WTF…....is there anyone the RIAA won't go after?

Taleran

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html

Just when we think we've heard it all….
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:

now I know they are trying to do the right thing but…............cmon people should be better than that.

joekido the Second

I don't know excatly the detail here but since my agreement sucks so all I can say is "Okay".

Taleran

basically it comes down to

the guy they were sueing died during the process so they plan to give his kids 60 days to grieve before they attack them

joekido the Second

That's kinda dry. I guess minds like that can be a such strange twist.

Le Lawliet

If they want to lose, that's fine by me. The kids have nothing to do with it most likely.

Masta D.

60 days to grieve…? And now they're blaiming it on the kids??? Be a little more specific, Taleran dude. What's the whole case about?

Buuhan1

Well thats just fucked up. I hope Warnor Bros. lose this case.

And I agree, whats the details of the case?

joekido the Second

What is the big deal about this case? What is this suppose to be about?

kaemmerite

Taken from a news article:

"Most of the case documents are not publicly available at this point, and the suit was not highly publicised until now, so it's hard to find any real detail on the charges involved."

However, given the RIAA's case history, it's safe to say they went after this guy for either downloading or providing copyrighted music/sound files.

Which (while I think it's absurd to go after everyone who downloads music) is perfectly legal and fine. But for the lawyers to go after his CHILDREN after his death, is absolutely freaking ridiculous.

The_green_samurai_ranger

Yea I believe in the legal system BUT anymore, it is just too much crap that it can not even justify itself.

Le Lawliet

Like I said, if they want to lose, that's fine by me. If it's about the guy himself, the children aren't responsible for said charge unless they did it themselves.

The RIAA is an extremely powerful organisation, with no thanks to the people who mindlessly purchase the music they license.

…

A self-fufilling advertising circle, it is; a spiral down to the abyss.

UNKNOWNFILE

It just goes to show you how private organizations should have no political power.

wintergt

Under pressure of the public outrage this caused, the RIAA has dropped this case, haha.

Ubiq

@jackvance:

Under pressure of the public outrage this caused, the RIAA has dropped this case, haha.

Not surprising; it's bad publicity and it's not like they have firm legal ground to stand on anyway. Really, the object of these lawsuits is to force the defendant into a settlement, not to actually get into a lawsuit. If it actually went to trial, the RIAA has a serious chance of not only losing their case, but paying out a hefty sum for damages.

Buuhan1

Happy to hear they dropped the case.

Invader Pichu

Damn, and I thought the RIAA sueing an 8 year old was bad.

At least they dropped the case. Doesn't make me hate the RIAA any less, though.

kaemmerite

Here is the official statement by the RIAA:

"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."

Well, the wording of the case says they have dropped "this particular lawsuit." Which implies to me they'll come back with a NEW lawsuit against the stepson.

And notice the only reason they dropped the lawsuit was because of "an overabundance of sensitivity" which basically means they realized this case made them look like a bunch of inconsiderate jerks. If this hadn't gotten so much exposure, they probably wouldn't have dropped it.

Taleran

didn't they go after one family that didn't even own a computer? I seem to recall that from a while back

kaemmerite

The closest I can find is Priority Records vs Candy Chan, in which it was found out that she didn't know how to operate a computer (which I guess implies she didn't have one) and didn't know what file sharing was. There was another case against one David Andora in which they found the computer he owned was incapable of running the programs they accused him of using.