RIAA targets transplant patient Ciara Sauro
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Could Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s sick sue ‘em all campaign get any worse?
It could. And it has.
Their RIAA is suing a young transplant patient in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Nineteen-year-old Ciara Sauro has pancreatitis and because she needs an islet cell transplant, she’s hospitalized every week, a situation resulting in a huge accumulation of medical bills.
Now, “Because she didn’t defend herself against a copyright lawsuit, a federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled she’s a music pirate, and that could cost the Sauros almost $8,000 in fines,” says Pittsburg news channel WTAE.com.
“I already have severe depression,” the story has her saying. “I mean, it’s so hard to sit there and think that I have to get in trouble for something that I didn’t do. It’s not fair.”
It isn’t.
But then, fairness isn’t a word the Big 4 or Mitch Bainwol and Cary Sherman, the two spinsters who run their RIAA, understand.
Sauro is accused of of illegally sharing 10 songs online and, “You want to know the truth?” – the story has her mother, Lisa, saying.
“I make $8.25 an hour. She can’t work. This child is very sick. I mean, what am I supposed to do?
“I just want them to know that I have to go through enough stress in my life with my sickness and my family, and I don’t think that they should go after people just because they want money for something that’s not even fair to us.”
Not surprisingly, a lawyer for the record companies failed to return phone calls, says WTAE.com.
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
WTAE.com – Teen Transplant Candidate Sued Over Music Downloads, November 27, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yeesh. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, the parasites hit a new low.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This kind of thing is nothing new.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
This isn’t new, this is just a desperate RIAA lashing out, trying to find some of the money they threw down the well when they opened this can of worms.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Lets just sit back, and watch em do themselves in. This is exactly what it will take.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
ouch ,, that hurts even here
60 pages thick eh?
ok, i’ve had enough, here is a letter you or anyone can send to them:
—
Dear Sir or Ms,
Thank you for notifying me of your intentions. Due to not understanding your request I need more time and information.
First of all, could you please put your request in common terms since I am not a lawyer and so I am able to understand your request and defend myself. Or could you please send a teacher over so I may learn your jargon?
Could you please provide the FULL proof of your allegations in simple terms so I can understand. Please provide the FULL proof it was actually me who did what you say.
Needed items as proof:
- IP of said infringement
- files of supposed infringement
- proof it was my computer [MAC address, IP, times, dates, computer ID, login ID, user name, Operating System, Operating System ID, software used, exact byte size of file/s, MD5 checksum etc.]
- after you do this then I need proof that my IP was not hijacked or spoofed
- proof my computer was not hijacked or has been infected with Malware, Spyware, Virus or Internet worm
- proof it was not done as a test or mistake
- proof it was actually me at the computer at the time
Once you provide this information in full I’d be happy to continue this conversation on paper. Any communications outside of this will be considered as a attack and have a charge of $1,000 per incident or $1,000 per hour, or both as whichever I choose.
Please be advised my time on Earth is valuable and I charge $1,000 per hour for any infringement of my rights or wrongful accusations. Starting now you have been notified.
Sincerely,
——————————–
Notes for you and NOT to be sent to them:
- send this as registered letter with witnesses as well, video is good too
- at no time should you Ever let them have access to your computer unless they provide their full proof first [which they can't in any stretch of the imagination] and YOUR expert has a chance to look it over
- you want to get a hold of your local Trusted computer techie right away and look over your computer.
- It has to be one you trust not to mouth off or disclose information, make ‘em sign disclosure papers if you need
- if you have any malware, spyware, virus or worm on it the RIAA, MPAA and rest of greedy [ahem] don’t have a leg to stand on since anyone could have had access your computer illegally
- if you are running windows 98, NT, 2000, XP or Vista you have over 240,000 excuses for not being illegal since all of them have that many holes which Microcrap [microsoft] has not fixed or think they are important to fix
- if you are using WIFI you are susceptible to PPL stealing your computer time and connection without you knowing ,, keep this in mind
- lock your computer as much as possible and clean it of all junk by someone who’s damn good, including leftover directories, files and registry entries [jv16 tools does a good job and tells you of other references hanging around]
- make sure to keep the logs of doing so
- you get the idea …
If I missed any additions let me know
Enjoy
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 am
The Harvard Law School team that is representing Joel Tenenbaum in his case against the RIAA started a facebook group.
Join it. It will ultimately be a platform on which the team will issue some calls to action.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37707326867
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“that could cost the Sauros almost $8,000 in fines”
Not really in my opinion, if the judge is a reasonable person.
Downloading a song for personal uses cannot cause anywhere near $8,000 in damages. Downloading for prsonal enjoyment is no more damaging than listening to the radio, which is what people that do not buy records mostly do.
See Copyright Act, 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504.
It says:
(c) Statutory Damages. â
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.
The words “as the court considers just” can be applied by the judge, I believe to the election made (actual damages or statutory damages) and only award actual damages (about $10) because because the statutory damages are so much higher than the actual damages and the actual damages are very easy to calculate and can be the cost of downloading paid for song tracks.
I personally have the thesis that statutory damages were designed to deal with the unknown, such as the number of infringing records sold by a record company that has not kept records of units sold – they never seem to keep records. Applying statutory damages when the damages can be calculated from a known number of music records and when the profits from the sales are so easy to calculate is disparate and unjust.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
> free Says:
> December 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
>
> ouch ,, that hurts even here
> 60 pages thick eh?
> ok, iâve had enough, here is a letter you or anyone can send to them:
>
> [ blah, blah, blah... ]
I suggest that anyone contacted by the RIAA should not send anything resembling the proposed letter, but instead consider immediately contacting appropriate legal counsel and, per their advice, answering appropriately through the Court. Sending such a letter does not in any way protect you. It is not a legal response through the court system, and as such it does not shield you in any way. It does not constitute a contract between you and the RIAA or any of its members, so statements like ‘Any communications outside of this will be considered as a attack and have a charge of $1,000 per incident or $1,000 per hour, or both as whichever I choose’ are completely unenforceable. The entire letter can be appropriately filed by the RIAA in the nearest trash can, but they will probably save it to use against you in case you do (as Ms. Sauro unfortunately did) fail to respond to a case filed in the Court. Had Ms. Sauro responded with such a letter, but failed to respond in court, it would be proof to the Court that she had received service and had the opportunity to read it, to potentially contact legal counsel to explain the material to her, and had not done so. That would make it harder for any lawyer to reopen her case, and the default judgment against her for not responding to the lawsuit would probably stand.
There are also some flaws, in my opinion, in the other suggestions that ‘free’ posted. In particular, if served with a lawsuit regarding anything that involved information on my computer, I would be very careful to preserve any and all information, especially if I considered myself innocent of the actions alleged in the lawsuit. Even if I were not innocent, unless I knew someone VERY good, I would be careful about removing or destroying any information. Once you have been served and are on notice of the lawsuit, you have a duty to preserve any relevant information. If you are found to have removed, hidden, or destroyed any information, you may find yourself facing sanctions that could go as far as a default judgment against you by the court, or worse. I suggest that, rather than finding a ‘local Trusted computer techie’ who may make changes that could in fact get you in trouble because he/she does not fully understand your legal exposure, you should (if possible, and especially if you feel that you are innocent) immediately disconnect your computer from the internet (especially if you have an always-on DSL or Broadband/cable type of connection) and, if you can do without using it, power the computer down and leave it alone, at least until you have talked with legal counsel. By doing so, you are preserving evidence that may be important, such as any possible virus or malware that may be present on your computer right now, but may later be found and removed automatically by your antivirus software once your antivirus database settings get automatically updated (i.e. once the antivirus software vendor catches up to the virus, updates its database, and your computer gets the new settings, performs a scan, and cleans up, thus removing evidence that may be important to prove to the court that your computer was hacked and you are innocent of any infringement).
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
” Downloading a song for personal uses cannot cause anywhere near $8,000 in damages. Downloading for prsonal enjoyment is no more damaging than listening to the radio, which is what people that do not buy records mostly do. ”
They know that Rafael.
Thats why the current cases rely on the equally false ‘ Mass distribution’ theory.
They claim that the presence of the music file in a shared folder EQUALS distribution, even if it can’t be
proved that anyone other than an RIAA operative ever downloaded the file.
An person authorized by the RIAA to DL the file does not count as illegal distribution.
They are basically suing on an unprovable allegation, one that they ehmselves ADMIT in print they can’t prove, and
are asking judges to take their word for it.
Sadly, some judges are doing just that.
If you spend some time on Ray Beckerman’s Blog you’ll see some pretty depressing decisions made by
some either clueless or paid off Judges.
It disgusts me that it has been allowed to go as far as it has.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:02 am
THE AMERICAN JUDGEMENT SYSTEM IS BULLSHIT!!!
RIP THE SYSTEM!!!
END FASCISM!!!!
December 4th, 2008 at 6:35 am
heh and this is on its way into Canada with thanks to G.W. Harper.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Re: Beware Reply From ‘free’
Hmm, very interesting argument and reply. Your way does work if you want to go that route … maybe. You are putting your trust in a lawyer who may or may not be in your best interests or any good for that matter. Most PPL would not turn off their computer and let it sit there collecting dust just because … and I’m speaking from experience of users doing just that.
This [my] letter is a precursor to Notice of Intent and Understanding since most RIAA / MPAA threats are frivolous and without merit. Any threats from them has to be backed by proof which they can NOT produce in any stretch of the imagination.
You also must have missed the part “and YOUR expert has a chance to look it over”.
I also find it interesting that in my and other parties communications upon such threats by the big 4 nasties they have backed off and so have my numerous ISPs. Let me make this clear, I continued to share said files without further bullcrap notices or threats. As a matter of fact I’ve even goated them afterwards and still no further communications from them. I wonder why?
Mind you the letter above is a rough draft and has minor mistakes in it, therefore you need to revise it in your own words. What I usually send is worded more directly and usually has lots of F**** Y** in it … but that’s me. The point is that it works.
BTW: It’s not hard for a even a simpleton techie to make an image of HD to keep it as evidence if you need to.
Enjoy
December 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Enough of this.
ENOUGH OF THIS
December 8th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Filing a lawsuit when the target is known or should have known to be incapcitated is Abuse of Process and may open the persons involved to be held to answer to a complaint filed with the appropriate bar association (usually to some extent the responsibility of the state’s supreme court).
Lawyers tend to only go after persons who have deep pockets unless their client (or the lawyer’s errors and ommissions insurance company) could care less.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
My question is, if they pay the $8000, do they get to at least keep the songs?
December 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
poor girl. hopefully the ACLU or someone will help her out pro bono. the RIAA is despicable.
December 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
She shared 10 songs online…and this is what happens? I’m wondering how she got caught, millions of people do this daily and to my knowledge they’re not getting sued left and right.
Wonder what program she used to do it? And for just 10 songs? Did she post an album on a blog or something? Seems odd.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Itâs not just the RIAAâs fault it is also the lawyers, and the broken justice system, who allow rich corporations to sue a person into oblivion. The RIAA does not need proof they scare and threaten, or just sue you till you run out of money.
We should be attacking the Senators and lawmakers who allow this to go on. The parasitic RIAA are greed mongers, like a rabid dog until you put it down itâs going to snarl and bite at people. Look at the smug rich lawyer post above how they feel they are a much better that person, than everyone else because they are rich and in the legal know. The RIAA and the lackeyâs on their payroll donât care if they destroy lives. You are insignificant to them.
The power is in the people but the people are too stupid and mill around like bleating like sheep not doing anything substantial when bad things happen.
If you want it to change make it happen, gather your forces and attack the enemy from all directions. Allow no real avenue of escape. Cut the enemies powerbase, donât fight them on the battleground where they have power. Flank them, make it end. Divided we fall.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I say we just plain stop buying any of their crap, CDs, DVD,s anything. Yes, it will be difficult..but extremely effective!
December 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ironically, the letter that “Free” posted would damn near qualify as a legally binding contract. There are a few minor factors that would need to be addressed, but it would technically suffice. Look up contractual law sometime, that letter is a binding contract as written, and thus further intent to communicate is an acknowledgment of the binding contract that they are served with. The fact that it is witnessed makes it even more amusing (provided you have witness signature, as well as the signature of receipt). By following those, they are either forced into entering a binding legal contract with you at which time you are able to bill them for your time (as if you are running your own business), or drop communication and find an alternate means to go about it. That and that alone is why they generally buzz off when approached with such a letter. It is not a matter of whether or not the letter is legally binding concerning the recording industries case, it is simply a contract that they have acknowledged and thus must pay for the hours consumed at the disclosed rate. Quite an amusing tactic, but damn a fun one.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In response to my own, I should probably point out a few downfalls to using it as a contract though: #1. You would have to prove (burden of proof remains with you) that the person receiving and entering into the contract is able to do so as a representative of the RIAA. Without being able to prove this yourself (hence why you require a signature), then you are SOL. But yes, it is a contract none the less, you just have to know and understand contractual law and how it works. Do NOT use the letter without understanding it. It is a valid one, but cannot be used lightly without costing you alot of money too if youre not careful.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I have used certain P2P services in the past, and have seen active shared folders with hundreds and thousands of song files and hundreds of movie files – some DVD rips, and some being video cam recordings from movie theaters.
I love the fact that every time there’s a news report of the RIAA going after someone new, it’s always either a housewife or a teenager who has no possibility of fighting back. Where are the reports of the RIAA hitting the mega sharers with multi GIGS of songs being shared?
December 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The music industry just needs to embrace the fact that online sharing will not go away, and they also need to realize that the RIAA can’t recoupe any of their perceived lost revenues. The fees these attorneys take leave nothing to the artists. Time for new strategy.
I think a better strategy would is to be nice to your fans and make them ‘want’ to pay for their music. They probably benefit from the spike in live concert revenues and endorsement deals.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I’ve seen on at least one of the lawsuits where they listed the song(s) reported as shared, and at least 2 or 3 out of 10 listed were old songs that haven’t been on sale on a CD in years (like classic 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s songs). What freakin’ revenue are they expecting on songs that are so outdated? The reason people share the old songs is because you can’t buy new discs with those songs most of the time.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The only industry more mis-managed than the American car industry: the RIAA. If they had their way, we’d all still be listening to vinyl records for $40 a piece. This girl should have Scott Boras represent her. Imagine what an epic battle of evil that would be!
December 9th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I know it is sad about the girl’s condition, and I know that her mother is obviously finding it hard.
But the law is the law.
You break the law, then you suffer the consequences, and this girl broke the law.
-Kaster
December 9th, 2008 at 2:08 am
sadly… this is exactly how it’s going to be. whether anyone likes it or not, the laws are in place, and the RIAA’s lawyers are going to continue going for the fkn throat at any and all costs. I could spends hours writing on here about the abuses of copyright law, how the RIAA doesn’t really represent artists and instead represents the corrupt, over-paid, capitalistic record companies, etc. etc. – until people actually realize what is going on and start taking serious action, things like this are going to continue.
the record industry is a dying dinosaur; online sales are going to one day decimate CD sales, and artists (myself included) are going to need to find new means of distributing and somehow covering their costs. The power is really in the artists hands, and the RIAA is fighting the battle not for them, but for the record companies, as usual.
It’s sick. It’s sad. It’s wrong – but it’s the law at the moment. Stories like this make my heart hurt.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Re Kasterborus
Kaster, can YOU prove that the girl did it? Can YOU prove that ANY MEMBER of her family did it?
IP addresses can be FAKED (called spoofing), traces can be misdirected by hacked routers. They (the RIAA) are full of BS unless they can show in front of a judge that the PC has the files, has p2p sharing software, and has those files listed as shared. If all they have is information on paper, it’s not worth the price of the paper it was printed on. I could type up a document swearing to something against someone else, but without CONCRETE PROOF, it is a worthless piece of paper. This is all SCARE TACTICS! I say EVERYONE should setup p2p software and start sharing EVERYTHING they can: music, movies, TV shows, games, apps, OS disk images, etc. WE THE CONSUMERS HAVE THE POWER TO FIGHT AGAINST THE CORPORATE MACHINES, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT TOGETHER!
December 9th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
re: comments to my posts = you are all correct, depends which state and which judge.
It does work though because they don’t know if you have whole army of lawyers or you have lots of power.
re: everyone else
the RIAA is same as any other business these days that’s connected to banks, gov. and neocons [Morgans, Rockefellers, Westinghouse etc.]
They will try to take down anyone and everyone no matter what their cost, a few billion is peanuts to them as long as they can lock down our internet.
They DEFTLY fear us because of knowing or spreading information such as:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=THE+TRUTH+%26+LIES+OF+9%2F11&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=
… and what we could do to them.
Link is of cop attacked by CIA for telling it like it is with documented proof [14 parts well worth a look see]
Also look up William Cooper … an insider who exposed the gov.
That’s what this is all about PPL
Still too bad they gotta take it out on disabled or ones who can’t fight back. Just shows how desperate they are.
Enjoy