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."
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.
The guy being disabled should make no difference whatsoever to the case. It just has nothing to do with it. The fact that he is disabled should not make a difference in the outcome of the trial. And BTW, I agree with you that the RIAA are moronic retarded greedy bastards etc. I wonder if they have to pay the legal costs of the defendants when they lose cases like this.
As someone who speaks to the victims of the RIAA lawsuits on a daily basis, I can definitely say that this stuff causes extreme anxiety and stress, and I'm sure it has contributed to depression and even to deaths.
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 like
What utter bullshit. If it's not worth paying for, it's not worth having.
OK, So the wording was wrong. it isn't worth having for the price they want to charge. And technicly, some of it is bearly worth having if the cost was free.
Your stance is, of course, the first step in the line of the "I want it free" crowd.
It may be. But don't automaticly assume the intention behind words are one way becuase someone else has said them. You get the music from several sources with little to no money out of your poc
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.
For no reason than to slant the story? Really? Funny, when I read the summary, I noticed:
defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement
Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year
sole income is Social Security Disability
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.
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:-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
But since the AHRA is so rarely applicable due to all of the conditions that go with it (it only works if you use certain, uncommon, media or devices, and only for certain types of works, and only for one type of infringement) that virtually no one is ever shielded by it. It's just not that much good in the modern real world.
No, you can't give them to your friends. That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. That is, they're infringing but no lawsuit can be brought
Well, if you made a stand-alone device that could connect to Bit Torrent and which could comply with SCMS, and you paid the royalty on it, and which wrote to some sort of conveniently removable media (e.g. a thumb drive), then you'd be fine. It's just a bit of an engineering challenge and not really all that likely to sell since people will probably just ignore the protection it confers, what with the price of the thing. But certainly the statute doesn't seem to prohibit networked devices from qualifying. I
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.
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.
"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".
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.
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.
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?
Ummmmm, the guy is housebound? Do you think he'd do more playing, downloading, etc, on the computer, or less, than the person who has a full time job, kids, goes to the gym, etc., etc.? Of course he probably uses the computer more, as a great outlet considering his disability.
And while I disagree with current fair use policies, and movie pri
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
Yes it is a problem, only I'm not sure the system does allow it. They are getting their head handed to them [blogspot.com] in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], and I am hopeful the 'system' is catching up to them elsewhere.
This is just insane but it doesn't do much good for us all to sit here and whine about it to ourselves. *we* are not the market that keeps funding these people. Howver, *we* have a responsibility to mobilize and get the word out to the *regular public*. Call every talk show you can print flyers.. Spread the word, while we still have the right of "freespeech" on our side.
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.
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.
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.
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
"I'm no fan of the RIAA, but...."
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.)
And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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 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 like
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, So the wording was wrong. it isn't worth having for the price they want to charge. And technicly, some of it is bearly worth having if the cost was free.
It may be. But don't automaticly assume the intention behind words are one way becuase someone else has said them. You get the music from several sources with little to no money out of your poc
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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 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 h
Re:Evil much (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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."
Parent
Re:And that matters why? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Then your justive system sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
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 to me, and the disabled are not exempt from them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmmm, the guy is housebound? Do you think he'd do more playing, downloading, etc, on the computer, or less, than the person who has a full time job, kids, goes to the gym, etc., etc.? Of course he probably uses the computer more, as a great outlet considering his disability.
And while I disagree with current fair use policies, and movie pri
Re:And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
How Long... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How Long... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.)
Parent