×

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 Wants to Depose Dead Defendant's Children

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the stuff-you-can't-believe dept.

560

Exchange writes "In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children. Recording Industry vs The People have more details"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

560 comments

Why? (5, Insightful)

vinividivici (919782) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901046)

The RIAA needs to lay off of the dead guy's kids. Seriously. He's DEAD, RIAA. What else could you want? A cookie?

what do they want? (5, Insightful)

idlake (850372) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901076)

Part of the inheritance, of course. The fact that they guy was rude enough to die before they could get to him doesn't change that he did grave damage to the coffers of the RIAA. Well, at least that's likely their thinking.

What TIME is it kiddies? Why it's UBUNTU time !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901246)


What TIME is it kiddies? Why it's UBUNTU time !! 60 days schmicty days !! Don't cry for me, Argentina !!


GET UBUNTU !! Get it now and stop your grieving FOREVER !!



Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901102)

He's DEAD, RIAA. What else could you want?

Access to the dude's grave to pry his last pirated CD from his cold, dead fingers?

C'mon you file-sharing commie (1, Troll)

lennyhell (869433) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901272)

Give the RIAA guys some breath and don't look so close at them. They are working for us after all, for the artists, so they can give us new Britney and Xtinas. Sure they make some small mistakes from time to time, but... They are right, the law is with them and they will prevail.

Oh, and don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cocksmoking teabaggers.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901120)

The RIAA needs to lay off of the dead guy's kids. Seriously. He's DEAD, RIAA. What else could you want? A cookie?

No, it's not a cookie. The RIAA wanted to hold his beating heart in their hands after taking it out of his chest, which sadly, they can not do now.

So they will send the kids to a nice old lady attorney's house [state.tx.us] made out of gingerbread and candy and to be disposed^H^H^H deposed there.

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901187)

... to be disposed^H^H^H deposed there.

You realize that ^H means backspace? And you only backspaced over three characters. So your text reads as:

"... to be dispo deposed there."

So make it accurate (and only marginally funnier... hey, I have to work with the material I'm given) consider using ^W which erases the whole word:

"... to be disp^Wdeposed there."
 

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901121)

Because they just can't resist any opportunity to drag their reputation through the mud. It does seem, however, that in this case they've decided to take it one step further and have moved on to dragging it through low-grade manure.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

fat man with a monke (869132) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901194)

..have moved on to dragging it through low-grade manure.

Low grade manure? Why, the RIAA has some of the most impressive bullshit I've seen in years!

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901213)

Please ignore my posting as an AC. Please don't give in to a knee-jerk reaction that this proposision is borne of naievite' or ignorance. Just give it a fair consideration.

This particular /. story is but one of many in the continuating iteration of the erosion of the principles that we as a people both hold dear and see as a bulwark and/or foundation of our country's core values and identity.

Given our collective/shared outrage, why has no one provided a web site that is a central repository of similar issues where we could visit and through the magic of the internet (tubes) be provided a unified method of response. While there are individual, different political venues/web sites devoted to specicic causes, they're generally myopic to their own specific cause and often difficult to use.

With no more ID problem than Yahoo, Excite or Gmail presents, current socio-political issues could be posted (to a centralized site) with a "Yay or Nay" button choice that when clicked would deliver ones opinion to their local political representitives and/or other principals in any given story.

We read these stories here and vent our spleen.

Alone in the glow of our displays.

Who really cares. (And why should they?)

  How does it (really) effect change. (Without which our complaints are merely self-agrandizing whining.)

Imagine if we could also in the course of a mouse click or two actually deliver our opinion to a relevant nexus.

It ain't hard, it would work. It just hasn't been done.

Later...
-------------

P.S. Given the recent description of the internet as a series of tubes, the ol' figure of speech "Going down the "Tubes" has a whole new meaning now!?!?

4T2-2U

They want the negative PR. It's a scare tactic. (5, Insightful)

XStylus (841577) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901259)

One must truly understand what the RIAA is trying to do here. Their goal isn't recoup lost revenues. Their goal is "shock and awe" through scare tactics. Basically, their lawyers are instructed to take no prisoners, go for the jugular, and show no mercy. It's to send a message meant to scare people into thinking that if you file share, the RIAA mafia will be after you like a rabid bulldog with lockjaw. Any respectful prosecutor would lay off and drop the case out of respect. After all, the accused party is dead, so there's really no point. But no, the RIAA is going to find some way to press onward and make it the whole family's problem now, and they know it'll bring negative publicity. They want it. They want to be feared, and for young little "sharing is caring" tykes to be looking under the bed for the RIAA boogyman at night if they so much as dare think about doing such an evil thing as sharing. This ruthless and heartless behavior is soooooo going to bite the RIAA on the ass someday, hopefully violently.

Grieving Time? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901047)

In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children.
These lawyers get softer every day! Pretty soon they're going to stop suing people for every penny they have and settle for only every nickel!

Re:Grieving Time? (3, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901123)

Just proves the joke about lawyers and hookers is actually true.

Also I love how the word "grieve" is in inverted commas, as if the OP questions on whether or not the children will actually grieve.

Re:Grieving Time? (2, Insightful)

hyfe (641811) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901128)

Also I love how the word "grieve" is in inverted commas, as if the OP questions on whether or not the children will actually grieve.
Grieve him? Of course not, he's a pirate!

*shudder*

Re:Grieving Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901174)

Since when can "pirats" read, and be one of the top 1000 reviewers on amazon? (500something to be correct)
His last review was 2 days prior to his death! and I bet this "Rubtured Cerebrobasilar Aneurysm" in his brain rubtured due to the stress this fucking RIAA lawyer -that is known to "harrass" little girls and put words in their mouth so he would not loose his case- was inflicting on him.

Larry even pointed that out as third defense in his answer he wrote to the court!

So don't call someone pirate if you have no prove for that!

Re:Grieving Time? (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901143)

Whats the joke?

Re:Grieving Time? (5, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901156)

What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?

A hooker will stop screwing you after you die.

Re:Grieving Time? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901242)

If you take the parent post out of context, the moderation of it is quite strange. Very informative indeed.

Re:Grieving Time? (4, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901280)

Heck, even in context it doesn't make very much sense. It certainly doesn't warrant a +4 Informative.

Re:Grieving Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901279)

Informative? ./

That is effing funny

Re:Grieving Time? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901145)

As someone who's lost a parent, I can tell you that 60 days (only to face the RIAA landsharks immediately afterwards) is not only not long enough to grieve, it is an absolute insult to the dead chap and his family.

The idea that there is anyone out there - anyone at all - who considers this "reasonable" (presumably at least one lawyer does) convinces me that the person in question must have had their soul surgically removed shortly after birth.

Re:Grieving Time? (4, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901149)

Generally speaking, it is respectful to give the family some time. And realistically court cases before do need to be brought before a judge before someone has finished grieving properly.

However that isn't taking into account that this should have been dropped the second the guy did. The fact that the RIAA is continuing negates any "gestures" they might make.

Re:Grieving Time? (5, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901286)

The idea that there is anyone out there - anyone at all - who considers this "reasonable" (presumably at least one lawyer does) convinces me that the person in question must have had their soul surgically removed shortly after birth.

How did you think you get lawyers?

Re:Grieving Time? (4, Informative)

Adhemar (679794) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901244)

Also I love how the word "grieve" is in inverted commas, as if the OP questions on whether or not the children will actually grieve.
From Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Case and to Extend All Deadlines [ilrweb.com] :
Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.
Notice how in Plaintiffs' documents, the word "grieve" has not been put in inverted commas, or any other sort of quotation marks.

What, are their lawyers salaried? (5, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901048)

Are their lawyers salaried so that they can afford to go after the estate of a dead victim?

There ought to be a law against that. (Salaried lawyers, that is. There's already laws against extortion.)

Re:What, are their lawyers salaried? (5, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901073)

The RIAA is lawyers. Representing the recording industry is their full time job.

KFG

Re:What, are their lawyers salaried? (2, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901126)

Representing the their pockets is their full time job.
I fixed your typo for you.

Re:What, are their lawyers salaried? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901218)

"Are their lawyers salaried"

I would assume that the lawyer is *commissioned*. If he wins, he gets money. If he gives up now, he gets no money and further, is out whatever expenses he's paid to get to the current point. This gives him a lot of incentive to take whatever he can wring out of the estate.

I would also point out that the story is high on hysteria and low on information. What's the point of the case? Are there co-defendants? Are they claiming that the deceased was profiting from copyright violations? Are they claiming that other family members were involved?

To me, it sounds like a bunch of people who oppose the RIAA are pulling things out of context to make political hay.

Oh hey, great... (0, Troll)

20th Century Boy (903797) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901055)

Go ahead and sue dead kids, that'll get the public on your side.

Re:Oh hey, great... (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901097)

It's not the kids that are dead - there would be little point in taking depositions from dead people.

Re:Oh hey, great... (1)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901291)

...there would be little point in taking depositions from dead people.

Tell **that** to the RIAA Lawyers!

Re:Oh hey, great... (2, Insightful)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901114)

Go ahead and sue dead kids, that'll get the public on your side.
They are not suing dead kids, they are suing the alive kids of the deceased, but it really isn't that different I guess.
Although the second part of the comment is exactly what I was thinking, at the moment the anti-piracy brigade has a fair amount of public ambivilence which is fine for the RIAA, as long as people dont care they can throw their weight around. The RIAA dont even need support to practice in this manner, just a lack of real awareness and comdemnation.
If they continue like this, large sections of the public (many of whom dont buy CD's) will become aware of the RIAA and form a very negative view.
Could this be the beginning of more desperate acts from an apparently up to now irresistable force?
How many more parents will just settle out of court as soon as the writ (I think it's called) from the RIAA turns up in the post. "Dont even try to fight us, we can still get your kids after you die".

And I dont reckon that was a troll, but perhaps I just bit.

It sure is a good thing we have RIAA! (3, Funny)

mstromb (869949) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901058)

How else would the artists get their $5000 from the greedy clutches of the "grieving"?!

I bet the guy faked his own death, just so he could have the last laugh at the hands of the musicians of the world!

Same Old Joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901119)

Netcraft has confirmed Scantlebury is dead.

Where is Haley Joel Osment for the film portrayal? (5, Funny)

shadwwulf (145057) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901059)

He'd be perfect as the young RIAA lawyer saying the line: "I sue dead people."

Thanks, I'll be here all night, please try the fish, it's great tonight.

Re:Where is Haley Joel Osment for the film portray (3, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901271)

The surprise twist being, that right at the end of the case it is confirmed that the RIAA lawyer has actually been dead the whole time! (at least when judged by the heart still beating rather than being ice cold to the core criteria).

why why why (1)

fedthedawg (993364) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901064)

lets sue the children so they can't afford to bury the guy.

Re:why why why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901084)

Normally people don't mourn for 60 days and *then* bury someone. The guy is already buried.

This does not mean, of course, that the RIAA can't dig up his corpse to look for loot. They could sell the cadaver, clothes, coffin, etc. That is unless the family was wise and decided to cremate him.

Re:why why why (1)

chawly (750383) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901188)

The urn would surely be worth a little something. These RIAA folks are, seemingly, a little hungry.

The Rhythm (1)

Petskull (650178) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901068)

But they had been warned! Apparently- the Rhythm *is* out to get you...

Re:The Rhythm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901089)

Instead of being out to get us, we should turn it back on them. Someone do a gangsta-style drive by shooting on Mr. Krichbuns and Mr. Gourley. That'll solve everything!

ho8o (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901075)

achievements that - Netcraft has Unlees you can work Community at slings are limited, Was what got me an arduous To stick something though I have never

separation (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901078)

RIAA and listeners : till death do us part

Re:separation (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901105)

RIAA and listeners : till death do us part. . .

. . .but your estate are belong to us. You have already failed to survive. Set us up the corpse for great justice. We get stay. Make your filing.

KFG

History repeats itself... (5, Insightful)

drakyri (727902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901080)

Army Attorney General Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, 6/9/54:

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

He's all dead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901092)

With all dead, there's only one thing to do...

No, RIAA, I meant search his pockets for spare change...

Get Ken Lay's lawyers (4, Insightful)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901093)

The dead person's family should get Ken Lay's lawyers to argue on their behalf that the case ought to be dismissed because there was no punishment awarded or conviction.

Surely, if Ken Lay could get himself acquitted on technical grounds, then this poor guy should also be.

Re:Get Ken Lay's lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901231)

That was a criminal case. This is civil.

Where's the outrage? (5, Insightful)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901100)

Seriously. Why aren't the major news outlets making a big deal out of shit like this?

Re:Where's the outrage? (5, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901141)

Because in the USA the big media companies own all the news organisations.

Over here in the UK the only channel i've seen question the recording industries actions has been the BBC, but that's because they're required to be neutral in such things and the fact they aren't owned by any big media companies helps.

Re:Where's the outrage? (5, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901248)

Its funny how freedom of the press was designed to allow for independent criticism of public policy, yet a government-run news service is about the most even-handed news you can get.

Re:Where's the outrage? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901293)

To be fair, the BBC isn't government run, just taxpayer funded. In fact, the BBC has often been attacked in recent years for "unfairly" criticising the government.

Re:Where's the outrage? (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901266)

Though the BBC itself is a big media company as I understand its not to make profit and most of the funding is from the TV license fee so if they step out of line they get their funding cut off (on a very basic level)

Re:Where's the outrage? (1)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901282)

Maybe theorectically, but the BBC is a little too powerful for the government to want to mess around with too much. More likely, if they step out of line, Tony Blair gets on the phone to one of his ex-roommates (who, by an amazing stroke of luck, is now a member of the house of lords!) and gets him to conduct a 'inquiry'. 6 months and a few million pounds of tax payers money later, the aforementioned lord declares Blair in the right, the BBC in the wrong and everyone stares in amazement at the verdict. A few weeks later we all forget about it... and live happily ever after!

Did I mention that I am a little cynical? ;)

Re:Where's the outrage? (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901157)

well allot of their ad money comes from companys that are pulling the riaa's strings.
so rather then risk them losing money they keep quiet.

You're exactly right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901198)

Except that it's not a question of risking anything anymore, it's a formula. It's more of a decision than a risk - companies pull this sort of thing all the time, even in small localities. It's bizarre, though I can see how it works.

Re:Where's the outrage? (0, Flamebait)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901158)

They cannot speak up because they are busy sucking the RIAA's cocks.

Re:Where's the outrage? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901195)

Because the Jews not only control the media both CEOs of the RIAA and MPAA are Jewish. Go figure.

MOD PARENT AS NAZI! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901237)

What a racist bastard!

Lowest of the Low (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901107)

My god. The RIAA really is the lowest form of scum in the universe. No morals, no decency; I mean the only people their better than is their own lawyers.

Yuck... (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901109)

Do they want a part of your ashes after cremation too? :-p

RIAA's actions consistently shows the world some corporations show absolutely no emotions. RIAA is ready to walk over corpses, quite literally, to cash in what's to them a ridiculous sum of money. I wonder what's more scary -- this action alone, or the fact that actual people make these decisions.

Re:Yuck... (5, Interesting)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901167)

the fact that actual people make these decisions
That's what amazes me all the time I hear of terrible acts, particularly corporate ones and you think to yourself "someone must have actually decided to do this", even worse a group of 'respected' people must have agreed on this. Perhaps it is just my middle-class upbringing but I always struggle to believe that actually at some point a director just says "I know, lets extract millions from the pension fund" or like today "The guy died but his death shouldn't stop us, he should have life insurance".
And yet somehow the outrage only seems to be restricted to certain areas like /. I know there is a war going on but I have just looked at the BBC website and cant see the story yet. Just like the Sony Rookit scandal, I cant help thinking that the opposition to the RIAA/MPAA has to start using more effective propaganda campaigns to get public awareness.

Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (4, Insightful)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901127)

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI (Part 2), Act IV, Scene II.

Expecting morality from an amoral organization or its lawyers leads to disappointment. The RIAA exists to maximize profit without concern for anything else be it fair play, Fair Rights or human decency. One has to wonder just what kind of person would work as a lawyer for the RIAA, since they must know as does anyone who's been following along on Slashdot that their lawsuits are unfair and an abuse of the legal system by a very powerful organization funded by multinational corporations against comparatively powerless individuals. They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls. The person is dead. Find an unrelated living person to extort money from and leave the poor grieving family in peace.

Re:Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901202)

One has to wonder just what kind of person would work as a lawyer for the RIAA, since they must know as does anyone who's been following along on Slashdot that their lawsuits are unfair and an abuse of the legal system

Ask any lawyer - they will tell you that it is not their place to judge their client, only to see that they get the maximum legal representation that they are entitled to under the law. Of course lawyers judge their clients all the time - but it tends to be that the more money they have, the less judged they are.

They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls.

As if the only reason not to be asshole is fear for your mortal soul. Quite a commentary on your own morality.

Re:Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (1)

ferrellcat (691126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901216)

Speaking as an atheist , I think that these assholes should be raped to death, disembowled, and hung by their own entrails. Not necessarily in that order.

Re:Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (1)

YellowFellow (995078) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901221)

Please, don't compare athiests to lawyers. That's like comparing Krishna to Satan.

Re:Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901241)

You realize of course, the context of the "kill the lawyers" quote is that the act of killing all the lawyers would aid in the establishment of a tyrannical reign. In other words, Shakespeare was saying that in some way, there are lawyers who protect freedom.

True, some lawyers work for the RIAA. By the same token, some programmers make spam software. Most lawyers don't work for the RIAA and many work for people's freedoms. Most programmers don't help spammers, and many actively work against spam. I think you should get the point -- it isn't the profession, it's the individual that goes bad. Fact is, by and large it is "people" who are cruel and vindictive.

Hulk Smash! (1)

Novalight_2550 (965759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901132)

But really... this makes me REALLY mad... i mean god damn... How dare they, they're going after the dead dude's family for god sakes. Makes me wanna do something violent... you know... screw volient video games making people volient, these big ass armies of lawers are a much more evil group... argh >. cant stay on topic... to angery! DEATH TO THE RIAA! Those bastards!

The RIAA doesn't care about public image (5, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901133)

It's an industry association. It seems their strategy is to go after their targets as aggressively as possible, in order to send out the clear message that they can and will sue regular folks like you and me. They are effectively the "bad cop" while the individual record companies play the "good cop" giving the people the Brittany Spears and Korn they so desperately need.

You can argue that filesharing is on the rise, or that the RIAA's enforcement actions have cut filesharing, depending on whose facts you use and how you slice them. But in the end the strategy of using the industry association to attack customers, while individual labels try to pretend they play no part in it, probably won't work. In a world where alternatives to label-centric distribution are nonexistent, the labels would be able to make this good cop, bad cop strategy work. But the irony here is that the tighter they squeeze, the more systems will slip through their fingers (apologies to G. Lucas). Sure, there are no "good" big labels to defect to, but there is much more incentive to escape the entire label system altogether.

I keep waiting for one of the major labels to break ranks and start acting intelligent, giving customers fewer restrictions and defecting from the RIAA. It seems though, that none of them has the guts to do it, so they'll all keep pushing on consumers as hard as they can. The end result of the crackdown will eventually lead to a new business model in which the labels play a small or nonexistent role. Ironic, isn't it?

Re:The RIAA doesn't care about public image (1)

volfro (915297) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901253)

I hope for the same future as you--and it seems to be heading that way, interestingly, as far more people are seeking out independent music than ever. Anecdotal, but: when I was in high school, I said the words "independent music" and my peers would say "wtf". Now, my youngest brother, who is six years younger than me, is in high school, and it seems as though most of his friends listen to independent music, whether or not they're realizing it (at least, according to Myspace music lists). He's not in a niche, either; he's a popular kid, with a wide range of friends in a wide range of social groups.

However, the change you mention probably won't happen for some time. Again, anecdotal, but: I work at a locally owned computer repair place that services mainly home user Windows PCs. We service a few hundred computers a month. Business has its ups and downs, but the lines of computers awaiting repair are consistently pretty long. Most of them are botched Windows installs, and some of them have problems as a direct result of the Sony rootkit. However, only one of our customers has actually researched Sony's rootkit and attempted to contact them. She's a 40-something mother of two for whom the rootkit wrought havok, and when we worked on her computer, I noticed not only some bookmarked sites that involved the Sony rootkit, but also some sites that went into the RIAA's bullying tactics. This is one PC out of a few thousand in, say, the last year. Only one average-Joe computer owner is socially aware enough to read about the RIAA's crap in our area (suburban metro Atlanta). It seems as though most people are blissfully unaware of social issues like these, and they're perfectly happy buying thier Creed or New Found Glory or whatever. Despite buying trends away from the RIAA's companies, it's going to take awhile for people to "get it". And when they do, it's not going to be current consumers; it's going to be the consumers who are graduating high school right now, and probably even younger.

Despite buying trends, though, the RIAA is a massive organization with huge legal clout. They're going to prolong this as much as possible and make it hurt as long as possible. Hopefully we're seeing a behemoth in its death throes, as many predict, but I don't think it's that far yet. Maybe in a few years, but for now, it's just heating up, and all we can do is spread the word to help keep our fellow, uninformed consumers from taking the RIAA's baseball bat up the butt.

This is damn well... (1)

NcF (847200) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901146)

pathetic. I mean, so what. The guy's dead. Leave his family alone. His family has enough stress as is with a deceased loved one, and to compound that stress with some lawsuit with this. Shit, I severely hope that the judge denies the RIAA any chance of money, and makes the RIAA pay in return for this. In fact, the family should counter-sue, if at all possible, to screw the RIAA out at any cost.

Is there a web site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901152)

that details the taxes/fees, per countries/states, paid on media or devices that gets compensated back to the RIAA/MPAA?

If buying CD-ROMS labeled 'for music' has a tax applied to go back to the RIAA/MPAA, would not storing a copy of whatever questionable MP3s on said media provide the legal 'fuck you' to the RIAA?

Re:Is there a web site (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901193)

Nope.

The RIAA are going after people who share music. The implied permission from paying a CD levy simply allowing you to copy to the CD.

I read that as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901162)

"RIAA Wants to DISPOSE OF Dead Defendant's Children"

Somehow, this did not shock me.

Is this even legal? (1)

Nicaboker (978150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901165)

Seriously, is this legal for the RIAA to do? The man they where after is dead, so now they are going to try and use his own children to get to his estate?? Sounds like some back door shaddy sh!t going on to me.

Been to www.riaa.com lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901166)

After seeing this story first on Digg and then slashdot, I think the website has been (ahem) "Dugg" or "Slashdotted"...... well today anyway.

Showing their true form (2, Insightful)

BrynM (217883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901173)

This kind of behaviour is much akin to that of creditors and collection bureaus. They seem to view their targets more as debtors than as someone they accuse in a civil lawsuit. At least sometimes the debt can be nullified due to death with a real credit agency. Not an all time moral low for the RIAA, but a different low among the same levels it's been reaching for.

Re:Showing their true form (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901243)

Showing their true form

Hehe, I started thinking of Necromancers when reading this title. :-p

Are people addicted? (4, Insightful)

jopet (538074) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901186)

Everyone is bitching about the industry, but enough keep buying. Are these people addicted to the crap they sell? And if their practices are really so despisable, why aren't there other companies with better practices getting more and more successful?

My impression is that people just love to bitch but 99% will end up in a record store and buy the latest copy protected crap anyways. And that is exactly why DRM solutions are more and more becoming an everyday reality too.

Re:Are people addicted? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901203)

Actually, no. Fewer and fewer people buy. The RIAA, though, THINKS that we're addicts and that we can't live without our fix, so fewer sales must mean that we copy.

But we don't. We just don't touch that junk. It's like your parents told you, kids, it's bad for you. And not even the first one's free.

Re:Are people addicted? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901227)

And not even the first one's free.

It is if you download it!

Re:Are people addicted? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901294)

"Are people addicted?"

No. There are so many reasons to boycott particular entities and the entities are so intertwined that most people would would suffer "purchase paralysis" and would be unable to survive daily (western) life.

Some examples: Child/Forced/Indentured labour, Dolphin friendly tuna, Free range eggs, GE crops, Clear felling, Pollution, Working conditions, Dispossesion of tribal land, Privatization of Water, Compulsory aquisitions, ect, ect.

Most people will see the RIAA story and simply shrug.

First reaction (5, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901196)

My first reaction was, I guess if you've lost the trust of your customers you have nothing to lose.

But thinking about it, we aren't RIAA:s customers. Nothing any of us do or say will affect RIAA directly. Their customers as it were are the copyright holders, and their business is to maximize return to these people. The copyright holders (usually the recording companies) don't have us as customers either; their customers are radio and television stations and other broadcasters, and retail outlets from Amazon and Wal-Mart to record stores to gasoline stations.

They provide content produced by artists - and it's the artists we are customers for. We don't go to Amazon to buy the latest Sony Music album, we go to buy AC/DC (or Jessica Simpson, or Luis Armstrong, whatever your taste is).

It's this disconnect that keeps RIAA in business. We don't connect their actions with our favourite artists. The artists, in turn, have little incentive, and a huge downside, to raising their voice (most are, after all, not big enough to actually influence their company). The recording companies have no incentive to change RIAA's actions from their customers (Amazon et al) since those customers don't feel any backlash from us either.

The solution? I don't see one. In my case it has gradually soured me on music altogether. I haven't bought a CD in years - but neither have I downloaded anything either. Most people will never make any emotional connection between music and this legal harassment, however, and so RIAA will never have a reason to change.

Where's the usual "think of the children" BS? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901210)

Where's now the faction that usually screams "Oh, would someone PLEASE think of the children?" when it comes to ripping away some liberty? How about thinking 'bout them NOW?

It's been said before, the RIAA doesn't give a rat's rear 'bout public image. Their business partners aren't normal people, their business partners are companies. And companies have no morals. The people in a company may have morals, but morals are easily brushed aside when you have someone else to blame. "I have to do it, or else I get sacked and someone else does it" is the usual comfortable excuse.

To invoke Godwin, that excuse has worked before. All too perfectly.

Here's a scary thought... (1, Insightful)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901229)

(Time to burn some karma)

Call me cynical or whatever you wish, but I just had a rather disturbing thought. Would it surprise ANYONE if, somewhere down the line, it was learned that the RIAA was actually responsible for Mr. Scantlebury's death just so they could inflict as much pain and anguish as possible? They're already suing dead people, so this doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. After all, the dead don't fight back...

Re:Here's a scary thought... (1)

threaded (89367) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901273)

When I read the article I had practically the same thought. So that's at least two of us...

How do we arrange for RIAA disbandment? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901252)

These guys have been out of control and beyond "immoral" for quite some time and yet they are allowed to exist and operate. Could there be a strategy to disband these thugs? They do nothing to help artists and everything to harm the public interest.

Oh for F*cks Sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15901257)

He's dead RIAA - the person isn't going to download/steal music anymore.

Jeepers...

Well I'd be pissed! (4, Funny)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901277)

The RIAA worked for that soul! It was theirs, they have documents and laywers to prove it! Then the good lord got to it and deliberatly reaped their soul, hell, thats stealing! They're missing a trick here, they just need to sue god.

RIAA Lawyer's office is like 1 mile away... (5, Interesting)

Anyd (625939) | more than 7 years ago | (#15901290)

I live about 30 seconds away from the RIAA Lawyer's office. Ann Arbor is a very progressive city, maybe I should go protest (but getting sued would suck.) Any suggestions for signs? "Dead people can't steal music" has a good ring to it.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...