RIAA targets dead man’s kids
p2pnet news view | Kids & Kartels:- Warner Bros Records, and other members of the Organized Music family, say they’ll give the children of a man they were tyrannizing for alleged copyright infringement extra time to “grieve” over their father’s death.
Then it’ll be back to business.
Warner Music Group reported … soaring digital music sales, even as the company continues to lose money and faces numerous lawsuits related to alleged price fixing of music downloads. In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Warner Music said the company has been named in 14 class-action lawsuits, most of which allege a ‘conspiracy among record companies to fix prices for downloads’.”
These are the introductory paragraphs to a ZDNet story on Warner Music, a founder member of the multi-billion-dollar Organized Music gang who claim they’re being devastated by people, including children, who share music with each other.
Warner, et al, have since 2003 been running a bizarre and vicious sue ‘em all marketing campaign under which they’re trying to terrorize millions of their own customers, whom they’re calling ‘criminals’ and ‘thieves,’ into toeing the corporate bottom line.
Using their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), the Big Four say p2p file sharing robs them of sales, although they haven’t been able to show any proof of this, and they say they’ve sued close to 19,000 Americans for the non-existent crime of file sharing, even though not one of these victims has yet been found guilty of anything in a civil court.
Larry Scantlebury, one of the people the RIAA has been trying to intimidate, died in June. But rather than do the decent thing – drop the specious case – the Big Four are giving Scantlebury’s children 60 days to mourn, after which they want RIAA lawyers to grill them.
In a motion to judge Anna Diggs Taylor to extend the deadline following Scantlebury’s death, Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., BMG Music, Arista Records LLC, Capitol Records, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs), respectfully request the Court stay the case for 60 days and extend all deadlines 60 days, they say, going on:
In support thereof, Plaintiffs state the following:
1. Plaintiffs have recently learned that Defendant, Larry Scantlebury, passed away on June 20, 2006. Please see the attached Death Certificate.
2. Prior to Mr. Scantlebury`s passing, Plaintiffs believed that there was potential to resolve the case. While at the time of Mr. Scantlebury`s death, he had not responded to Plaintiffs` discovery (he had asked for and received extensions), he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs` copyrights.
3. Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate to discuss a resolution of the case with the family so close to Mr. Scantlebury`s passing. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.
4. In the event the parties do not reach a resolution with Mr. Scantlebury`s estate or the other family members involved, Plaintiffs anticipate amending the complaint following depositions of members of Mr. Scantlebury`s family.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court stay the case for 60 days and extend all deadlines 60 days.
(Thanks, Ray)
Also See:
ZDNet – Warner Music faces 14 lawsuits over download fees, May 5, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
August 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Jon, you might want to change the gif now:
“crewing artist and consumers since decades and now new in their portfolio; terrorising the surviving dependants”
August 12th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
I call Bullshiat!
Ah but its amazing the number of Independent musicians that are out there as compared to the major label artists. About 10 to 1 as I recall.
Artist development is a farce. No major ever signed an act, sent them to school to learn music, marketing, etc. They were signed because of what they were playing they were already developed, at least to a point they felt they could be marketed. Major label “Artist development” is a simply a means to charge the band for services against their potential royalties to ensure they don’t ever “recoup”.
As for the no music same thing again. If the majors were paying the radio stations via “Indies” the unsigned artists might actually have a chance to get heard, because the program directors would be letting the music stand on its own, rather than how much they got paid to play it.
Bill Evans
August 12th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
“… and yet without them, there would be no music, and artist development would be at a stand-still.”
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this, or I would have shot it out of my nose!
August 12th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
… is still bullshit.
Cheers!
August 12th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Hmm, you need to up your medication or start taking it. Nothing you opined makes any sense.
There is absolutely nothing *responsible* about a mere 60 day stay after the death of the named alleged “their” and then wanting to sue the surviving family members if they (RI-Uh-Uh) does not get the ::coughcough:: resolution they feel they deserve. No one is being protected here or in any other R-EyeXX lawsuit. Never was, never will. Stockholders do not count so don’t go there – they don’t make the music.
August 12th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
My bad. I was laughing so hard after reading the post I was commenting to.
I meant “…thief…” not “…their…”
August 12th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“…and yet without them, there would be no music, and artist development would be at a stand-still.”
You don’t truly believe in any of that bullshit you just spouted, do you? Puh-lease, nobody is that stupid. I certainly don’t believe it. I know because I myself am an artist and I do it out of love, not for money. It’s the path I was born to take, what I was meant to do with my life. I am 100% certain sure that there is no shortage of folks out there like myself. The simple fact is that thanks to the internet, many outdated concepts that plague the recording industry simply aren’t needed anymore and they know it.
“I believe they are acting responsibly…”
Hardly. How about acting in their own best interests? Definitely, and morality be damned. Everything the recording industry has done in response to the internet since it’s beginning has clearly lacked any kind of morality, wisdom, or foresight. Yes, downloading copyrighted works may also be an immoral act (a minor one at best), but I think a lot of what the RIAA has been doing in recent years is far far worse, and this P2PNet story in particular, which is only one of a good many so far, is excellent proof of that.
Everyone knows the story about the sinking of the Titanic. Of particular interest is how the band, in the interest of putting people at ease while under such dire circumstances, played right to the very end. The entire band died that night, going down with the ship. Do you know what each band members family got for their deep loss? White Star Lines, the owners of the Titanic, sent each grieving family a bill for the uniforms that were lost and never returned. Yes, the company demanded that these families pay for the loss of those band uniforms. This is a perfect example of how industry types think, and how immoral they truly are. Most businesses only care about one thing, and that’s money. It doesn’t matter how they get it, only that they do, and it does not matter who they have to stomp on or how many laws they have to break in order to accomplish this singular goal. Whatever it takes without getting caught. So, anyone who belives the recording industry is different somehow and not the evil, immoral bastards that they clearly are, is utterly deluding themselves.
I believe that some day, when the industry has harmed enough folks, that the justice system will eventually see them for what they really are, opinions will slowly change, and that with time the ease with which the industry ruins perfectly regular people will become harder and harder until it reaches near impossible. They are digging a very deep hole for themselves with each and every lawsuit they file, the result of which being that they are making it easier and easier as time passes to bring them down. And, someone or something will some day, mark my words. History shows us that nothing ever lasts forever, and that you can only abuse the system for so long before it eventually turns against you. Maybe it will be racketeering charges that gets them in the end, or maybe something else entirely that we can’t forsee yet at this point, who knows. After all, new laws are always right around the next corner. Looks at how Al Capone was eventually taken down for example. Just remember what I said here when it happens, and remember that I told you so.
August 13th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Jon i know you are allowing anonymous posts and i think thats good. but please for the laughing and understanding of this comment. if the poster has a RIAA IP or a IP of a lawfirm working for RIAA please tell us that info!
Because that would be the only reasonable explaination beside total delusion for his “no music, no artist development”-comment!
August 13th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Actually, there are people who actually buy into that moral highground bullshit the RIAA and similar organizations spout, as there were people who honestly and truthfully believed in the propaganda of the nazi war years, there are people who buy into this version of morale and think that it’s “the right thing”
Suing the family of the decased, that’s fucking low, the 60 day grace period just underscores that fact and makes it clear that these assholes deserve to have their business ruined. If I knew somebody who confessed that they worked in the circles that do this, and knowingly turn the other way, I’d tell them to fuck off and never bother me again. People who do this should be outed and banned from any civilized social circuits, they should be persecuted personally and hunted down and made fun of publically.
So, people, you who are the hunted, start to hunt these people yourself, but don’t harm them physically, that’s just idiotic, harm them with information. If you know anyone whose an agent for these forces, out them in your circle of friends, make it known that these people are the ones that are working to kick you out of your house just so that they can line their pockets with your cash.
If they work for this company at even the lowest level, they’re helping the top tiers sue YOU, so why should you be friends with them?
Start the hunt.
August 13th, 2006 at 6:07 am
What the RIAA doesn’t understand is that this filesharing is a victimless crime. A vast majority of the music downloaded “illegally” is music that would never have been purchased anyway. Consumers need to understand that the RIAA and the people that hired them are racketeers and price fixers out to gouge YOU out of everything they can. They have our elected traitor lawmakers on their side. When Windows Vista and it’s DRM is fully functional you will see that file downloading and sharing is finished, cd copying will be fininshed, tape recording will be finished. The computer as we knew it will be finished. It will be a new era of government controlled computing. Talking the RIAA down will serve no purpose. They are not going to stop and are anxiously waiting for Vista and the digital flag. The RIAA does not want you to hear their music unless you pay for it, period. It’s a rich man’s hobby from now on.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Nice try …
Jon does not now or has he ever logged or monitored IP
addy’s. He has no way of identifying anonymous posters.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Artists seem to be adjusting just fine to this brave new P2P-enabled world.
Fileshare lawsuits are a lost cause in Sweden; Jan Van Valburg aren’t starving in the streets of Stockholm.
CRIA members are quitting in droves, and Nettwerk stands in open rebellion to the RIAA’s lawsuit campaign; Avril Levigne isn’t starving in the streets of Toronto.
Madonna.com now streams free music 24/7 to your standard web browser, no email address or credit card required; the Queen of Pop (and poster girl for Big Four talent) isn’t starving in the streets of London.
I don’t know what to disagree with first; that P2P is hurting artists, that the lawsuits are necessary to protect the artists, or that the Big Four are interested in protecting anyone other than the Big Four.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Hm, this server is hosted on US soil IIRC and the defaoult is that servers have some log files.
If not, not so tragic. even without the knowledge if the comment was from a RIAA member IP i believe the poster is either brainwashed or “one of THEM”
August 13th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
the funny thing is, if nowadays the horsebreading industry (is there one with such a big lobby?) would go after their rival the automobile industry,like the copying and distributing industry goes after their rival p2p then hell would break loose and everyone would tell the horsebreaders to STFU and accept that thing that is called technological evolvement.
Strange that this uproar is not happen these days in the other case RIAA vs People!
August 13th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Rafael in this case it (my pure speculation based on the amazon reviews that are believed to be hims) was not such a dying old man I guess. Last review was written 2 days prior to the death date according to the legal papers.
Its just speculation, I have no autopsyreport, but it would not wonder me if the stress he was inflicted -by the RIAA lawyer that has a record of influencing wittnesses in an (illegal?) manner- might be a factor in his death.
Extreme stress can worsen medical conditions if the cause of death was not something like an car accident for example.
But of course you are right; “Sue the dying old. You cannot loose.” that’s devils advocate tactics
August 13th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
ok cause of death was Rubtured Cerebrobasilar aneurysm according to the certificate that was attached to the motion to extend “deadlines”
http://cri.alphadelts.net/scantlebury/death_certificate.pdf
Hmm,
RIAAlawyers causing extreme stress -> maybe medical condition of high blood preasure -> rubturing blood vessels.
sounds plausible to me.
(At least this vietnam vet had not to suffer much while dying)
August 13th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Jon has said repeatedly that no logs of ip’s are kept, and has no
way of identifying ANY anonymous poster.
Default or not, there are no ip’s kept to give, and never will be.
As I said, nice try.
August 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I guess this story clearly shows that RIAA is doing exactly what it blames illegal downloaders for : try to get as much as you can ( music or money ) without thinking twice about the moral consequences.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Actually the family has an excellent case to sue the RIAA has they caused the mans death through stress. If I was the family I would hire an attorny and sue the hell out them for causing the untimely death of my father. It is pursuit with malicious intent(they will sue even if you don’t have an internet cvonnection. Also I want to know why Vietnam, China, India, Thailand, and others aren’t being sued.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
without them, there would be no music.
Yes of course, because everybody knows the RIAA invented music, and music did not exist prior to thier existence. My God, they are suing a dead guys kids. How can you not percieve this as evil?
August 14th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Hmm, now that is very interesting. This information definitely leads me to believe that this lawsuit may have indeed played a role in this poor man’s untimely demise. Of that I have no doubt. So the question then becomes; how much of a role did the stress placed upon him by the RIAA play, a little or a lot? If this man was my father, I would do everything in my power to sue the RIAA. I certainly hope his family at least tries, as I have no doubt that a good deal of money would be rewarded, and I’m also sure that a good jury would most assuredly side with the victims in this case, if for no other reason than to ’stick it to the man’. That’s what the RIAA gets I suppose for all the bad PR it keeps bringing on itself. After all, as time passes it has to be getting harder and harder for the RIAA to get a good and proper jury to side with them, regardless of whether they are in the right or not.
FWIW, I’ve served on a jury, and it’s a joke if you ask me. What I learned from the experience is that law and fairness have nothing to do with the deliberations of a jury. See, most folks are self centered, and all they care about is how a case affects them, not the defendants or plaintiffs. People hate it when their lives are interrupted, and simply want to go back to their normal routine as soon as possible. This greatly influences not only their own thinking, but the other jurers as well I’ve noticed. Suffice it to say, the North American justice system is one big farce. But then I’m just stating the obvious, aren’t I. Besides that, it’s also a matter of what a good lawyer can convince a jury of regardless of the evidence and testimony presented during a trial. The opening and closing speeches matter a great deal, and influence a jury the most I suspect. What it all boils down to in my POV is that the truth is pretty much completely irrelevent in a courtroom if you ask me, and all of that is why I won’t serve on a jury ever again. I don’t ever want to be guilty of sending a perfectly innocent man to jail, which I greatly fear may have happened in the case that I served as a jurer on. That and I don’t know which is worse, an innocent man in jail or a criminal allowed to be free. Or, worse yet, me ending up on trial for something I didn’t do. That, I think, is my greatest fear.
But I digress. In any case, I certainly hope the family in this case sues the RIAA and wins, as they rightfully should IMHO.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
When you have a civil suit pending against an individual and they die, you pursue your claim against his/her estate. That’s how its done and that’s what all plaintiffs do. Civil suits are NEVER dropped just because the defendant dies. There is nothing immoral or underhanded about this. Civil suits are about money, period. When someone dies their money doesn’t go anywhere. That is the exact time that everyone is supposed to come forward with their claims against the estate.
They are not targeting the children (who very well could be 50 years old) they are suing the estate which is just the property of the deceased. They are not going to “grill” the children. The family will not participate in the settlement/suit they simply have a say so in how the executor chooses to address the claim (settle or defend.)
The rest of the rant here is also mistken on several accounts. It says that despite all RIAA suits no one has been found, “guilty in a civil court.” First of all, civil courts do not decide guilt or innocence they decide liability. More importantly P2P filesharers HAVE been found liable in civil cases on several occasions. Look up RIAA vs. Gonzalez (first name is Cecilia.) That case was upheld on appeal just last December.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:05 am
“the North American justice system is one big farce”
To be expected when the police, the government attorneys and the judges send to prision those in the low social scales to improve the solved crimes statistics and let off the hook those in the higher social scales that committed the more complex economic crimes.
August 15th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
“Remove them from office and you cut the control the RIAA has over the weak souls in congress.”
For as long as it takes for the trucks full of RIAA money to pull up to the offices of the newly elected politicians.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. – The Who
August 15th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“The fact of the matter is that in America it is illegal to download copyrighted material without authorization and copyright holders have the legal right to sue individuals who do so.”
This is not a true statement, as there is much music in the public domain where no authorization is needed for any use and then there is much material where there is is legal to download without any authorization. The fact that I have several mp3 song files on my web page means that anyone can download it without any authorization. Just putting the files there for the taking means they can be taken freely. Else I should not make the files available for downloading.
Now, people that download music that is made available cannot be presumed to know the copyright status of the downloaded files nor to know if downloading such files is or is not against the laws. It can be reasonably be argued that putting the criminal label on the downloader, as RIAA and others do, is morally offensive. Of course music labels have no morals, just money and lawyers, which equates power. The problem being that they abuse their power and rights.
As to a legal right to sue, that is granted but you present it in the wrong context, for obvious (bias) reasons. The correct statement is that all people have a right to sue anyone for any alleged reason, real or fabricated. It is not a copyright holder right. It is everyone’s right.
As to guilt not applying to civil cases….
This is what my english dictionary says.
Guilt: The state of having committed an offense.
If infringement is an offence, and it sometiems it surely is, then the offennce (guilt) must be proven for an infringement lawsuit to prevail.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
August 15th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Rafael, if something is in the public domain than it is not copyrighted! It should also be obvious that neither Warner nor the RIAA has ever sued anybody for downloading public domain content.
And you are always presumed to know the copyright status of works. That is the whole point of the registration system, it gives constructive notice to all. You do not have to prove willfulness to infringe in order to win a copyright suit. If it is found to be willful than that actually entitles the plaintiff to additional damages. And additionally, willfullnes is presumed in all copyright cases where infringement is proven. 17 USCS 504 (3)(A).
Regarding “guilt” in civil cases. Now you are the one trying to play with words. An infringement is not an offense. Offense refers to the violation of a penal statute or one that imposes criminal liability. Non-criminal copyright infringement is not considered an offense and guilt is never determined in any civil copyright infringement suit, or in any civil suit at all for that matter.
“Guilty” has a very specific meaning under the law and that is that you have been adjudged to have committed a crime. Civil suits deal with everything but crimes.
These are basic legal principles. Guilt is purely a criminal law concept. You can never be found guilty of anything in a civil suit. If an attorney or a witness ever even says the word guilty in a civil suit, pertaining to the defendant and the current suit (as opposed to a past conviction), than the defense will immediately object and the statement will be struck.
Is your dictionary even a legal one? Read this:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=847&bold=|||| (copy and paste)
It even explains how the word guilty is misused by laymen in civil terms, and why it is incorrect. If you want accurate legal definitions you really need to purchase Black’s Law Dictionary.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
You can’t sue a child for the father’s actions. The suit was against the father not the kids. They wanted to depose the children. That just means they ask them questions on record. The children were already scheduled to be deposed before their father’s death. The motion in question references this.
During the father’s deposition he stated that it was actually his stepson that did the infringing. After hearing this Warner wanted to question the children, to consider dropping the suit against the father and filing suit against the children (one, maybe both) instead. Then the father died which left them at a crossroads. They had two options. They could amend their suit to name the father’s estate as the defendant instead (or wait til estate was probated and it would have all happened automatically) or they could drop the suit, sue the children, and then depose them to determine whether they wanted to continue the suit or not. The latter option is costly.
So they wanted to sort of piggypack the original suit. They wanted to keep it going long enough to question the children. Then they could determine whether it was worth pursuing or dropping altogether. This would eliminate the need to file a separate suit just to depose the children. Procedurally, what they wanted to do is perfectly ok. Its dubious because if they genuinely believed it was the stepson than they should drop their suit against the father immediately. But when new evidence comes out like that you are well within your rights to gather more evidence first, to consider all of your options. But Warner never got to that point anyway. All they did was file a request to extend the discovery schedule. Its pretty unimportant really. But the motion just comes off as so insincere since they are purporting to cut the kids a break, when their next step is to sue them. So the Sh*t hit the fan and now the case is too hot…so they actually announced that they are dropping it entirely.
Anyway to answer your question shortly, if they decided to sue the children then they were going to file suit against the children, and it would be because of their actions not their father’s. The father was just brought into it initially because it was his name on the internet account.
Also, I kinda think alot of this negative press is because people have in their mind some 12-15 year old kid crying about his recently deceased father finding out he’s about to be sued. In reality I do not believe the child is a minor. “Child” implies no age in a lawsuit. In legal proceedings, 80 year old people are still referred to as children in reference to their parents.
October 7th, 2006 at 7:23 am
I just stumbled on this thread, but it looks to me like a
“knee-jerk” issue for both sides. That’s the kind of reaction
that gets people into wars and gangs and things like that.
The record company stays in business because they get money
when their property is used. I think they are also somewhat
visionary — that is to say, there may not be very many people
right now that can get music for free, but the technological
level of the general public is expanding. They would like to set
precedents to prevent unauthorized distribution.
That’s the “suits” stance. I think the kids’ stance has some merit,
too. They aren’t concerned about laws or money — music is
for enjoyment. I think the suits don’t really understand (or they
do understand, but they don’t know how to use the information)
that free stuff often leads to purchase…