RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan 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."
And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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 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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is sensationalist.
Gosh, I was fired from my job while still not allowed to drive for a few more weeks due to surgery. Call the presses!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's imbecilic.
STB
Evil much (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not do both? I'm surprised we're behind Canada on this one.
It works with books (Score:2)
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 b
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)
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:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We in The Netherlands are being taxed on our blank cds and dvds (and they wanted to add taxes on mp3-players, hard drives and flash media as well, though that's been stopped for now by the Dutch government).
And the only thing that has stopped the rights groups to sue people is this thing called
BTDT... (Score:2)
Copy all the CDs you want, legally!
17 USC, Chapter 10 [house.gov], Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or ana
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the RIAA it is an AND no an OR situation (Score:2)
They want a tax on blank media AND prosecute file sharers. That at least is the case in the netherlands and you can see them trying to do the same in canada. Just because the judges have made it "legal" to download in the frozen wastelands of north america does not mean it is legal to upload.
So no a tax on blank media would NOT be good, not until the RIAA and the likes learn to accept that they cannot have it all.
What you have to remember is that the RIAA is not so much against file sharing but against an
Somebody make a movie!! (Score:2)
Were are the "The Corporation" guys or Michael Moore when he is needed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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:
"Pansy liberal love fests like the USA". Heh, I think I'm going to s
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)
Re: (Score:2)
According the way the US justice system is supposed to work - you don't have to prove anything - the prosecution has to prove you committed the crime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However, it is still the burden of the RIAA to prove him civilly liable. It is assumed that the defendant is innocent of any charges leveled against him in a court of law. Not just a court of criminal law, but civil law as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The plaintiff still needs to prove their case. The difference is that the standard of proof is lesser than in a criminal case.
So, it is up to him to prove his "innocence".
Since proving "innocence" may require proving a negative this isn't very practical. Instead what the accused does is to defend themselves (hence the
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt they claim never to have engaged in file sharing, but that doesn't automatically make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
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 se
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:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling all Slashdot readers: the RIAA trolls are really out in force on this one.
This is going to be fun.
Re: (Score:2)
the RIAA should have to have the burden of proof, but since you support the current legal system of he who has the most money to fight wins..... Well we all know that the poor are evil.
How dare they soil the air of us that are more fortunate!
Re:And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
How Long... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How Long... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA, thugs, rogues, thieves. What's the difference? One wears a suit and one does not?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
O rly? (Score:2)
Understatement of the year brought to you by Slashdot.
RIAA are terrorists? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
You have a good point here - except that terrorists don't tend you act within the law. But it does raise a related issue. Americans, in particular, have had a long and healthy tradition of taking up arms and fighting against organisations/people who have threatened their rights for freedom. As its beginning to look that the legal issues of downloading are just not what the majority of US citizens want I wonder how long before some slumbering giant is woken?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
% Disabled? (Score:2)
Correction! (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the big boys of RIAA. Learn 'em, avoid 'em. There's plenty of artists out there who aren't sellouts. I am not a fan of music created in indentured servitude. It ends up sounding plastic and pathetic. And you're likely to disappointed in a live show when you figure out all the "enhancements" they have so blissfully done. Music should come from the heart and not from some c
What do they hope to win? (Score:2)
Oh goodie (Score:2)
First off some people have trouble admitting something in court that they did not do. Silly isn't it?
It would also mean that he owes that money for the rest of his life (even presuming that in the US they have socialist protections against people being forced to live below the bare minimum, hell even in the EU these basic human laws are being torn apart by the servants of evil)
Imagine he won the lottery or got an inheritance OR even managed to recover, he would then have to pay the RIAA whatever he got fo
Public Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's Play "Spot the Troll" (Score:2, Flamebait)
1. This story, for some reason, has the RIAA trolls out in droves.
2. I don't know if it's several of them, or if it's one person with several ID's.
3. But I'm finding it fun to spot the user ID's that are trolling for the RIAA, and marking them "foe", other than the AC's.
4. I hope you'll all join in the fun.
5. I hope those of you with moderation points will play, too.
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:2, Insightful)
They could try, but when the artists they claim to be protecting start to scream for the heads of the lawyers, things would change.
It would only take a 20 - 30% drop in a short period to get their attention. The trick is getting the boycott organized and getting publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know about RIAA Radar, the site that lists music that IS RIAA owned, but is there a site that reviews music that ISN'T owned by them? I'm an Industrial/DnB fan and I'd like to not give money to people who sue children and the disabled.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been collecting a list of links I call Liberated Music [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 l
Re:They have to do this, folks, you don't understa (Score:2)
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 thi
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't even owned a television since last summer!
Re: (Score:2)
Since the RIAA has Congress so firmly in their pockets I believe we will have to bypass it altogether.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it g