dslreports logo
RIAA Will Allow Dead Defendant's Children 60 Days To Grieve...
Before deposing them. Who said the RIAA doesn't have a heart?

According to the blog Recording Industry vs The People, the RIAA, gracious as ever, will allow the children of the deceased Michigan resident Larry Scantlebury a 60 day grieving period before they proceed to depose them in the case of Warner Brothers v. Scantlebury. Mr Scantlebury passed away on June 20th, 2006. You can read the motion for the 60 day stay here (PDF). Recording Industry vs The People credits Michigan lawyer John Hermann for pointing them to the story. Hermann represents several victims of the EMI, Sony BMG, Warner and Universal sue 'em all marketing campaign.

In an earlier article written by Mr. Hermann, he points out: "The RIAA’s strategy appears flawed in that they once they've identify a person sharing and/or downloading a suspect file, they're only able to determine the IP address and username associated with the peer system registry. This alone isn't enough for them to be able to distinguish if the account holder, or someone else, was using his/her account and was responsible for the activity. Although these facts are easily discernable by the RIAA, they simply don’t care about the underling truth of the matter. Once they identify the activity as being linked to an internet account, they typically argue (without any legal authority) that the account holder is responsible for all activity on the account."

Although written in October of 2005, Mr. Hermann's comments jibes nicely with a recent article at Techdirt in which Mike writes "If you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you're best off opening up your WiFi network to neighbors. It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a California case as well. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don't have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do. The RIAA certainly has the legal right to go after people, even if it simply ends up pissing off their best fans and driving people to spend their money on other forms of entertainment -- but, if they want to do so, they should at least have legitimate evidence. It's good to see that some are finally pointing out how flimsy the evidence really is."
view:
topics flat nest 

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84

Member

How?

If the guy who died is the one sued, how can they go after the children? I assume the guy who died had the internet account in his name.
gh4456
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA

1 edit

gh4456

Premium Member

Re: How?

I think it's a longshot. How can a dead person defend themselves? I can see where if they already had a judgement against the person and then they try to collect from the estate, but to be able to obtain judgement after death, I don't see how. I mean, the guy could have had a viable defense, so since he is dead, the children will act as a proxy defendant and not know any of the facts? Doesn't seem legal.

Same scenario, I rob a bank, I die before the trial, and my kids go on trial for the robbery.

Orcusomega
@versys.com

Orcusomega

Anon

Re: How?

The fact of the matter is that they can sue the estate for the penalties that would have been levied against the individual before they died since the "offense" occurred before he died. His estate would then be responsible to cover any legal fees and penalties that the living person would have otherwise paid. To add insult to injury, unless the executor of the estate declares the estate insolvent (and he/she needs to prove it), they would have to sell the objects otherwise granted as inheritance, as well as plundering any savings that person may have had...

Bob

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84
Two things no one has ever accused the RIAA and their lawyers of having:

1) Common sense, or any sense for that matter
2) Compassion

Condolences to the family of the deceased.

LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace

LinuxJunkie

Member

Re: How?

Yeah and let's not pretend like the RIAA is giving the family 60 days out of the goodness of their heart. Those bastards are REQUIRED BY LAW to give a person at least 60 days notice of a deposition -- to begin with it's 30 days and on top of that there's an automatatic 30 day extension which, not coincidentally, EQUALS SIXTY DAYS! Trust me, I know from experience.

Dustyn
Premium Member
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN

Dustyn to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84

"We are borg, you will be assimilated. We will add you're biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance... is futile."

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

Pirate515

Premium Member

Re: Borg

said by Dustyn:


"We are borg, you will be assimilated. We will add you're biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance... is futile."
You forgot one thing:

ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Expand your moderator at work
81399672 (banned)
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA

81399672 (banned) to insomniac84

Member

to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:

If the guy who died is the one sued, how can they go after the children? I assume the guy who died had the internet account in his name.
they can't, but they can sue the estate. If estate is poor or has zero then riaa is just waisting its time.

LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace

2 edits

LinuxJunkie

Member

Re: How?

Or the RIAA is hoping that the deposition will reveal evidence that it was somebody else who did the "sharing," and that that somebody may still be alive.

OMG don't say the J-word.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:

If the guy who died is the one sued, how can they go after the children? I assume the guy who died had the internet account in his name.
Civil Lawsuits can go after a dead person's estate. Also, based on dead person's previous statements, other family members can be sued as well. Lawsuits against estates are std practice in civil law.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to insomniac84

Premium Member

to insomniac84
however it must be rough to sue the family of a dead person, best thing the family can do then is demand a jury because many times the jury will side with the family and not the company.

LaZ3R
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

LaZ3R

Premium Member

Aww!!

That's so nice of you RIAA!!! I really thought wrong of you guys... a 60 day grieving period seems very kind of you! Yay RIAA!!!

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

ctceo

Premium Member

Simmilar

Probably similar to the means that a company can go after next of kid for unpaid debt in the even of a loss. When either half of a Married couple Pass away the surviving half is responsible for paying the debts, and when that person passes away, next of kin (Legal Guardian, Child or Children (oldest one first) will have to bear the brunt, unless the company is willing to eat the debt.

I had a similar experience when it came to my Grandmother. I had been taking care of her because other family members were not, and when she passed away an estate was formed for which I was deemed executor. When her net worth was subtracted from her debts, the remaining debt in this case was forwarded to me, as I was executor of the estate, and her Legal Guardian when she was sick (a period of 2 years on average is what they consider before any special circumstances can be disregarded).
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Simmilar

however cant the will override the creditors? ive heard in many cases creditcard companies basicly get "boned" when the debter dies.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener to ctceo

Member

to ctceo
They are going after his estate. I don't know where you get the idea that next of kin are responsible for a deceased persons debt. Some crooked debt collectors will try to tell you that but it's bunk.
gh4456
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA

gh4456

Premium Member

Re: Simmilar

The difference would be if the dead person had a written contract obligating him to a debt, (ie credit cards, car loans, etc..) then probate court could assign assets to the creditors. However in this case, the plantiff has no signed contract and are sueing for damages for copyright infringment. Without it being proven, and now the person dead, I don't see how they have a legal leg to stand on.

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

1 edit

ctceo

Premium Member

This link explains what happens pretty well. In my case it was a personal loan she needed to help with medical bills, Home renovations to become handicap accessible, and to help her consolidate some debts that my grandfather had left behind several years prior. It was all worth it. I owe a lot to my grandparents for which I could never repay.

»ask.yahoo.com/20041025.html

texans20
Premium Member
join:2002-09-28
Texas!

1 recommendation

texans20

Premium Member

No more buying CDs for me

Ok, I slipped. The past few years I've been buying CDs of the stuff I really like. However, I can no longer support a greedy organization nor the people who are members of the organization.

I paid $15-20 for the overpriced CDs, and that was ok. They were always allowed to charge what they want, and just because I thought it was overpriced did not give me the right to steal their music. However, no more. No downloading, no buying CDs. I will hear the songs on satellite radio, and that's it.

I just canceled my Napster account, too. This crosses the line. It's a shame, I really enjoyed music.
canuck999999
join:2004-04-19

canuck999999

Member

Re: No more buying CDs for me

Don't hate all music, I am sure there are some worthy independent artists who aren't affiliated with the RIAA that you can support.
But on a serious note, with all of the times the RIAA has shot itself in the foot with these lawsuits how are they still standing?

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

Pirate515

Premium Member

Re: No more buying CDs for me

said by canuck999999:

But on a serious note, with all of the times the RIAA has shot itself in the foot with these lawsuits how are they still standing?
Well, they've been around for several decades and made billions of not trillions of dollars in that time. So it will take some time before they burn all that cash on whatever nonsense pops up into their head. I do, however, firmly believe that if they don't wise up, their money will be gone sooner or later (of course I'm hoping that it's sooner). Unfortunately, this won't happen overnight.

mikesb
A Bottle Of Carbonated Love
join:2001-11-07
Pittsburgh, PA

mikesb to texans20

Member

to texans20
»www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA

phaqu to texans20

Member

to texans20
Just go to concerts.

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

ctceo

Premium Member

Re: No more buying CDs for me

And pay them to destroy your hearing?
NOT.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: No more buying CDs for me

said by ctceo:

And pay them to destroy your hearing?
NOT.
Ear plugs ANDDDD conmmercial grade ear muff hearing protection isnt enough for me.

texans20
Premium Member
join:2002-09-28
Texas!

texans20

Premium Member

Indie music sucks ass, most of it anyway. I've tried, but it's usually poorly written and poorly sung. I know some guys think listening to nothing but obscure bands very few people of head of makes them really cool, but really it doesn't.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: No more buying CDs for me

said by texans20:

Indie music sucks ass, most of it anyway. I've tried, but it's usually poorly written and poorly sung. I know some guys think listening to nothing but obscure bands very few people of head of makes them really cool, but really it doesn't.
I don't know what kind of music you listen to but the stuff I like, which is most everything except boogla-loo gangsta rap. There are great artists in the indie world you just have to look for them. I have not listened to FM radio in many years I have so much music in my personal Library I can go months without repeating anything.
critofur
join:2003-01-15
Columbus, OH

critofur to texans20

Member

to texans20
said by texans20:

Ok, I slipped. The past few years I've been buying CDs of the stuff I really like. However, I can no longer support a greedy organization nor the people who are members of the organization.

I paid $15-20 for the overpriced CDs, and that was ok. They were always allowed to charge what they want, and just because I thought it was overpriced did not give me the right to steal their music. However, no more. No downloading, no buying CDs. I will hear the songs on satellite radio, and that's it.

I just canceled my Napster account, too. This crosses the line. It's a shame, I really enjoyed music.
Could you please clarify, do you mean that you don't have the right to steal CDs from the store, or what? Because if you were going to (illegally) download music that is not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

If you steal something, then the person you stole the thing from no longer has the thing that you stole. There are a lot of reasons that it's important not to wrongly say stealing when you're really talking about infringement.

What about taping songs off the radio, is that illegal? Download/tape off the radio, doesn't seem to be much difference between the two.

Music is an important part of our lives, when a company that has exclusive rights to a certain bit of music charges more than $10 a CD, they are stealing from us and don't deserve to have their CDs purchased.
phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA

phaqu to texans20

Member

to texans20
Wow, you 2 must be more fun than a BARREL OF MONKEYS
to hang out with. I didnt know this was the LITTLE OLD LADY forum. Maybe you can start your own "knitting and crocheting" thread here.
Anyway, how do you know I was talking about a rock concert? Maybe I was talking about "Chamber" music. Or the symphony. Or maybe a jazz trio, with stand up bass,piano and drums.
quote:
And pay them to destroy your hearing?
NOT.
No one told you to go and stick your ears up against the PA.
quote:
Ear plugs ANDDDD conmmercial grade ear muff hearing protection isnt enough for me.
Then why do you go to places like that? Shouldnt you be attending a "quilting" party instead?

richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium Member
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith

richk_1957

Premium Member

Don't know about this

I do know that when my uncle died, the hospital came immediately after my aunt for his medical bills. I wasn't involved, so I don't know what happened.

I do know that my father owed the IRS money and was in the process of paying it off when he died. The IRS never came after anyone, or his estate for the remainder of the bill. I think someone had to send them the death certificate, that's all.

So this is a good question.
Pete_648
join:2001-12-20
KingstonON

Pete_648

Member

Re: Don't know about this

Its a shame this is what our world is coming too, I live in Canada, and we as of today, can not be prosecuted by the RIAA, or MPAA. They have tried to gain access to our ISP information but As it stands now, There cases have been denied.

I can't imagine living in the USA and wondering when I will be next, but then again, I only download a song here and there, and even though I have 2000 songs ripped, or downloaded to my HD, I don't share any of it which seems to be why they go after people
Pete_648

Pete_648 to richk_1957

Member

to richk_1957
Its a shame this is what our world is coming too, I live in Canada, and we as of today, can not be prosocuted by the RIAA, or MPAA. They have tried to gain access to our ISP information but As it stands now, There cases have been denied.

I can't imagine living in the USA and wondering when I will be next, but then again, I only download a song here and there, and even though I have 2000 songs ripped, or downloaded to my HD, I don't share any of it which seems to be why they go after people
nrocme3
join:2006-08-14

nrocme3

Member

Re: Don't know about this

This is precisely why I do not use peer-to-peer. The RIAA has a death grip on this technology. Besides, loading PtP software is the quickest way to help propagate viruses. It's in general bad for the Internet and bad for you in the long run.
If your looking to share files anonymously, just download a Usenet client like xnews and sign-up for an overseas/non-logging news group service like giganews.com.
People have been using this technology since 1980 with no ability for the RIAA to get the hands on any logs. Why? There are none.

BUYaCLUEfool
@comcast.net

BUYaCLUEfool

Anon

Here is a clue for the clueless...

Violation of law is a crime regardless of the RIAA bashing that goes on daily at many IT websites.

If you chose to Pirate then you get to spend time in jail like any other common criminal. The RIAA and the judicial system have no obligation to give you special treatment due to a death in the family but obviously in this case they are extending consideration.

Bashing the RIAA is NOT going to change copyright laws or the penalties for theft. In fact the more publicity Piracy gets the more law makers are inclined to increase the penalties for Piracy.

The message should be obvious: Don't steal unless you want to be heavily fined and go to jail.

•••

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Has a case actually been tried?

Has the RIAA actually taken a case to trial? I know that they offer to settle for a few thousand dollars and the people usually settle.

•••
gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL

gatzdon

Member

This has got to be inadmissible

At the end of the motion, they state
The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 1, 2006, a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO STAY CASE AND TO EXTEND ALL DEADLINES was served upon the Defendant via United States Mail at the following address:
How can a court accept such a statement when in the same document, the plaintiff admits knowing that the person receiving the notice is already deceased.

•••

tyyutjgukb6876y786ny

Anon

riaa sucks

riaa sucks
fuck them bastards goin after dead people children
all i buy are 50 packs of memorex blank cds

Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Dagda1175

Member

Many debts are like this

Family is responsible for payment on most debts after you die. Just because you think youre right in stealing the stuff in the first place, does not mean that any civil action will go away in a magical puff of smoke when you die.

•••••

lostnthwoods
join:2001-12-03
Arcadia, OK

lostnthwoods

Member

How sick.....

That's terrorism if I ever saw it. Someone needs to step in and tell the RIAA that enough is enough.
BellSouthBS
join:2002-03-07
Fort Lauderdale, FL

BellSouthBS

Member

People in glass houses

A female RIAA spokesperson compared Napster and P2P music sharing to theft from a cable company.

The cable companies made thier money by stealing copyrighted material from Television Stations, including but not limited to Sports, Syndicated Programming, etc., and charging for its unlawful redistribution, effectively acting as a "pimp." Then they inserted their own, further stealing money from broadcasters.

When municipalities found they could tax cable and satellite TV, some banned outdoor TV antennas. Now that government was happy, cable and satellite owners sponsored bills to make cable and satellite theft a crime - even though THEY made their fortunes by theft.

So comes the internet, P2P, etc. The government allowed it. Besides, unless you personally confess (duress doesn't count), who's to say you're non-WEP WiFi wasn't compromised, your cable modem's IP wasn't sniffed and cloned, or?

Lawyers passed bills to keep people from talking about law - maybe RIAA will pass a law against humming or whistling a song!

Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26

1 edit

Fatal Vector

Member

Re: People in glass houses

"The cable companies made thier money by stealing copyrighted material from Television Stations, including but not limited to Sports, Syndicated Programming, etc., and charging for its unlawful redistribution, effectively acting as a "pimp." Then they inserted their own, further stealing money from broadcasters."

Ummm..The cable companies started out as small individual groups in towns that had poor TV recieption. They got together financially to put an antenna system in a location where they could get adequate signals, shared the cost of distribution/maintenance and then amplified them and sent them to the homes of the group.

This allso applied to FM radio signals, which is why most CATV systems carried FM also.

CATV stands for COMMUNITY ANTENNA TV.

Needless to say, after such groups grew larger, it was turned into a business, usually by being bought out, but not allways. If you take a tripo through the country today, you find that most small towns have cable, most of which are small local providers who are true to their roots, especially in the midwest and west.

And, by federal law, municipalities cannot bam outdoor antennas, nor can associations ban satellite dishes, because the FCC has ruled that consumers have a right to have such things for the free flow of information to the public.

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

viperpa33s

Premium Member

Just a PR stunt

This is just a PR stunt by the RIAA so they don't get bad press. They sue with no proof so why should they care about people dying or family grieving. They do circles around the court system to deny people's rights's. Whether you steal or not, that is not the issue. You are still innocent until proven guilty. If you throw that fundamental right away, you might as well throw the whole court system away.

From what I read, the plaintiff implicated other family members. Whether that is true or not we will have to wait and see.

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.
Methadras
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA

Methadras

Member

absolute nonsense

this is the kind of crap that makes legitimate tort look very very bad... this is why the law and lawyers get a bad name, this is eye people treat the law and lawyers with disdain, this is why there is no respect for the general legitimacy of the issues regarding privacy... also, the need for trusted networks will become even more paramount now and this will be an even stickier issue for the RIAA to deal with... if they can't get onto and spy on these private, trusted networks, then they will have nothing and won't be able to sue anyone for the thread-barest reasons...

the mpaa/riaa legal wing is a sham and they are a public relations nightmare as an ongoing venture... yes, they have a right to defend the intellectual and actual property against illegal use and theft, but their methods suck and are highly suspect in their execution... all these type of stories do is enforce the notion that in america, a lawyer can sue the dead and can still win... and all it does is shame the legal system even further... no wonder the legal lobby doesn't want to see tort reform... it may actually make them accountable for who and how they sue...

hambone6666
Sigmarick Said Arse
join:2001-02-13
Stamford, CT

hambone6666

Member

funny...

Ken Lay from Enron, was tried and convicted.
When he died, his lawyers filed a motion to have his record cleared since he was not sentenced nor was able to file an appeal. It looks like that is "normal" course of business. Seems bizarre to me that someone convicted of a crime is cleared just because they havent been sentenced or appealed.

Dont believe it?

»www.chron.com/disp/story ··· 635.html

Lay died on July 5, in Aspen, Colo., of heart disease. Although he was convicted, a final judgment wasn't issued because he had not yet been sentenced and through the appeals process. Rather than allow an appeal to proceed without him, the court is widely expected to throw out both the verdict and indictment, leaving Lay's record as though he were never charged.

Lay's $5 million bond — backed by his children's homes — also would be canceled at that time. With his conviction vacated, the government also will not be able to seize Lay's property through the criminal proceedings.
Zoly
join:2004-01-04
Houston, TX

3 edits

Zoly

Member

Affiliated with RIAA? No thanks!!!

Well if an artist is affiliated with RIAA - I' am not buying their music, period.

But there are so many artists who are affiliated with those crooks and are very unhappy about that... Will I buy their CD's? - It depends...

On the other hand, there are so many websites in the Russian Internet segment that still have most of the current music for free! And I am not stealing it even there.

All I get there is what I cannot buy in the USA.

AND yes, I did not pay for Kristian Leontiou's CD - I downloaded (RIAA EDIT: stole) his tracks on-line

A Realist
@rr.com

A Realist

Anon

Re: Affiliated with RIAA? No thanks!!!

It never ceases to amaze me the misinformation that spreads across the internet everytime the RIAA does anything.

When you have a claim against someone and they die you sue their estate. That's simply the way it is. Civil lawsuits never disappear just because the defendant died. Use some common sense. If a drunk driver kills your kid, but also kills himself in the process are you just out of luck? No you sue his estate for wrongful death. What if someone defrauds you of all your money but then dies the next day? Do his children get your money? No you sue the estate. And in suing the estate you take depositions of anyone who might have relevant knowledge, including the KIDS. There is absolutely nothing immoral or even inpolite about this. This is how lawsuits are conducted.

They are not going after the children and they are not even suing them. They are DEPOSING them. That just means they are going to ask them questions to get an idea as to how they would testify at trial, if they are even called. And the term, "children" is not age specific. A child can be 5 or 50 years old. If the children were underage they probably would be referred to as minors, and any legal reference to them would include the phrase, "by and through their guardian ad litem."

People sue the estates of dead defendants all the time. They turn around and depose their children the week after the parent's death. But when the RIAA asks for a continuation in the discovery process on the defendant's behalf, everyone goes nuts crying foul.

When a class action of former Enron employees sues Ken Lay's estate and deposes his widow are people going to complain? Of course not because they aren't the RIAA.

The RIAA don't need help making bad press. They are a truly dispicable and arguably unlawful organization. But guess what? If everyone bitches even when they do something completely innocuous, or even GOOD (see, compulsory licensing for online music that got boo hoo'd) then why wouldn't they play the bad guy? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Meanwhile people are writing their Congressman seeking action and their representatives are shaking their heads and ignoring them because their letters make it clear that they have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about.

An Artist
@207.230.x.x

An Artist

Anon

Re: Affiliated with RIAA? No thanks!!!

Welcome to the world of business, this is what happens when you take a profession that is about expression and slap a price tag on it. Suddenly without warning investors and business assholes who are about nothing more than lining their pockets with green, get involved. The RIAA is an organization set to regulate how their investors and stock holders get money from producing and distributing other peoples work. Most artists that I know just want to be heard and to play live. The RIAA is required to attack anyone it's shareholders view as a threat to the business.

"The Realist" made good points...from a cold blooded business standpoint, the fuckers involved with suing people are nothing more than pissed off millionaires worrying that their house payment may actually have to be worked for...or that their children MIGHT actually have to work for a living. The RIAA is just like any other corporation...corrupt. 90 percent of the artists out their didn't get into music to be rich, but once you get so much money shoved at you it's hard not to be a little influenced by it. The devil wearing Gucci is much more appealing than the god wearing rags.

Don't blame the artists...this one is entirely the RIAA. Any snake will slither faster when it knows it's about to die.