Slashdot Log In
RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:05 AM
from the finall-a-case-they-can-win dept.
from the finall-a-case-they-can-win dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Does the RIAA Fear Counterclaims? 245 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA seems to have a fear of counterclaims. In Elektra v. Schwartz, a case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA is protesting on technical grounds Ms. Schwartz's inclusion of a counterclaim against them for attorneys fees. This counterclaim includes as an exhibit the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen brief in Capitol v. Foster, which decried the RIAA's tactics as a 'driftnet.' In prior email correspondence between the lawyers Ms. Schwartz's attorney had offered to withdraw the counterclaim if the RIAA's lawyer could show him legal authority that its assertion was impermissible, saying 'I wouldn't want to get into motion practice over a mere formality.' The RIAA lawyer's response was 'I will let you know.'"
[+]
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
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.
And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, Disabled people could do thing wrong. The objection is that they are on limited income and probably don't have the abilit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod Up - bogus argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod Up - bogus argument (Score:4, Informative)
The mention of the stroke does indeed have a purpose beyond emotional appeal. The medical bills from the stroke, combined with the fact that his base income is already small if he's on Social Security Disability, give the distinct impression that he might have financial difficulty mounting a strong defense in a case such as this.
The whole point is that the RIAA is suing someone, who based on the evidence available is most likely innocent, just because he probably doesn't have the money to defend himself successfully. They probably hope he'll cave in and settle because it'll cost less than the extended legal battle he might face.
I think NewYorkCountryLawyer [blogspot.com] included the medical information because it has a direct bearing on the interpretation of the RIAA's actions in this case. If all you saw was an appeal to pity, then maybe you need to re-read the summary again.
Evil much (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not do both? I'm surprised we're behind Canada on this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ef
Re:Evil much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil much (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that there are credible arguments for education and road building being of help to society as a whole. Thus it is perfectly possible that people without children may derive a benefit from everyone being given a basic education and people without cars may derive a benefit from the existance of roads.
The difference is that there are a lot fewer aguments in favour of supporting an obsolete business model. At least from the point of view of society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
check out that lawyer, though. ten bucks says he's on the naughty list.
Re:And that matters why? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...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? (Score:4, Informative)
Then your justive system sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt they claim never to have engaged in file sharing, but that doesn't automatically make it true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmmm, the guy is housebound? Do you think he'd do more playing, downloading, etc, on t
Re:And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
How Long... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How Long... (Score:5, Informative)
stroke me, stroke me (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
you know... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Dream On! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Straight to hell huh (Score:4, Informative)
The "RIAA" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "RIAA" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ob Simpsons (Score:4, Funny)
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!!
Too close for comfort (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA are terrorists? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Public Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someday... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someday... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been collecting a list of links I call Liberated Music [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They have to do this, folks, you don't understa (Score:5, Informative)
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
2. That is a complete fabrication about the law; there is no such thing as "selective prosecution" in civil litigation. (In fact, even in criminal law it's a concept that exists on paper, but is almost never an issue in reality. Prosecutors are supposed to be selective and have "prosecutorial discretion" to pick some cases as worthy of prosecution, and others not.)