First the RIAA sue non-PC & Mac users and now the Deceased

05 Feb 05 00:33 by Seán Byrne in category Uncategorized To news archive

Previously, we heard of incidents where the RIAA filed lawsuits against those who never used file swapping software, have a Macintosh or those who do not even have a computer.  Well this time, not only does the person the RIAA targeted not have a computer, but the person is also dead! 


Gertrude Walton who died December 2004 was sued
making 700 tracks of pop, rock and rap music available under the nickname
“smittenedkitten”.  According to her daughter Robin Chianumba, she hated
computers and would not have even known how to turn one on let alone use
one.  She also faxed a copy of her grand mother’s death certificate to the
record company officials in response to the legal filing.

As the RIAA target individuals by IP addresses, it is often not the bill payer that is at fault.  For example there were several cases where it was children involved in sharing out music, but the parents who may even not have any computer skills are the ones that get the penalty.  However in this case, it is not clear how an IP address matched up with an individual who never had a computer in their house.  brantdk used our news submit to let us know about the following news:

src="http://www.cdfreaks.com/contentimages/newsimages/1196372059" width=117 align=right
border=0> Gertrude Walton of Fayette County hated computers, her daughter said.

That did not stop the recording industry from accusing the now deceased 83-year-old Mount Hope woman of illegally trading music over the Internet.

More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit. They claimed Walton made more than 700 pop, rock and rap songs available for free on the Internet under the screen name ’smittenedkitten.”
 
On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.

‘Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago,” said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. ‘We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case.”

Walton’s daughter, Robin Chianumba, lived with her mother for the last 17 years of her life and said her mother objected to having a computer in the house. Chianumba said she didn’t know anything about the record company’s claims. And she said she does not know anything about the screen name.

‘My mother was computer illiterate. She hated a computer,” Chianumba said. ‘My mother wouldn’t know how to turn on a computer.”

Read the href="http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2005020358?pt=0" target=_new
>full article here.

With cases like this, there is a good chance that many PC users that get targeted for lawsuits that may have never shared out music on the Internet.  As long as the user has a PC and an Internet connection in a case like this, the RIAA could just stick with their ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ approach.  One error in the IP address could easily do this or a bad clock at either the RIAA or ISP end could put the blame on a wrong user where IP’s are dynamically assigned to users. 

Feel free to discuss and find out more about file sharing and its legal issues on our Music Downloads, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum.

Source: the Charleston Gazette wgazette

17 Comments

btspm
Posts: 611
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 05:24
"On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was PROBABLY not the smittenedkitten it is searching for." I think Baghdad Bob has some new competition.
Sherrif
Posts: 851
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 08:21
Would have loved to see this go to court, but with the justice system as it is and judges on baksheesh she would probably have been tried in absentia and found guilty.....and then fined for failing to appear...........:X
icepax
Posts: 189
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 13:51
Well, well. Pretty much sums up the current American "LAW" isn't it? This is what you get when there is no mandatory voting...At least if it's mandatory, you wouldn't see that wanker in the White House at the moment would you? Then again, Australia is increasingly becoming America's wannabe. S**T!
[edited by icepax on 05.02.2005 13:53]
[edited by icepax on 05.02.2005 13:54]
Roj
Posts: 434
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 16:04
Wow - not a single comment from tinku. Can't imagine why... I love the quote from the RIAA flunky above; I can just see Obi Wan saying to two Imperial Stormtroopers "These are not the dead people you're looking for".
hqs
Posts: 118
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 18:41
We don't have mandatory voting because that is NOT freedom is it you God Damn Commie! The RIAA are a bunch of cocksuckers, but the more people buy music the more power these assholes get.
Sherrif
Posts: 851
Posted on: 05 Feb 05 19:04
If you accept that your freedom gives you the right not to vote, then do NOT complain about the corporations, their greedy shareholders, the corrupt politicians who maintain (through legislature) their power..OR the monkey you have in the whitehouse who gives them all the green light....ya redneck toad....you don't vote, you don't qualify.......... :X
chsbiking
Posts: 543
Posted on: 06 Feb 05 03:07
A 12 year old, a senior citizen, a Mac instead of a PC, and now a dead person. I think now would be a really good time for the RIAA to sit back and do some soul searching about their policies.
icepax
Posts: 189
Posted on: 06 Feb 05 05:12
Thanks, Sherrif. You sum up what I want to reply to hqs's comment. I don't think hqs really understand the true meaning of democracy. Because you don't vote mate, you put your country in the hands of wankers like the RIAA and paper-tigers like your head of state and politicians. Peace...V :X
[edited by icepax on 06.02.2005 05:15]
jab1981
Posts: 187
Posted on: 06 Feb 05 14:02
Soul searching? Why... they're getting away with it. I think this is just more evidence that if you pay politicians enough you don't have to play by the rules.
chsbiking
Posts: 543
Posted on: 06 Feb 05 21:38
They may be getting away with it but it's certainly not stopping filesharing. If anything it's making it worse. Customers see things like this and download music for spite. Which cancels out anything they win in the lawsuits.
agomes
Posts: 1232
Posted on: 07 Feb 05 09:54
It happens the prossecuted person is already dead, but if she was still alive look at the charges: making available over the internet more than 700 songs - pop, rock and rap!!! She was 83 years old, had no computer in the house and it is believed she didn't even know how to use one!!!! This is the complete miracle put together with the normal music preferences of a 83 years old person!!!!
Wesociety
Posts: 5230
Posted on: 07 Feb 05 15:41
RIAA (:r) have souls ??:d
chsbiking
Posts: 543
Posted on: 08 Feb 05 03:01
No they don't have souls. This is why they need to do some soul searching so they can find one.
warforpeace
Posts: 170
Posted on: 08 Feb 05 12:23
I guess she actually liked Black Metal and Urban Music, and according to RIAA she would have probably.
Hawseman
Posts: 227
Posted on: 09 Feb 05 12:10
What makes our president a wanker? Is it allowing businesses to enforce current copyright laws instituted in 1790? What a bastard....how dare he. RIAA must prove to the judicial system that these laws have been broken....not the president. The president (and congress) have the power to revoke the copyright law....might as well take out robbery while they're at it (as long as the victim is rich). Personally, I'm glad there are thieves like you out there. Because of you we are seeing a much needed correction. I totally agree that the RIAA has put the big stick to us for quite a few years. $.75 US is quite reasonable for a song that used to be only obtainable through a $15.00 US cd. "Mandatory voting" law...hehe, good one. Is that supposed to get the song surfers into the voting booth? If you don't adhere to copyright laws, what makes you think you'd observe voting laws?....asinine.
chris.computertec
Posts: 1
Posted on: 23 Feb 05 10:53
wow Hawseman you should read yer history a lil better the 1790 Copyright Act didn't cover music it only covered "any map, chart, book or books printed within these United States"and it only allowed for a 14 year protection with a single 14 year extension and could only be granted to the author themself and limmited the time for a cause of action of 1 year following a violation.
LastStand
Posts: 321
Posted on: 07 Nov 05 10:18
Over where I live its £19.99 for a music CD, £20.99 for a movie DVD and £40.00 for a PC computer game. What is fair with these prices? (prices in pounds).
[edited by LastStand on 07.11.2005 10:18]

Post a comment

Hello guest,
default
To benefit from all extra features you need to log in or sign up.

Most popular headlines

Grandmother is falsely accused of file-sharing (11)

A woman falsely accused of downloading copyrighted movies might've lost her Internet connection had she not taken her case to the media.

PS3 closing ground on Xbox 360 (1)

  • Sat 6 Feb 14:00 by Randomus
  • Game Consoles

After years of trailing the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360 on the sales charts, the Sony PlayStation 3 continues to close the gap on the Xbox 360.

Blame Blu-ray for lack of PS3 game downloads (13)

Don't expect Sony to offer its full game catalog for download over the Playstation 3 any time soon.

Murdoch: Avatar DVD won't be 3D (17)

  • Thu 4 Feb 00:00 by Randomus
  • Blu-Ray writers & players, LCD TV

News Corp. CEO Robert Murdoch confirmed the DVD release of Avatar won't have 3D support, with no word on a possible 3D Blu-ray version.

See all headlines

Active Commenters