The shameful destination of your music purchase dollars

The shameful destination of your music purchase dollars

Summary: Meet Larry Scantlebury: Vietnam vet, devoted husband, father, and grandfather.  Larry apparently shared some music files via the Net too.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Legal
26

Meet Larry Scantlebury: Vietnam vet, devoted husband, father, and grandfather.  Larry apparently shared some music files via the Net too.  You can only meet him virtually.  He passed away in June.  While my sympathies go to Larry's family, I'd like to cast a glance of shock and horror at the Recording Industry Association of America (the RIAA). 

The RIAA represents Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, BMG Music, Arista Records LLC, Capitol Records, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corporation all of whom brought suit against Larry. The lawyer representing the RIAA is Matthew E. Krichbaum of law firm Soble Rowe Krichbaum LLP (although I'm not sure if he'll answer, he can be reached at matthew@srkllp.com in case you want to ask him questions about the case). In another RIAA case, Krichbaum was accussed by the defandants of "unreasonable and vexatious litigation and improperly interfering and/or obtaining false testimony from a prospective witness." The accusation involved a 15-year old girl who testified that Krichbaum pressured her into giving false testimony because without it, he wouldn't have a case. In addition to the pointer I posted last week regarding must read document that cuts the RIAA down to size, watching Krichbaum in action is a another peek inside the RIAA's legal machinery. 

But if you think that's bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Getting back to, Mr. Scantlebury, apparently, his death isn't enough for the RIAA to take its business elsewhere. No, Krichbaum has already invested time and resources into this case and so now, he must still bring it across the finish line.  So, in pursuit of a settlement with our war heroe's estate, Krichbaum has made a motion to allow Larry's family 60 days to grieve after which time they'll have to give depositions.

Item No. 3 in the motion says:

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.

Appropriate? How does this guy sleep at night?

Thanks to Slashdot for the link.

Topic: Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

26 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • So your complaint is that a theif was caught?

    hmmm... so what?
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • When Mr. Lay died after being convicted...

      ... but before sentencing, his conviction was effectively rescinded. His estate will not have to pay any fine that might have been assessed had he lived.

      I think you can agree that the offenses of which Mr. Lay was convicted are more serious than those of which the "thief" was accused.

      Why not extend to his family the same courtesy that was given to Mr. Lay's family?
      Anton Philidor
      • ken lay isnt dead

        thinking so is recockulous
        erisian
    • Did you read the article?

      His complaint is that the alleged "theif" (sic) is dead, and in their infinite compassion, the RIAA has decided to allow his grieving family 60 days before they attempt to bankrupt them.
      tic swayback
      • boohoo

        It's an old propaganda trick. Manipulate the emotions so as to conceal the facts.

        The fact is the man is accused of UPLOADING thousands of songs to P2P servers (fact: The RIAA doesn't go after downloaders. It goes after uploaders, and only uploaders who upload a thousand or more songs). The author of the article knows this. His failure to report it makes him culpable in the crime.
        frgough
        • Pretty clueless there

          The new P2P services have no central server http://computer.howstuffworks.com/file-sharing2.htm You're computer is the server.

          Most users probably don't realize that. As the downloads are go into the same shared folder what you are downloading is also what is being uploaded directly to other users (There is nor central server as every computer in the network works as a server).

          Finally the RIAA is using screenshots of people who have various users names and the associated IP's of those names to get the ISP to try to turn over the Identity of the person. This has many problems the 1'st being that screenshots are very easy to forge! The second being that ISPs tend to offer dynamic IP addresses and many other issues here like proving he downloaded it. Have you ever heard of war driving? Let me tell you what it is... War driving is when , usually CS students, go through an area and see how many open wireless networks they can connect to. Where I live three of my neighbors, unknowingly I'm sure, have wide open wireless connections and the houses are 25-30 feet away from each other (Imagine a dorm or apartment complex)- This is one of the reasons why I hate wireless. Anyhow if someone were to connect into one of these open networks it would show that it was the wireless hub owner and not the person actually doing the file sharing.

          To continue this when the man is dead is pretty low FYI. It shouldn't be legal.
          Edward Meyers
          • Caveat.

            If you can browse another's collection of songs available for upload, you can count them. The existence of a central server isn't significant to this part of the issue.


            I appreciate your point about the unreliability of the results of attempting to determine the identity of the person (or even computer) doing the sharing.
            Anton Philidor
          • Except

            The folder on these P2P clients to upload is often by default the download folder and most users don't know this.


            It's not a very big point as both downloading and uploading without permission from the copyright holder both are illegal.

            Then again another point is that what the RIAA/MPAA/BSA claims is their copyrighted work isn't.

            Examples;

            The BSA accusing an University of distributing MS Office (Illegal) when they were distributing Open Office (Legal):

            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/06/mad_antipiracy_bot_sics_bsa/

            The MPAA accusing Archive.org distributing a Movie (Illegal) when they were distributing an old public domain government public service announcement (Legal):

            http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=595

            More "Mistakes" and DMCA abuses here: https://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/20030926_unsafe_harbors.php
            Edward Meyers
        • Key word: "accused"

          ---The fact is the man is accused of UPLOADING thousands of songs to P2P servers (fact: The RIAA doesn't go after downloaders. It goes after uploaders, and only uploaders who upload a thousand or more songs). The author of the article knows this. His failure to report it makes him culpable in the crime.---

          I note you use the word "accused". Since nothing has been proven, how can the author of the article be held culpable? Furthermore, the man in question is dead. How many criminal prosecutions are carried out against dead people, and isn't that kind of a waste of the court's time?
          tic swayback
        • Sorry, I beg to differ (on every level)

          The effort here is disproportionate to the goal. Let's me honest. If the recording industry thinks that the RIAA is sort of like Microsoft's WGA..."a growth opportunity" if you're able to recover or clamp down on the loss from theft, it is gravely mistaken. No amount of financial damages assessed against Larry's estate (or the others in aggregate) is going to recover the record industry's losses. If you ask me, the goal of the RIAA is (or should be) deterrence and my sense is that by going after the estate of a dead man -- particularly in this inhumane way (you've got 60 days and the we start depositions), they are not deterring anything and only causing more grief. Think about it... if you're someone who has a proclivity to purposefully and maliciously malign the record labels by stealing and giving away their content (someone the RIAA would love to go after), do you really think the idea that the RIAA might go after your estate if you die is a deterrent?

          This is just over the top. The record industry needs to leave these people in peace. They've had enough tragedy already.

          db
          dberlind
          • Have the RIAA companies lost...

            ... any money as a result of file sharing?

            You wrote:

            "No amount of financial damages assessed against Larry's estate (or the others in aggregate) is going to recover the record industry's losses."

            Given that the most careful studies I've seen conclude that the RIAA companies have lost no money and might have gained, that's an overly assertive statement, I think.

            A Judge ruling on an RIAA claim noted that a loss was the probabler result of file sharing, but realized that the evidence was not conclusive.

            And the RIAA's own analysis, which must have been slanted against file sharing, noted that only a percentsge of the losses examined might have come from file sharing.

            Though it's a minority view, the statement that the RIAA companies have not lost monety from file sharing should not be dismissed.
            Anton Philidor
    • What thief?

      Did you even read the story? The deceased didn't even know how to operate a computer... and the RIAA didn't contest that fact! They just said ?It didn?t matter, someone is going to be responsible and someone is going to have to pay.?

      That's like something from Kafka. It doesn't matter if the actual guilty parties are guilty, so long as "on the average" justice appears to have been done!
      Resuna
    • NO_AX, are you a RIAA shill or troll? or just an a*hole?

      No_Ax, i registered just to reply to your obscene message. to call Mr. Scantlebury "a theif"? have some decency and respect for the departed. this man served his country and as far as I can tell, a good human being.. and much more than you'll ever be if you keep talking crap like you just did.

      first off, he didn't steal anything. he was ACCUSED by the RIAA of FILE-SHARING. proving filesharing is one thing, and even if Mr Scantlebury was found guilty of that, that doesn't make him a thief. he would be guilty of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not THEFT. a thief unlawful takes the real property of someone else, intending to deprive that person of ownership, enjoyment, or resale of the item. get your terminology right and stop spreading RIAA lies.

      they want the public to equate file-sharing with stealing and think it's all evil doers and criminals. it's a bunch of RIAA propagandist brainwashing sh*t. take your lips off the RIAA's *bleep* for a second and come up for air. maybe then you'll be able to see clearly.
      pooperscooper9000
    • no ax never fails to provoke

      agree or disagree ,gotta love it !!!!!
      jupiterick
  • Par for lawyer behavior

    Please, you act like lawyers have souls. It should be readily apparent to anyone who has dealt with lawyers that they are ready to chuck their humanity aside if it gets in the way of their routine business. Unfortunately, this happens way too often. They spend so much time dealing with the dregs of society that it just becomes the norm for them.
    ejhonda
  • For me...the RIAA doesn't even matter...

    My CD buying habits used to be enormous (I used to be a DJ). I have no less than 6 huge crates full of CD's sitting in my garage in storage. My CD buying for the last few years hovered at around 50 CD's per year I'd say.

    Due to the rootkit disaster and all these lawsuits, I think in the last year I've purchased MAYBE 2 CD's worth of songs.

    From what I figure the way the recording industry has handled this has cost them around $700 per year...just from me, and that doesn't include the LCD TV I bought that wasn't Sony, the camera I just bought for a graduation present the wasn't sony. The GPS I purchased that wasn't Sony, etc.

    My CD habits may be extreme, but I'm all for fighting ANYONE or ANY ORGANIZATION that supports suing dead Vietnam Vets families, coerces 15-year-old girls, and installs the worlds most successful virus ever.
    lawryll@...
  • RIA

    Granted, he was breaking the law, as was everyone else who records music. Unfortunately, the lawyer must have worked in the White House, as his methodology is the same as the NeoCons - Take No Prisoners - regardless of the price/cost.
    If the RIA would have jumped on the Napster bandwagon early on, they would be raking in much more than they are using these tactics.
    boyzer
  • just doing his job

    he's just doin' his job.... blame the record industry for making him do it.

    Nice of you to give out his email addy tho - now he's got a reason to sue you....
    CWButler
    • just curious

      [i]"now he's got a reason to sue you...."[/i]

      Please elaborate on why you think that is...
      jaded by IT
    • wrong and wrong

      CWButler, sorry, you are wrong. "Just doing my job" was used by war criminals like the Nazis too. There is a thing called choice and autonomy, so your excuse falls flat on its face. This lawyer chose to take this case and continue to prosecute despite the passing of Mr Scantlebury. Even Kirchbaum's partner withdrew himself from the case, as a decent human being might do.

      ..and since Kirchbaum's email address is public information (and very easily obtained), there is no reason for him to sue the original poster.
      pooperscooper9000