RIAA Backs Off Dead Man's Family > Abundance of stupidity !

Abundance of stupidity !

Unregistered, full of rhetoric... I smell my first troll today!

reply to Trybuyingaclue

Astroturf much?

reply to Trybuyingaclue

Re: Abundance of stupidity !

Arggh. Not a pirate!
This be a pirate.

reply to Trybuyingaclue
hey taylor, how goes it?

Can you tell me how these "properly enfocring copyright law and pursuing criminals who steal" is considered the same as someone who went and robbed a bank?

The last time I checked the people who OWNED the bank did not make the rules on how long or what type of punishment?

Yea I know that file sharing is wrong but come on! You're saying you would side with the media industry who makes the products, makes the laws, and sues the people who breaks them?

Copyright is all good and fair but when it comes down to it they are nothing more than a bunch of old, overgrown, sadistic bastards that have their deep sticky fingers in the judicial system as well as all of hollywood.

--ssx--
--
BF2 Servers I play on
WDT - 208.51.201.247
260 - 207.176.38.3
My BF2 Stats

PM me for updated OEM versions of windows XP! ^_^

reply to Trybuyingaclue
I was wondering how long it would take until everyone's favorite RIAA-supporting troll popped in here.

Taylor, I always find it fascinating that you automatically assume that the people that the RIAA is suing are guilty. Did it ever cross your mind that the RIAA might make a mistake? Like with the granny allegedly downloading rap who didn't even have a PC to run the software they claimed she was running?

I don't support piracy. I think that people shouldn't be uploading music unless they have the express permission of the artist to do so. However, I also don't like the RIAA's tactic of suing everything that moves and all but forcing people to settle regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.

Oh and as for your bank robbery analogy, a proper analogy would be "if someone dies after being arrested (but before being tried) for bank robbery" and in that case the case is dropped.

It was only after Mr. Scantleberry passed away that the RIAA claimed that other people in the family might have been the real uploaders and only in their final statement did they point the finger at his stepson. Before that, they were planning on continuing to sue a dead man. Legal to do so? Possibly (in a civil, not criminal case). Good PR while doing so? Definitely not.

reply to Trybuyingaclue
Hiya Taylor! Have you seen the new Superman movie yet? It's was okay. Not at grand as they hyped it out to be, but still worth matinee price. I'm putting my money on the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel to be a fun movie to watch. Have you seen that one yet?

reply to fAcEtIOUs
I find it odd that in their "60 days to grieve" motion, they still claim that he was the infringing one (now they claim he didn't do it but it was his stepson). They only mention that others may have been involved without naming names.

Here is their exact wording about "others involved":

reply to vpoko

Excuse me, but they were persuing a LEGAL ACTION, not a PR campaign against this guy. They claimed he told them his stepson downloaded illegal music, but they could be lying through their teeth... that's what I get out of this "in the realm of public opinion".

reply to Trybuyingaclue
non-trolling remarks retained - didn't leave much. Folks, lets not stoop to the level we are accusing the OP of having already reached. If you can't say something intelligent (and non-flaming/trolling) then just don't say anything.
2k was here

reply to fAcEtIOUs
As vpoko stated, this case *was* in the realm of the courtroom. (At least until the RIAA dropped the case.) Evidence is needed for that.

If they had really intended to shift their focus to Mr. Scantleberry's stepson, then they would have needed evidence. That might have been in the form of some kind of recorded statement from Mr. Scantleberry fingering his stepson. Or it might have been in the form of some P2P logs showing music downloaded and then seized computer equipment showing that same music on the hard drives.

If they intended to go after Mr. Scantleberry's stepson and didn't have any evidence then they are either 1) stupid, 2) malicious, or 3) looking for a settlement from someone no matter who it may be. Now I'm pretty sure that the RIAA isn't stupid. (Control freaks, yes. Out of touch with the bad PR they're causing, yes. Stupid, no.) But #2 and #3 are frightening possibilities.

However, all that is pretty moot now since the RIAA dropped the case. So now it really is in the court of public opinion where we try the case based on what evidence we have available to us and assign "good PR" and "bad PR" accordingly.

Here are the facts as we have them:

1. The RIAA sued Larry Scantleberry for copyright infringement.
2. He passed away prior to the RIAA's discovery having been granted extensions.
3. The RIAA, upon hearing of his death, motioned for a 60 day grieving period before continuing the lawsuit against him.
4. The RIAA, having experience bad press as a result of suing a dead man, decided to drop the case making a closing accusation that it was the stepson who really did it.

This "public opinion juror" finds the RIAA guilty and sentences them to (self-inflicted) bad PR.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

Re: Abundance of stupidity !

Sorry..

Still no sympathy for thieves.

Who was a thief in this case? Was is Mr. Scantleberry as the RIAA first alleged? If so, the case dies with him. Or was it his stepson as the RIAA declared as they dropped the case? If so, what was their evidence against him as they didn't seem poised to do anything but settle with Mr. Scantleberry prior to his untimely demise?

reply to fAcEtIOUs
I hearby claim that Tkjunkmail has, in fact, downloaded (illegaly) music.

True or false, declaring it in "the court of public opinion" does not make words true.