Beta

×

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 Stroke Victim in Michigan

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the finall-a-case-they-can-win dept.

Music 328

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."

cancel ×

328 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Someday... (0, Redundant)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383295)

The RIAA is going to run out of people to sue and then they will have sue themselves.

Re:Someday... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383405)

Chuck Norris on email: "I told you, I'm a fucktard from the Wild West. I write by hand since I am too fucking stupid too even exist let alone use a computer."


There, fixed your sig for you.

Re:Someday... (5, Insightful)

SRA8 (859587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383467)

Frankly, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We continue to purchased $21 CDs with two good tracks because we dont have the principles to really boycott the industry.

Re:Someday... (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383643)

At this point, I doubt it would matter. If we stopped buying the cds they would claim it as proof of pirating.

RIAA is a fanaticle group. Any traditional tactic that could be used to display displeasure of something is only fuel to their cause. It is past the point were a boycot could work. It is past the point were you or i could make a difference. And that is because we could never make a difference. RIAA is the sole reaction to the market trying to prove a point.

What RIAA is doing right now is covering for lack of sale and bad business decisions. They are giving the recording industry excuses for artist not making the money they deserve and they are giving excuses to share holders for producing run of the mill stuff and passing it off as something it isn't. The more RIAA sues, the more smoke covers how the artis is being treated and paid.

Re:Someday... (5, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383885)

At this point, I doubt it would matter. If we stopped buying the cds they would claim it as proof of pirating.

Then let them. Claims don't keep their business afloat, money does. They can't make you buy CDs, they can only stop illegal copying. If all this anti-piracy crap doesn't increase their sales numbers they'll run out of options sooner or later.

Re:Someday... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383699)

Um...I dont know about you but I stopped even thinking about buying their crap years ago.

Re:Someday... (1)

ozzee (612196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383745)

My standard response is - I have. I only buy from non RIAA affiliated artists.

I especially like candyrat [candyrat.com] . These artists are truly amazing.

Re:Someday... (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383811)

Depends. Last CD I bought was Conjure One... I'm not sure if the label is RIAA or not, but I don't think there is a bad track on the CD.

Personally I think it's just a matter of time before someone goes "oh" and finds a business model that takes root and will really start to kill the traditional record companies off. I mean, what do you need, really? These days you can put together your own studio for under $10k. Indie artists can really be indie; buy your gear for a few grand out of pocket (or get a loan... that's all you get from the labels anyway)... sell on the internet... all people really need is cataloging and publicity. Even that probably exists, and is waiting to take off.

Do NOT "share" and AVOID the Penalty of LAW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383607)



It is the job of a lawyer to do what is being done to the theifs out there. If you do not want to be at on the wrong side of the table do NOT "share" what is not yours to "share". Don't STEAL and you won't get wrung.

Re:Do NOT "share" and AVOID the Penalty of LAW (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383721)

Don't STEAL and you won't get wrung.

The RIAA has successfully sued people who were never proven or even reasonably suspected to have been filesharing.

-:sigma.SB

And of course (4, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383301)

We all know the ill and disable are pure of heart, love their moms and are made of kitten whiskers. Slashdot is getting seriously pathetic trotting out extremist nonsense like this.

Re:And of course (0, Troll)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383327)

Since I have been modded flamebait I will just say that next time I find some GPL code worth using I will take it and tell Mr Stallman I had the flu when I did it all everything will be cool.

(It's actually about compassion, not guilt.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383331)

We all know the ill and disable are pure of heart, love their moms and are made of kitten whiskers. Slashdot is getting seriously pathetic trotting out extremist nonsense like this.
Hey! Slashdot just happens to have a very serious illness, you insensitive clod.

Re:And of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383545)

I think the point is that considering how many people pirate stuff off the internet, going for children, dead people, and disabled people, is pretty damn low.

Re:And of course (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383551)

Who modded this flamebait? Disabled people can be criminals too you know.

Re:And of course (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383713)

Criminal? You know what, if the guy is alleged to commit murder before his stroke, I wouldn't be so willing to give him a free pass.

But considering this isn't a criminal trial, and considering the charges, I am more than willing to give him a free pass. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart.

Re:And of course (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383659)

This isn't the first time Slashdot has been a tool to rally the rightous. It won't be the last. Let the kids have their fun...

And yes, Disabled people could do thing wrong. The objection is that they are on limited income and probably don't have the ability to defend themselves or pay the settlment. Also, people with disabilities are often seen as needing special exceptions. So take it for what it is worth. It does show how low RIAA will go but then again it reflects more on what society values or more likely, how society values the crap RIAA is producing. It is worth having it is it free but not worth it if you have to pay!

Re:And of course (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383725)

It is worth having it is it free but not worth it if you have to pay!

That's how the junk collector makes his money :-)

Mod Up - bogus argument (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383817)

This is an Appeal to Pity. [nizkor.org]

Yes, we all know the RIAA kills puppies and causes gout. But is it too much to ask to find articles about the RIAA that simply tell the facts as they are about them? They're bad enough, and they'll stand on their own.

Re:And of course (1)

Tama00 (967104) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383899)

Why do people in America sue for profit?

Evil much (5, Interesting)

zeroharmada (1004484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383303)

It is times like this that I wish America would switch over to a system where blank media is taxed and they don't prosecute piracy. Sure it might stretch the bottom line for the Mafiaa, but wouldn't it be beneficial to society at large? Hopefully in a decade or so it will be a big enough hot-button topic to spur actual political change. Until then keep it up RIAA... if you stop being the stereotypical evil corporation all we will have left to overthrow when the revolution comes is Microsoft :-)

Re:Evil much (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383371)

It is times like this that I wish America would switch over to a system where blank media is taxed and they don't prosecute piracy.

Why not do both? I'm surprised we're behind Canada on this one.

It works with books (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383705)

It is times like this that I wish America would switch over to a system where blank media is taxed and they don't prosecute piracy.

Why not do both?...
Or most of both: tax the media and prosecute large scale piracy.

It works with books. People who illegally do large production runs of coprighted material are almost almost always prosecuted, but those who xerox a few pages - or even a whole textbook - seldom are. Prosecute the large scale copiers and the small scale copiers will be discrete. Publishers don't suffer much from the small copier.
And while there is no significant tax on paper, the intrinsic cost of it functions much like a tax.
The US book publishing business has been stable in this regard for decades.

Re:It works with books (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383753)

Do you understand this logic?

Distributing something across the internet would be considered large scal productions. If you have a torrent and there are 20 people leaching from your half downloaded song and then you leave the torrent for a week, you have effectivly let several thousand people have the song. You are a large scale producer/pirater. And you need to get it from somewhere so you will need to have some large scale pirating system set up to get the ball rolling.

Otherwise, you have exactly what we have today but now RIAA gets a cut from every picture CD you make of you last trip. Riaa gets a profit from you doing a backup to DVD of your documents. The only difference would be RIAA getting money for stuff totaly unrelated.

Re:Evil much (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383381)

I should totally be taxed on something I intend to store family photos on or backup my legally purchased digital downloads on and that profit should go right to the RIAA and MPAA and BSA who have nothing to do with the medium and content I'm placing on it.

Re:Evil much (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383741)

Why not? People without children pay taxes to run elementary schools. People without cars pay taxes to build roads. Living in a civilized society means sometimes making sacrifices for the benefit of the group as a whole.

Re:Evil much (1, Troll)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383793)

Yes, exactly. Contributing taxes to the government to pay for other people's snot-nosed kids (while the ungrateful parents act like they're doing society a favor by foisting their little shits on us) is EXACTLY like subsidizing the movie and music industries by giving into them and letting them tax us on everything that could possibly store data.

Re:Evil much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383859)

If I find you one day collapsed on the sidewalk with a stroke or some other condition, please remind me to leave you there to die. After all, that's your own problem, right?

Re:Evil much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383849)

you are comparing apples to oranges here
contributing to government is not the same as contributing to an organizations bottom line

Re:Evil much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383945)

Why not? It's not like the government keeps that money. Eventually it goes into some company's bottom line, whether it's paying for the pens and paper the government uses, or whether it's paying for the contractor who paves the interstate highway.

Re:Evil much (1)

friedman101 (618627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383411)

I've never understood the logic behind this. It's like charging $500 for a coat hanger and giving the proceeds to Toyota. There are plenty of ways to use blank media (or a coat hanger) legitimately and those who wish to do so shouldn't be punished. Canadians think they're ahead of the game here but the fact is the RIAA would have a government enforced private tax. If I don't buy (or steal) their product they should not get my money, period.

No way in hell that will ever work (0, Flamebait)

scenestar (828656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383421)

It might work in pansy liberal love fests like the netherlands but with the various fringe groups that inhabit the USA such a system involving fees on blank media would never work.

first of all you got the "tough on everything" morons that will think it "sends out the wrong message" and secondly you got the "randian" cultists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h libertarians who will cry bloody murder over the fact that "they might use the blank media for something else".

Re:No way in hell that will ever work (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383575)

It might work in pansy liberal love fests like the netherlands but with the various fringe groups that inhabit the USA such a system involving fees on blank media would never work.
USC TITLE 17, CHAPTER 10, SUBCHAPTER C, 1003:

(a) Prohibition on Importation and Manufacture.-- No person shall import into and distribute, or manufacture and distribute, any digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium unless such person records the notice specified by this section and subsequently deposits the statements of account and applicable royalty payments for such device or medium specified in section 1004.
"Pansy liberal love fests like the USA". Heh, I think I'm going to start using that quote.

Re:Evil much (1)

idobi (820896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383471)

Blank media is taxed. Google Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

Re:Evil much (1)

punch.perm (999270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383481)

Sure, let me pay fines in advance for crimes I will never commit.

Re:Evil much (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383521)

The RIAA doesn't want that. Personally *I* don't want that (I think I would start buying CDs from Mexico if that happened).

The RIAA doesn't want it because then they CAN'T complain. They LIKE to complain. In fact I'd dare say that's why they exist.

The user doesn't want it for obvious reasons.

Perhaps Canada's *IAA is simply not quite as evil, or more shortsighted, or maybe the government is just less in the pocket of companies.

Re:Evil much (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383715)

RIAA doesn't want it because their job is to justify why artist aren't getting paid and cover for the record companies taking all the profits.

Canada passed the law and tax before it became such an issue. It wasn't a direct reaction to internet pirating but rather home recordings. They may have increased it since internet Pirating became an issue but it had nothing to do with it originaly.

Re:Evil much (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383695)

In the past 10 years I have puchased 3 cds. Before that probably 20 tapes and records. Half of those were used to boot. I don't download any music, I have what I nee and listen to the radio for what I don't have.

In the same time span, I have went through over 2000 CDs, more floppies then I can count, About 200 DVDs and I don't know how many flash memory cards for various devices. Why should I have to pay more for them so a tax could be collected and given to RIAA, MPAA and whoever else? And What is to stop some other Business from demanding thier model be supplimented by taxes on unreated materials?

And if you think the music is bad now, Wait until everyone is charged a tax and I start signing every garage band to contracts and produce worhtless CDs just to get my share of the money. And of course when the lions share is thin, the pack needs to hunt again so up goes the taxes so my portion can be bigger. What a business model.

And that matters why? (4, Insightful)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383311)

Having a stroke and/or receiving disability payments renders one incapable of copyright infringement? Does the BitTorrent client refuse to install if it detects a Social Security check in the vicinity?

Being disabled isn't evidence of innocence, unless the disability is such that one is incapable of even using a computer. If the guy broke the law, he broke the law. I happen to think the law sucks and needs to be changed post haste, but it sucks for everyone, not just stroke victims and the handicapped.

In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases.

Re:And that matters why? (2, Insightful)

synjck (1069512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383339)

i generally agree that disability, to a certain degree, does not exempt one from guilt in these cases.

check out that lawyer, though. ten bucks says he's on the naughty list.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383417)

The title of the submission is "RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan".
Not, "RIAA Sues Copyright Infringer in Michigan".

I too cringe when I see artcles making issue over whether defendants are moms, grandmothers, or little girls with pigtails. As if we all aren't being equally victimized by the current mess of balancing fair-use rights, with copyright infringment terms, with new invasive restrictive technologies, and with legal system corporation racketeering.

Request to fellow Slashdotters:
Please, next time a submission reports news of some new law or draconian effort in one part of the world, let's not all bash the people of that country. In fact, we should do the opposite, because as citizens of each country lose their freedoms, then our own freedoms becomes all the more threatened.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Leuf (918654) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383463)

It seems a little more relevant that the guy was living in Florida when they said he was infringing in Michigan. And yet this seems to be of little consequence in the summary and article.

I like the part of the article that says "Although the defendant... had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement" Because you know, if you tell them you're innocent they're supposed to just say "Sorry" and leave you alone.

Re:And that matters why? (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383769)

Oh, so the story here isn't that a stroke victom is being sued for copyright infringment, It is that he was being sued for copyright infringment that supposedly happened in a state were he wasn't at and because of his disability and limited income doesn't have the means to go there and defend himself?

Re:And that matters why? (4, Interesting)

CompMD (522020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383423)

I know this because this is slashdot, people rarely actually RTFA, but come on and RTF post at least.

"...suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing..."

and then RTFA, the guy in this case is half paralyzed, do you think he is spending a lot of time sitting at his computer downloading Christina Aguilera or something? There needs to be a preponderance of evidence in order to proceed with a case. So far you have a guy who probably can't use the bathroom himself who didn't live in the state in which he is accused of committing infringement. Where's that preponderance of incriminating evidence?

"Evidence of innocence" is pure idiocy, and contrary to the tenets of the judicial system. It is NOT this man's burden to prove his innocence, it is the RIAA's burden to prove him guilty.

Heh, and the captcha for this is "falsify."

Re:And that matters why? (3, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383475)

"Evidence of innocence" is pure idiocy, and contrary to the tenets of the judicial system. It is NOT this man's burden to prove his innocence, it is the RIAA's burden to prove him guilty.
This is not a criminal case and the RIAA are not prosecuting him: they are suing him and the standard is "the balance of probabilities (BOP) also known as the "preponderance of evidence." So, it is up to him to prove his "innocence".

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383567)

Well, that's ok then

Then your justive system sucks (3, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383751)

How do you prove you did not commit anything ? Find an alibi ? That's right : in most of the case you won't be able to prove you DID NOT commit anything. Proving a negative/absence of crime is illogical and neigh impossible. That should be the RIAA job to prove you commited infringement without reasonable doubt.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383493)

"...suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing..."

No doubt they claim never to have engaged in file sharing, but that doesn't automatically make it true.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383589)

RTFA, the guy in this case is half paralyzed, do you think he is spending a lot of time sitting at his computer downloading Christina Aguilera or something?

If I were half paralyzed and unemployed, I'd probably be in front of my computer most of the day. (Hell, I already am, and I'm physically able to get up whenever I want.) Doesn't seem like that outlandish a possibility to me.

Not saying he's guilty, of course, just that his condition isn't grounds for automatic dismissal of the case the way the story seems to imply.

Re:And that matters why? (2, Informative)

Jekler (626699) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383829)

They're not claiming he pirated music AFTER he had the stroke. The fact that he had a stroke and his alleged pirating could be completely unrelated.

I don't believe pirating music should be illegal or a civil offense, but I take the laws as they're given to me, and the disabled are not exempt from them.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383883)

>> the guy in this case is half paralyzed, do you think he is spending a lot of time sitting at his computer

If I were half paralyzed, that's what I'd do :D

Re:And that matters why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383905)

and then RTFA, the guy in this case is half paralyzed, do you think he is spending a lot of time sitting at his computer downloading Christina Aguilera or something?

If you're half-paralyzed, then yeah, you probably would spend your time sitting at the computer downloading shit.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Quantam (870027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383939)

I'll let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to tell (it's certainly not something that many people know): there is only one truth; regardless of whether anyone knows it, or how many people think how many different things, there is only one truth. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is nothing more than a formality to attempt to minimize the probability that an innocent person will be found guilty, given that it isn't always possible for us to know the truth. A criminal is still a criminal if there isn't enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, and an innocent person is still innocent if there is enough evidence to convict them. You seem to not have reached the level of fuzzy logic processes yet. You see things as either being true or false, and you have default values attached to different cases. As a scientist, I can't afford false negatives any more than I can afford false positives. Just because an experiment does not prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (there's a similar concept in science, as well; but we have a much better grasp of what it really means) does NOT mean that it isn't true; similarly, even if an experiment "proves" something beyond a reasonable doubt, it may still be false. If scientists had such a black and white outlook, you'd probably go to the witch doctor every time you got sick.

Re:And that matters why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383445)

my friend, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. when the only way you want to stop crime is to shoot the criminal, you are mistaking justice with revenge. justice is about what the future should be, not about what compensation can we make for the past. thats why even criminals with consistent criminal record are let go again and again so that may be some body would turn over to the good side.

ATTN: SWITCHEURS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383505)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If you don't know Clarus from Carl Sagan, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users [atspace.com] . Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383531)

The reason it's news is because the RIAA uses the "poor artist" appeal to emotion so much. Poor artist parallelized guy.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383539)

Gah, the less-than symbol didn't come out, stupid me for not remembering to use the HTML code.

Re:And that matters why? (1)

lieden (897813) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383569)

Agreed.
Quite apropos to the upcoming indictment in NY (almost every media reference to the case centers around the fact that the man who died was to be "married to the mother of his children" on the following day).
Since when did emotion play such a large role in determining culpability?*

*aside from certain cases of 'hot' murder/manslaughter (mens rea).

Re:And that matters why? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383755)

"What are you saaaying??"

In D&D Terms (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383801)

In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases.
That's usually called Lawful Evil. They may be in full compliance with the law, but the whole thing's still pretty nasty.

Re:And that matters why? (2, Interesting)

devnulljapan (316200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383901)

Of course, this guy's main crime is being poor. If OTOH he was a highly [wikipedia.org] paid [forbes.com] CEO [google.ca] , his disability would have automatically disqualify him from legal problems just like this lady [slashdot.org] .

Re:And that matters why? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383973)

Being disabled isn't evidence of innocence,

Gosh, then I guess it's a good thing that innocence doesn't require evidence. Only guilt does.

How Long... (4, Funny)

FiniteElementalist (1073824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383321)

How long until they start suing dead people? ... They haven't sued dead people, have they?

Re:How Long... (5, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383501)

Re:How Long... (2, Funny)

elmedico27 (931070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383601)

Death is no obstacle to feeling the long arm of the Recording Industry Ass. of America

Too... many... jokes...

Re:How Long... (1)

Monsterdog (985765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383837)

When it comes to the RIAA, Death Does Not Release You.

stroke me, stroke me (3, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383333)

The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk.

And by "stroke victim", they don't mean someone with a medical condition. That's just what they call someone who gets caught downloading a Billy Squier [wikipedia.org] album.

Re:stroke me, stroke me (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383465)

Or a Sylvester Stallone movie. =)

Re:stroke me, stroke me (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383791)

We're talking about the RIAA. So it would have to be a Frank Stallone album [frankstallone.com]

Re:stroke me, stroke me (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383881)

Oh come on. We're all a big happy Italian family here.

RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA, thugs, rogues, thieves. What's the difference? One wears a suit and one does not?

Re:stroke me, stroke me (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383497)

And by "stroke victim", they don't mean someone with a medical condition. That's just what they call someone who gets caught downloading a Billy Squier album.

Of course, they could also get Michael Jackson's "Beat It" for the same effect.

In either case, their next download will have to be "Lick it Up" by Kiss.

Re:stroke me, stroke me (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383559)

I have seen everything now. WTF kind of country do you people live in? :-)

you know... (3, Interesting)

defy god (822637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383349)

I've read articles where the RIAA have sued a person who had no computer. Even then, they don't get as much sympathy as someone who has a disability.

What I really want to see is the RIAA sue someone that is deaf (and MPAA sue someone that is blind). If reported properly, then maybe the general public will finally realize how stupid all these lawsuits are. Instead of being outraged by a nipple on TV, we (the collective we, as a nation) can rise against something that is worth it.

I know it's a slimeball move to exploit someone with a disability, but if they were to be sued, I'm sure they'd love to go after the MAFIAA as well. You have to fight slimeball moves with slimeball moves.

Re:you know... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383363)

Instead of being outraged by a nipple on TV, we (the collective we, as a nation) can rise against something that is worth it.
Haha! Oh, defy god, you're so naive.

Dream On! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383461)

Look at all the bullshit this nation is willing to put up with!

Do you really think this means anything?

The American ideal is dead. We are all just trying to keep our heads down and to survive the machine we have built.

Re:you know... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383639)

I went to a school that happens to also house a large Deaf population. You'd be surprised how many of them listen to music, and even have large collections. They can't hear the music, but they can feel it. (600 watt stereo + large collection of house trance + slutty deaf chicks != something you want to have the floor above you.) Some of the best sharers on the local filesharing hub were deaf, and kept fairly "normal" collections of MP3's, whether it was because they liked the vibrations or just cause.

They have to do this, folks, you don't understand (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383351)

I'm no fan of the RIAA, but those of you who aren't in the legal field fail to understand that RIAA has to continue this suit or risk being found to have abandoned its copyright infringement cases and being found to have used what is known in the legal business as "selective prosecution" or "de facto" prosecution.

Selective prosecution would render virtually all of RIAA's future cases moot because they would fall under the legal status of "unequal prosecution" and essentially be considered extortion.

Much like defending trademarks (or risk abandonment and loss of trademark), these types of lawsuits have to forge ahead. Otherwise it gives the appearance to the courts of favoritism and targetted vengeance.

Re:They have to do this, folks, you don't understa (1)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383397)

Can you cite a source on this? I've only ever heard of this with trademarks, not copyrights.

Re:They have to do this, folks, you don't understa (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383843)

All RIAA has to do is say they reviewed their facts after considering the defendents reply, We now understand that a mistake was made. It is likely they were wrong on this one particular case.

OR they could talk to the defendent and make a deal with him and say, "We have come to an agreement that settles the dispute on copyright infringment without going to trial." "We move to have the case dismissed."

There isn't anything binding them to court. There are provisions within the realm of law that will allow this to be stopped without any ill effects to their position. Any lawer with enough imagination to get into this mess certainly has enough to get out if he wished to.

Straight to hell huh (3, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383365)

Satan must be a pirate too, cause these guys seem to be trying to get an express ticket to his crib.

This guy should be suing the RIAA. (0, Redundant)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383369)

He suffered from the stroke ? Shouldn't he be suing the RIAA and Billy Squier [wikipedia.org] ?

The "RIAA" (5, Insightful)

twilight13 (981666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383375)

The more I hear "RIAA" the more I wonder what it's really for. It seems like whenever stuff like this happens, we say the RIAA is suing a stroke victim. The RIAA sues dead people. It seems like the RIAA is doing a great job redirecting all of the bad press for this campaign. To me it looks like Warner is suing this guy, not the RIAA. Let's at least identify who is calling the shots here. Maybe if more people heard about Warner's actions, they would buy CDs from other record labels. (Yes, I know other labels sue people just as much, but it'd be nice if there was some bad press to come with stuff like suing disabled people.)

Re:The "RIAA" (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383813)

RIAA's job is to create a smoke screen. It is to hide the artist getting screwed by record companies. It wouldn't be too far out there to think they would be protecting the image of the recording companies.

Artist:"why am in not getting a bunch of money?"
Record industry: "because everyone is downloading your songs without paying for them instead of buying the CD!"
Artist: "Are you doing anything about it?"
Record industry:"Sure, we are going after them thru RIAA.".

And then the record company laughs before depositing all their profits, They pause to light their cigars with burning 100 dollar bills.

I think we get the idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383407)

Okay, I'm pretty sure that we all understand that the RIAA is not the nicest organization by now. How many more of these stories do we have to read?

find me more cripples! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383415)

did they even know he was disabled? when you're flinging out lawsuits left and right, you're bound to hit a few disabled folk.

they probably have no idea, but they probably don't care, either.

i just need to know (1)

SUROK (815273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383429)

i just need to know, why the hell is the RIAA suing everybody, and why the f_ck are they being SUCH assholes about everything, like saying oh yeah u have 60 days to grieve before we sue your kids is just plain mean
who is telling these ppl to be such a bunch of pricks?
why are they being so insensitive

Re:i just need to know (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383511)

You are, by purchasing their steaming piles of shit (err, music). Well, possibly not you personally, but the royal You, as in everyone who supports the extortionist business model on the back end.

Re:i just need to know (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383761)

Yes, Valve is bad, but Steam isn't as bad as you're making out

Ob Simpsons (3, Funny)

prakslash (681585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383431)

The article summary reminded me of The Simpsons:


Judge: Are you the Sony BMG lawyer who defended the root kit?

Lawyer: No, that was the Warner lawyer.

Judge: The same Warner lawyer who indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing?

Lawyer: No, that was the Motown lawyer

Judge: The same Motown lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition?

Lawyer: No, that was the Michigan lawyer

Judge: The same Michigan lawyer brought suits against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability - a lawyer whose story that has just been posted on slashdot?

Lawyer:Dohhh!!

Re:Ob Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383563)

That was actually in the Simpsons?

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383447)

the RIAA victim strokes you!

Too close for comfort (3, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383507)

I just saw 'RIAA sues victim in Michigan' and thought crap, they're getting closer!

Re:Too close for comfort (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383535)

And next thing you know, with your website attached to this, and a nifty domain whois, they'll be marching through Saginaw to meet you.

Re:Too close for comfort (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383595)

Least I'm not the only one. :)

Whats the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383675)

Whats the difference between recording music you hear on the radio and downloading the same song from the Internet?

Honestly expecting one to be illegal and the other not and somehow your doing something wrong and "stealing" and hurting the world by using one over the other is utter nonsense.

The fact that the US has gone off the IP deep end is just a reflection of bordom caused by technology making life way too easy for people. If people had a goal/mission that they really cared about they certainly would care much less about IP lawyers, who copied who..etc and do something that adds actual value and improves peoples lives.

RIAA (3, Insightful)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383747)

Instead of using RIAA start calling it the record labels. Now they're just pushing the bad pr over to an organisation that has nothing to lose.

Consumerism Stroke (1)

gekoscan (1001678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383767)

The more the RIAA presses these bullshit lawsuits the less I feel the need to purchase a cd ever again. I now make it a point to download/steal any song that I require.

I have over 100,000 illegal mp3's and counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18383773)

Come get me you pieces of shit. *waving my giant cock*

O rly? (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383855)

Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA.


Understatement of the year brought to you by Slashdot.

RIAA are terrorists? (2, Interesting)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#18383897)

Why not? Their tactics are intended to scare people into changing their behaviour without regard to the victims involvement in the process. Isn't that the definition of terrorism.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>