Posted in industry | music on April 18, 2008

not actual homeless man
his office

"In a Manhattan case, Warner v. Berry, the RIAA sued a man who lives in a homeless shelter, leaving a copy of the summons and complaint not at the homeless shelter, but at an apartment the man had occupied in better times, and had long since vacated." [New York County Lawyer] (via Slashdot)

---

      

Tags: RIAA

Comments (12)

perhaps they should be suing those who create bad music. they're one of the reasons nobody wants to pay for it.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 10:40 AM

Anon 10:40 AM. I am used to seeing ridicilous negative comments here, but this has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 10:44 AM

This guy in the picture is stealing free electricity too!

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 10:48 AM

Where Obama at? We need help!

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 10:52 AM

haha MIA.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 11:00 AM

anon 10:40 actually has a good point...i tend to pay for good music not crap on plastic lol

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 11:54 AM

The BV post doesn't really capture the import of this story.

The RIAA tried to serve a summons (which is required within 120 days after serving a Complaint) on this homeless dude by affixing it to his last place of residence (i.e., "nail and mail service"). This is proper service after doing a thorough search to find the defendant. But, the RIAA lied about it. They told the court, on April 17th, that they were going to do a thorough search to find out where this poor guy lives (which is required BEFORE nail and mail service), yet their affidavit of service said they nailed and mailed the summons on the homeless dudes last address on April 9th. So they LIED to the court.

If a normal lawyer, or God forbid a pro se plaintiff, pulled this crap, he/she would be sanctioned, fined, and drawn and quartered. But, the court said that these RIAA lawyers should be given "the benefit of the doubt" (about what, I don't know) - so no sanctions. This is proof positive that the courts are aligned with the RIAA - judgment before trial. Totally ridiculous.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 12:15 PM

as ANON 1040, my comment it was somewhat sarcastic and observational. whilst one will pay for music they thoroughly enjoy, one is less likely to do so for a good single or a few songs as it's much easier to download it. what is "good" and "bad" is completely up to the user to define.

a cause is the labels pumping tonnes of money into artists without substance, which was the reason napster became massive in its heyday. why should one spend 20$ on a rubbish album with one enjoyable track? seeing as how the large labels basically offed the single format in the states, it was a huge blow. popular music had become completely disposable and was to be a failed business model no matter what, however it would have been a slower decline as opposed to the shot in the face the industry got. although they still haven't changed their ways, they're just trying out news ways to mask them.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 12:39 PM

awesome Anon 10:52.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 12:47 PM

Anon 1040 shouldn't need to explain himself. His first comment was on target. Anon 1044 is obviously an RIAA shill who takes gerbils up the ass.

Posted by Anonymous | April 18, 2008 1:33 PM

Please... Even a Gerbil wouldn't stoop that low!

Posted by I'm Anon too | April 19, 2008 3:58 AM

dear folks at the RIAA,
leave this poor guy alone. what are you going to do to him that life hasn't already? in summation, please free the multitude of small woodland creatures from the depths of your assholes.

Posted by Anonymous | April 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Leave a Comment