Slashdot Log In
RIAA Wants to Depose Dead Defendant's Children
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Aug 14, 2006 01:44 AM
from the stuff-you-can't-believe dept.
from the stuff-you-can't-believe dept.
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"
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Ends Harassment of Grieving Family 256 comments
denebian devil writes "According to Cory Doctorow at Boingboing, the RIAA has dropped its case against the family of a dead man. 'Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement: Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
what do they want? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:what do they want? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ohn his tombstone - "Over my dead body!!!"
The RIAA is going to have a problem with this. Not just an image problem - a legal problem.
The survivors just have to say "I don't know for sure. You'll have to ask him. Anything else is just speculation, and I'm not under oath to speculate."
Parent
Re:what do they want? (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists who allow free downloading of their music find that is *INCREASES* sales. Independant studies [washingtonpost.com] show that show P2P increases sales.
The only reason the music industry is afraid of P2P is because it threatens their business model. Once people get used to trying music for free, RIAA members lose their marketing chokehold. This chokehold is the the last remaining reason that artists agree to contract terms that can only charitably be described as "indentured servitude."
RIAA members aren't terrified of piracy, they're terrified of competition.
Parent
Re:what do they want? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how the RIAA is suing people who infringe on the copyrights of their member's then, isn't it?
You do know that the money the RIAA extorts from people goes straight back to the RIAA's legal war chest, right? The artists don't see a dime of it.
Parent
Re:what do they want? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
They want a revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave me out.
The purpose of the RIAA lawsuits is not to make money from settlements. It's to scare people away from engaging in copyright infringment. As such, it's not in the interests of the RIAA to appear to have a heart. Moreover, every single one of you who's going to go home tonight and tell your friends about the big, bad, RIAA, is doing exactly what they hope you'll do.
No, it's not working they way they want. People see the entire RIAA represented music industry as a greedy dinosaur that's enacted a bunch of really bad laws which they are abusing beyond the intent of any legislative intent. It's backfired on them big time and they are going to lose the basis of their suits and might even face long overdue copyright reform that will eliminate their obsolete business model.
The IRS tried the intimidation approach once and what they got was Ronald Reagan and a twenty five year bitch slap. It's been a long long time since the IRS has confiscated property from anyone but blatant scoff laws and real criminals. The purpose of the IRS is revenue, not ruin. Anyone who thinks the RIAA is more powerful than the IRS is deluding themselves.
When you act like they are acting, retribution is swift. Me telling my friends all about the RIAA's behavior is going to do two things the RIAA really does not want. People are going to be that much less likely to buy music and people are going to rethink copyright law. These cases make the copyright lawyers look really stupid and none of this talk is fun. People don't want anything to do with party poopers like the RIAA. Music is supposed to be fun, unifying and shared.
Parent
Re:what do they want? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. The Recording industry as a whole has ripped of artists as well as customers.
3. The RIAA wants to make it illegal for me to rip CDs that I have purchased legally for me to play on my portable music player or to make backups of the music I have purchased legally.
4. A member of the RIAA has put an illegal Root kit on CDs that it manufactured in the name of copy protection.
5. The members of the RIAA are still making billions of dollars of profits. I have not heard of any lay offs or losses so their need for special protection seems to be in question.
One and four are indisputable facts. Two and three are may be argued but most will agree with them. Five is a fact with an opinion.
Now let's talk about how STUPID it is to sue a 15 year old girl, a grand mother, and or a dead man. These actions look to me as heartless. I would also say if the members of the RIAA want to claim the moral high ground then I am all for it. How about starting off with an investigation into the their accounting practices and their employees and or contractors supplying drugs, alcohol, and sex partners to their artists?
Okay the record companies are such a juicy target for the extreme right. Come on guys this is for the children and the grandmothers.
Parent
Re:What TIME is it kiddies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
They want the negative PR. It's a scare tactic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They want the negative PR. It's a scare tactic. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:They want the negative PR. It's a scare tactic. (Score:5, Informative)
And that, sir, is exactly the difference.
RIAA is not suing that family. It wants the family-members to provide sworn statements (which is what "depose" means) that could be used to proove the guilt of the dead person.
And that makes it a bit, shall I say, distastefull in my opinion.
But, as has allready been remarked, the sole purpose of RIAA is to "kill" (in any way, but for the physical one). Lack of revenue is no problem, as they are attached with a umbilical-cord to their parents, who provide them with the sustenance they need, as well as the pressure to make sure noone intervenes with their idea that they should be able to control anything that could be considered being music.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Low grade manure? Why, the RIAA has some of the most impressive bullshit I've seen in years!
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I realize that you're joking, but I'd like to set the record straight. Larry was a friend of mine. I worked with him for the past couple of years. He never illegally downloaded any music. Unfortunately, his step-son did (IIRC, almost 2000 songs using Limewire). Larry wasn't the most technically proficient guy, so he had no idea this was being done on his own computer. He would bring the case up at work. We would talk about it on occasion, he'd tell me a little about the case and how he was trying to work out a deal. I actually told him about Slashdot, and all the articles about the RIAA's slimy tactics. Larry used to be a lawyer, so he had some idea of how to deal with these guys. Larry's death caught us all by surprise. He died of a brain aneurysm, well before his time.
Parent
Grieving Time? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Grieving Time? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Grieving Time? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Grieving Time? (Score:5, Funny)
How did you think you get lawyers?
Parent
Re:Grieving Time? (Score:5, Informative)
A hooker will stop screwing you after you die.
Parent
Re:Grieving Time? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What, are their lawyers salaried? (Score:5, Interesting)
There ought to be a law against that. (Salaried lawyers, that is. There's already laws against extortion.)
Re:What, are their lawyers salaried? (Score:5, Informative)
KFG
Parent
Re:What, are their lawyers salaried? (Score:5, Interesting)
And, as any conspiracy theorist would ask one to do in a situation like this. Follow the money.
The RIAA is paid by the recording companies, and the recording companies are paid for by people like you and me who buy their products.
Seriously, at this point in the game, there is no need for them. People are more than willing and have the capabilities to distribute recorded music via bittorent, IRC, FTP, HTTP, USENET, and purchasing used music. There are excellent artists who have consciously made the decision to not go with the RIAA sanctioned labels for this reason.
At this point in time, it seems clear that the proper decision is to boycott these people. I really didn't think I was doing anything that wrong but I bought my first RIAA album in years because I wanted it, but I'm done now. The only legal means of buying music today that I will do is from the used CD store, but otherwise, I'm going to "pirate" and do whatever it takes to not directly support these people anymore.
WIth the new highdef DVDs not playing legal content and it is getting to the point that its practically a crime to pay for music and movies, I believe it is simply time to stop doing so.
Parent
Where is Haley Joel Osment for the film portrayal? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks, I'll be here all night, please try the fish, it's great tonight.
History repeats itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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?"
Get Ken Lay's lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, if Ken Lay could get himself acquitted on technical grounds, then this poor guy should also be.
Where's the outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Where's the outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Where's the outrage? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Yuck... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet somehow the outrage only seems to be restricted to certain areas like
Parent
Re:Yuck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are these people? At one point or another they must have started as "regular" citizens (fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, neighbours -- consumers). When did they change? And why?
A comparative study on criminal and corporate behaviour would probably be rather interesting... especially regarding the point when either subject decided that the interest of their immediate environment was not theirs anymore.
I do not want to insinuate that all corporate lawyers/executives are criminals, far from it. However I'd really like to know at what point (and why) people start making descisions which they would -- perceiveing themselves at the recieving end of -- in all likelyhood reject.
Has this been done? Does anyone have mor information on this subject? I'd be grateful.
Parent
They're psychopaths, in the medical sense (Score:5, Insightful)
About 1% of the population are psychopaths. They have no empathy to start with (or rather, they _do_ read your body language very well... but then at most use it to shaft you).
They're essentially living in a single-player game, surrounded by NPCs which are expendable and don't matter. Think of the last time you've played a game. Did you care about the NPCs? Did you care if the hooker you've brained in GTA maybe has children, or maybe is only doing that to pay for her father's surgery, or whatever? Did you care about her feelings, goals in life, etc? Or were you in a frame of mind that NPCs by definition don't matter, and any lies, deceit, even murder, are ok as long as they keep you entertained? It's just a game, and the smart player does whatever works to get ahead, right?
Well, think of people whose approach to RL is just that. Everyone else doesn't matter. Causing any harm is just fair game, if it keeps them entertained. (And indeed a lot of them aren't even motivated by monetary gains, and do outright counter-productive stuff just because they find it entertaining to shaft someone hard.) Most of them are also nigh impossible to threaten, presumably as an effect. At any rate, for them you don't matter. They can tell you to jump off a building with a straight face, if they think you might buy that, and be perfectly able to look themselves in the mirror the next day.
The dumb ones become robbers, gangsters and serial killers, and society eventually puts them behind bars. The smart ones become CEOs and politicians, and get worshipped by Wall Street.
Most of them had no life-shattering trauma to blame it on. Most of the white collar psychopaths come from rich or middle class families, led good lives, had the best education, etc. The only trauma in their life was the one they've inflicted on others.
Some of them will _invent_ some rags-to-riches story, to gain sympathy. It makes people easier to manipulate. But almost invariably those stories aren't actually true.
Parent
Re:Yuck... (Score:5, Interesting)
A man ran a bagel delivery service, wherein he would deliver bagels, cream cheese, butter, etc. to customers each morning. Payments were on the honor system, and a box was placed next to the bagels for this purpose. On average, people shorted him by a small percentage, but not enough that the system didn't work.
One business that used this service was a bit unusual. It was a three story building, with the top management on the top floor, middle management and such on the second, and regular working stiffs on the first. Seperate bagel drop offs were made to each floor. Without fail, the third floor's payments were always short by the largest percentage.
There is something inherently wrong with the system when those who rise to the top are more likely to be dishonest than the general population.
Parent
Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Well, you know what Shakespeare said... (Score:5, Insightful)
They must be either atheists or fools to not fear the cost of abusing the bereaved for profit upon their souls.
In other words, smart theists only act morally because they're afraid that if they don't they will be punished? Thanks for pointing that out. I, being an atheist, try to do right because that's the right thing to do, I don't need the threat of eternal damnation hanging over me. I was about to feel offendend by your remark, but now I see it's actually religious people who should feel offended...
Now go ahead and mod me off-topic.
Parent
The RIAA doesn't care about public image (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
The RIAA limbo, how low can they go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are people addicted? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
First reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How do we arrange for RIAA disbandment? (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA Lawyer's office is like 1 mile away... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't give them ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
I can just see it. Next thing you know, the RIAA hires hitmen instead of lawyers.
Parent
Missing the Point... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a lot of outrage expressed over RIAA tactics (as there should be), but I still think a lot of people are missing the essential point. There are many comments along the lines of 'How can the RIAA screw their customers like this?', and 'Don't they care about their PR?' etc.
The point is - no, they don't care about their PR, and they certainly don't care about their customers or their clients (the 'artists' who will in all likelihood never see a penny of the loot from the RIAA). The RIAA, like us, have seen the future, and like us, they know that it doesn't include them. They're not stupid - they know that electronic distributions systems will only get better, faster and easier. They know that an artist will soon be able to bypass the RIAA completely and reach the public directly. They know that the teenagers of today (who will become the consumers of tomorrow) find the notion of paying for music odd and outdated.
What we are seeing here, from DRM to pointless lawsuits to egregious congressional lobbying are just stopgap solutions, all of which will eventually fail, sooner or later. So what's an organization to do when they see their cash cow headed for the slaughterhouse, and know that there is nothing at all that they can do about it? Simple - they make as much money as they can before the inevitable happens. They know there will be no RIAA in the future - so in the meantime, they are abusing the system way past the breaking point in order to garner as much cash for the Executives to retire on when the time comes.
When seen from this prespective, the actions of the RIAA make sense. They don't care about their image - they care only about squeezing the last drop of blood from the stone before technology renders them obsolete. That doesn't mean we should give up the fight - we should continue to do all that we can to hasten the 'Day of Reckoning' - (shameless plug for Lizzie West's album 'Holy Road').
Goodbye RIAA - we hardly knew you. Not that we cared.
In defence of the lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
In particular I gain the impression that some here are thinking of taking direct action of some kind against these kindly, well intentioned folks.
I would urge you not to do this.
I note that the links lead to the application by the lawyers, who helpfully include their email address.
We should treat this information with the respect it deserves and should not cause them to receive any spam, and we should not put matthew@srkllp.com in the email field of every popup window that offers up free porn, Viagra, or free Ipods. Signing them up for services is malicious and may be for all I know, illegal.
Also, the huge numbers of Slashdot readers should not send him or his firm emails, because that would be a bad thing, and might upset their email service.
The fact that their Managing Partner (dick@srkllp.com) likes to be referred to as a "Dick" should be treated as a personal choice, and in the spirit of
a diverse and respectful society, I urge all you all to refrain from sending him jokes about his name.
He's probably heard them all before.
Except of course if he's deaf.
Deaf Dick lawyers have feelings too, be kind.
I call upon everyone here to respect the good intentions of the undoubtedly excellent and obviously totally ethical firm of Soble Rowe Krichbaum LLP
I note that their firm specialises in "Complex cases" and "mediation". Perhaps if there is a legitimate criticism of these fine men (and possibly a female secretary), is that
their obvious talents are being wasted. Whatever view you have of current affairs in the Middle East, might it not be resolved with less pain if these fine men (and the lady who makes them coffee) were instead to use their obvious talents on a global scale ?
Re:separation (Score:5, Funny)
. .
KFG
Parent