RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer

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

Two words, please!!!!

Punitive Damages !!!!

Don't jump to conclusions

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

Re:Don't jump to conclusions

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

That's pretty shocking.

I mean she's NEVER used a computer?

Re:That's pretty shocking.

Me neither.

Re:That's pretty shocking.

I mean she's NEVER used a computer?

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

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

Re:That's pretty shocking.

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

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

How...

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

Re:How...

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

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

RIAA's investigative methods

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

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

Re:RIAA's investigative methods

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

Re:RIAA's investigative methods

Name similarity.

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

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

IP

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

Re:RIAA's investigative methods

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

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

A tried and true business method :)

Re:RIAA's investigative methods

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

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

Re:RIAA's investigative methods

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

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

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

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

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

TV License Parallel

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

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

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

Re:TV License Parallel

... I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down.

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

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

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

Will this work??

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

hasn't used a computer yet

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

It just goes to show you ...

... nobody expects the RIAA inquisition!

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

Truth in blurb?

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

Re:Truth in blurb?

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

THANK YOU.

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

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

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

Similar to earlier case

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

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

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

However her defense has changed slightly:

The Wappingers Falls woman says she never downloaded any songs and if it was done on her computer by her children or their friends it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it.

Ah, yes... the old "it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it" defense. I wonder how well that one will fly.

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

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

Lost profits!

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