malicious prosecution, depending on the facts of the case and jusrisdiction. The parts of the American legal system that haven't been gutted by Jorge Doublevee Busch and his corporate owners are still pretty solidly in favor of the defendant.

Re:Will this work?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633410)

Not so fast here. She is trying to get a summary dismissal. Right now presumably the RIAA has enough evidence (IP address, name, street address, list of songs) to go to trial. Of course, discovery would show that it's not her, but that would have to happen first.

In other words, this case will be dismissed, but not summarilly.

dom

What went wrong? (2, Interesting)

baburas (811649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633318)

She has never used a computer?
Does she have internet access?
How could she use the 'online distribution system'?

Questions over questions....

The only one who knows is RIAA.....

Well she... (2, Funny)

Himuanam (852822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633322)

Must've been humming the tunes in her head - either that or she was talking on the phone while the radio was playing in the background, that's transmission of copyrighted material over a digital medium, string her up!

How did the RIAA find her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633329)

Maybe they use a special version of RARP reverse DNS or something.

L I N D O R
108-105-110-114

Nope cant be that.
uhm...

How much longer will this crap last? (2, Interesting)

v3c7r0n (924749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633336)

So if the lady has never used or purchased a pc, what grounds is the suit filed on again? I mean, what, was she pirating music the way it was done BEFORE the age of computers (namely with a boombox, a blank tape, and the trusty record button)?

oh wait...lemme guess...some kid next in the lane next to her at a red light was playing a burned cd full of pirated music at full volume and thus she's listening to pirated music? This is ridiculous...the RIAA has gone beyond the wildest stretches of "you gotta be f*cking kidding me" with this one.

Kinda makes me WANT to priate music, just so when they haul me into court I can look them in the eye, verbally crucify them, and then spit in said eye for wasting my time, the judges time, my lawyer's time, and tax dollars.

When the hell are all these companies going to learn that piracy isnt going away, EVER. I mean, they can complain about DVD piracy, but what about back before DVD's when all it took was 2 VCRs? or previously stated music piracy method?

I'm starting to think the pirates are viewing the way they RIAA has come down on piracy as just the music industry "thumbing their nose" at them.

Great lengths to uphold copyright law (3, Insightful)

2e (93074) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633339)

This just goes to show you the great lengths to which the RIAA will go to protect their interests and punish those who violate the law.
The RIAA will not be distracted by 'facts' or other nonsense in its relentless pursuit of justice!

"customer": 'but I've never even used a computer!'
RIAA: 'la la la - I can't hear you!'

Steve

Oh come on (0, Troll)

evildogeye (106313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633342)

I'll believe anything the RIAA says before I believe a person could live a life without ever once using a computer.

Re:Oh come on (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633365)

I'll believe anything the RIAA says before I believe a person could live a life without ever once using a computer.

My in-laws (67 & 72 years old, born in Malaysia) have never used a computer of any kind, other than pressing the walk button at traffic lights, playing poker machines and playing video tapes and DVD's on normal consumer equipment set up by myself or another relative.

Maybe you were joking and I missed it. Lots of older people that I can think of would never use any kind of personal or work computer.

Re:Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633377)

I'm absolutely certain that my grandparents never have (excluding things like EFT-POS terminals and ATMs... but you can't exactly download music off of those)

That's it (2, Funny)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633343)

I've had it with this country and it's legal system, and this stupid Internet thing.

I'm suing Slashdot for wasting wast quantities of my time for the past year.

CmdrTaco, you're goin' down.

Oh noes! (1)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633359)

If her case is true, I hope that the RIAA is forced to explain or show HOW ON EARTH they were led to her.

Re:Oh noes! (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633399)

Oh i fully agree. i want to see the full details.

I wonder if the judge's have the right to hit people with that little hammer they have, if so i would be more than glad to make this judge a new custom one.. nice and weighted,

and i also wonder if this gets thrown out of court based on the RIAA being stupid.. can i as a US citizen sue them for damages as they have knowingly caused a waist of my tax dollors?

hasn't used a computer yet (5, Funny)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633368)

but 3 albino kids soaking in water told the RIAA that this woman was planning on buying a computer to pirate music so they sent tom cruise after her. thank god for these pre-emptive lawsuits!

It just goes to show you ... (5, Funny)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633382)

... nobody expects the RIAA inquisition!

Perhaps this is part of a campaign to instill fear in the hearts of the "guilty" by first stringing up a few obviously innocent people.

Goes to show (3, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633387)

How many times have they said "Well if you don't want to get sued, don't download music!" Explain that statement, in light of THIS!

I hope the court really slaps them one over this. It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking. (I mean, come on now, for godsakes, a dead woman, and now someone who's never used a computer at all?) Where did they pull the IP address out of -this- time? (Never mind, I don't want to know.) This is a massive waste of her time and that of the court, and I hope they get slapped with a good bit worse then attorney's fees. All their suits should be dismissed with prejudice after this garbage.

Re:Goes to show (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633423)

"It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking."

The page you read is that of the woman's lawyers. They're paid to make you think she's innocent. Looks like they're doing their job well. The ironic thing is that you're accusing somebody else of not doing the most basic of fact checking!

I don't get it..... (1, Insightful)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633393)

This lawsuit must just be a mistake since the lady never used a computer. If that's the case, why is this even newsworthy? They probably just messed up. It happens. That's what independant judicial system is there for.

Re:I don't get it..... (3, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633442)

This lawsuit must just be a mistake since the lady never used a computer. If that's the case, why is this even newsworthy? They probably just messed up. It happens. That's what independant judicial system is there for.

For two reasons:

1 - If this is a frivilous, baseless lawsuite in which the sued person is innocoent (extremely innocent, if one can use such a term), then how many other lawsuits, even those that have been extorted... urr... settled... were also made against innocent people?

2 - Sure, the law of averages saw that eventually one might file a completely wrong lawsuit like this. But then how many lawsuits are the RIAA filing in order to be able to hit this long-long-long shot? This isn't just an "oops, we mispelled her last name" type thing. This is way, way, way to the edge of the curve. And that means, also according to the law of averages, that there are TONS of other suits they've filed that are also "not quite accurate".

So, if it can be shown that the RIAA is filling a signifiant amount of lawsuits that range from innacurate to completely baseless, then what does that say about their abuse of the independent judicial system? It could leave them open for a massive countersuit on behalf of everyone who the RIAA has ever sued.

After all, if THEY can file suits in a court system that enters guilty pleas without the need for "beyond a shadow of a doubt", why can't we? As long as we can show that it's plausible that the RIAA has been extorting people, then we can sue them for, shall we say $500,000 per person?

Re:I don't get it..... (1)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633488)

then how many other lawsuits... were also made against innocent people?

If there are many, then yes I agree it's newsworthy. A single lawsuit is not proof that there are many.

This isn't just an "oops, we mispelled her last name" type thing.

How do you know? It very well could be actually. Even if it's not that, maybe her grandson who lives in her house was downloading a boat load of music and the RIAA traced the ip to her house? That's equally likely, isn't it? Without knowing why the RIAA sued her we shouldn't rush to judgement about the RIAA's guilt. It could very well be that the RIAA did something wrong here, but there are explinations that could explain why they sued her.

Truth in blurb? (5, Insightful)

beoswulf (940729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633395)

Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?

Re:Truth in blurb? (1)

Sneftel (15416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633430)

Not that I can find... which lends credence to your theory. The e-muckraker's recipe for success: decontextualize a non-event so it sounds maddeningly absurd, and reap the perceived veracity of your claims when the mainstream media don't bother to report on the non-event at all. (For bonus points: Berate the mainstream media for being in bed with whoever it is you don't like.)

Re:Truth in blurb? (4, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633432)

"Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?"

THANK YOU.

I have no idea what the full story is here. None of us do. But what I do know is that the page linked to in the writeup is that of the defendant's lawyer.

It's the lawyer's job to convince you of their client's innocence. They don't need to be fair and balanced. They don't even need to be accurate, if it promotes their agenda and helps them win the case.

It's really quite sad that so many people are reading a statement by a lawyer handling a case -- and thus whose motivation should be clear -- and are just swallowing it like it's gospel truth. Slashdotters are usually smarter than this.

Re:Truth in blurb? (1)

Flyboy Connor (741764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633472)

Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases.

Yeah, but that is the point, isn't it? The RIAA just randomly pick someone to sue, and then go try to get the case together after the fact. "You are breathing, so you must steal music. It is just a question of determining how you are doing that." And with enough lawyers, against someone who cannot afford a lawyer, they are going to win, or at least scare the person they are sueing into settling out of court.

The RIAA, and every other institution for that matter, should have sufficient grounds to sue a particular person, not just the fact that they know their name and where they live.

Stop contributing to this problem (1)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633405)

Stop contributing to the problem by buying media distributed by evil corporations. Share all the music you already have with all your friends and then buy your new music from the artists themselves, or make your own and give it away or try to sell it. Promote it yourself online. We don't need record companies anymore.

Re:Stop contributing to this problem (1)

archevis (634851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633561)

Yeah, we can always download the rest from the Inte...

Wow, who said that?

Helpful in future lawsuits? (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633428)

Can others sued by them use this to show that the RIAA is suing people at random with allegations that are hard to disprove and no real evidence and get their cases dismissed?

Similar to earlier case (4, Insightful)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633431)

This has similarities to the Santangelo case [slashdot.org] we discussed last year. There, the mother of four denied that she had ever used a file sharing program or downloaded any of the music the RIAA claimed.

Here is an article that describes recent news in that case:

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/200 6/01/26/ap2481064.html [forbes.com]

However her defense has changed slightly:
The Wappingers Falls woman says she never downloaded any songs and if it was done on her computer by her children or their friends it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it.
Ah, yes... the old "it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it" defense. I wonder how well that one will fly.

Apparently Santangelo is receiving all kinds of donations from big hearted Internet file traders but frankly it looks like money down the drain to me. There is no way she is going to win when she's already basically admitting that she failed to supervise her kids and their friends when they were using her computer.

As far as this new case, who wants to bet that it won't turn out the same way? The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions! Saying "I didn't do it" won't help if it's your kids, like what appears to be the case with Santangelo.

Re:Similar to earlier case (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633495)

How can one supervise what one cannot understand (excepting Management et all)? You'd think there would be some sort of "contextual mental age" measurement for determining who was more lucid of the dangers present.

Lost profits! (5, Funny)

Nephrite (82592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633464)

Seriously, if she never used a computer then she didn't buy any media or software, so media producers lost profits. That's even worse than pirates 'cuz hardware manufacutrers lose profits either! Jail her now.

I know what they're really after.. (3, Funny)

Kohaku Nanaya (945240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633468)

Since they first sued a dead woman for copyright infringement, and now they're suing a woman for the same thing that does not have a computer. I can put these facts together, and come up with this idea: The RIAA is really a ghost hunting organization. First the dead woman (a ghost!), and now a nonexistant computer (a ghost!). These clearly show their hidden agenda :)

iPod listener? (2, Funny)

buldir (951689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633489)

I bet she also listens to her iPod with the volume up way too high.

It can be explained... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633494)

...perhaps she's from Soviet Russia?

Totally legal absurdum (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633503)

I don't get. They want legal system go down in smokes? It is total massive abuse of court system at it's best. Maybe we should start to sue everyone who breathes the air?

Gosh. Such shortsightness...

FutureCrime Strikes Again (1)

Shacky (948434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633533)

Perhaps someone at the RIAA had just finished watching "Minority Report" and got a bit wide-eyed at all the money they could make by using that method with this? :)

Re:FutureCrime Strikes Again (1)

Kohaku Nanaya (945240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14633542)

Yeah, no kidding. Though in Minority Report it was called "PreCrime" IIRC.

Not unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633554)

I have never used a computer either. This woman is not guilty.

#irc.trooltalk.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14633560)

than 7his BSD box, to you by Penisbird will not work. And More gay than they We'll be able to Around return it you should bring Code sharing of a solid dose I know it sux0rs,
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...