RIAA targets dead man's kids

[dvdguy4]

Now theyre out of hand.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9566

[ROF]

If people can have claims to land they sold 300 years ago overturned because the land was acquired due to a bad deal and can remove current residents of those lands, Sony and others should be able to sue families and friends from recently deceased thieves.

[adam]

When you have a claim against someone and they die you pursue your claim against their estate which is simply the property of the decased, NOT his/her family. That's simply how its done. Civil suits are NEVER dropped just because the defendant dies. Why would they be?

They aren't targeting the kids (who may very well be 50 years old) but the children will have a say so in how the executor of the estate chooses to handle the suit (settle or defend.) So they are giving the family a continuation. There is nothing underhanded or even uncivil about pursuing your claims against the estate of a deceased. They aren't going to "grill" the kids. The children most likely will have no direct participation in the settlement/suit at all.

The article also has several mistakes in it. It says that despite all the RIAA suits, no one has been found "guilty in a civil court," which doesn't even make sense. He obviously means found liable, but people HAVE been found liable in civil court. One such case was upheld on appeal just last December.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The RIAA does not need help making bad press for themselves. These kneejerk articles written everytime the RIAA does anything at all just make people pissed off for no reason and it villifies the entire legal system. If you believe this article than that makes the entire probate system immoral.

BTW, dvdguy4 I ain't mad at you I'm mad at the author of the article. He's an idiot.

[Shadowmistress]

Are you guys serious?

When did it become "guilty/liable until proven innocent"?

And how exactly is a dead man supposed to defend himself? Or by extension, his estate. If his family had no involvment in this matter how could they put forth a proper defense? If the father died before retaining a lawyer or if the family was unaware of the lawsuit while he was alive, how would they get the facts? Trust what the RIAA tells them?
Don't we all have a right to defend ourselves - even in death if the case is going to be persued as if the principal is still alive - and when that right is hindered, doesn't the law have ways to take that into account and balance it out?

Man, they must be licking their chops at their good luck in this case... the one person who could have stood in the way between them and their ill gotten money is no more.

The family should sue the RIAA for killing the father due to stress agrivating whatever his condition was. That train of thought is no more farfetched than the bullshit evidence the RIAA presents to start a lawsuit.

[Conquest10]

hey, hey, hey...

[SquirrelDip]

@Shadowmistress: Sounds shitty but this is the way it has to work... Say my Grandfather stole your entire life's savings - then died. Should you be able to go after the estate or do I get your life's savings willed to me free and clear?

What sucks about these RIAA suits isn't going after a dead man - it's the shear number of claims they're pursuing and the way they are pursuing them.

[adam]

Shadowmistress, the RIAA is the one suing. They are the ones that have to present the evidence and prove their case. The executor of the estate will hire a lawyer and defend the case. Since this suit was pending before his death it is likely a lawyer has been handling the defense since the onset, in which case the deceased has probably already been deposed. Estates are sued all the time. Its a fact of life and the logical way to handle the death of a defendant. Think about it. If someone drives drunk and kills your child and himself should you not be able to sue his estate for wrongful death? Should you just forgo any recovery because the guy died? What if you are hired to build a house and before you get paid the buyer dies? Should you just not get paid?

Estates are subject to civil suits and that's all there is to it. It happens to RIAA execs when they die too. Its happening right now to Ken Lay. You don't escape your debts just because you die.

[thecoalman]

And how exactly is a dead man supposed to defend himself? .

That's a pretty good point deposition or not.

You don't escape your debts just because you die.

You do if you're broke. :P

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

hey, hey, hey...

[BJ_M]

original report

In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children. Recording Industry vs The People have more details"

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants- ... dants.html

[Shadowmistress]

I'm not saying that all cases should be dropped necessarily just because the principal dies, I'm asking if there is a modifying law that takes the death into consideration for his defense. This general practice intrigues me more than this specific case.

Granted, they probably already have deposed him before he died (and what if they hadn't?). Granted also that they are now targeting his kids technically rather than the man himself although it's still his estate they're after (I'm sure he could have contributed valuable information to his kids defense in this case had he not died, considering it was his property (computer) that started this.) It still feels like somebody's right to defend themselves properly is being ripped off here.

Let's take your example of someone being hired to build a house but the owner dies before paying. Well, what if the builder did a shoddy job? What if he used maple wood instead of oak or put in a straight staircase instead of a curved one. Stuff that isn't exactly seen as negligent, but still a violation of the particular contract entered into with the deceased because it wasn't built to proper specs. Normally the owner of the house could argue the amount charged, could he not? Defend the amount of money his estate is to shell out for this house?
All of a sudden the owner dies, the builder "overlooks" whatever documents hurt his case and the benefactors of this estate get completely ripped off.

Even with a deposition, how can anyone say that's good enough to mount a defense? If this dead man is being treated as simply a witness in the case against his kids, then ok. But then shouldn't the RIAA have to file a new lawsuit against the kids specifically?
On the other hand if his deposition is the sole evidence to defend his estate without a chance to rebutt further discovery of evidence or testimony, how the hell is that fair to his estate? And the future depositions of his kids and the fruits that would come from them would constitute new evidence, I think. Am I wrong?


@BJ_M: that link isn't working for me. I think they took down the story. Says article not found.

@Conquest: Hey, hey, hey, right back atcha man.

[adam]

I'm not saying that all cases should be dropped necessarily just because the principal dies, I'm asking if there is a modifying law that takes the death into consideration for his defense. This general practice intrigues me more than this specific case.

The main overriding aspect of law that always takes into consideration ANY undue weakness in the defense's case is burden of proof. At the end of the day its the plaintiff that is going to have make their case and that means shouldering the responsibility of presenting the majority of the evidence to the court and to the defendant. If they don't meet the elements of their cause of action then the defendant wins, without even putting on a defense. They have access to the computer and the same logs as the plaintiff in this case, and they can request any non-priviledged evidence from the plaintiff. Life isn't always fair. You do the best you can with what you have. If you protected the defendant here then you'd be penalizing the plaintiff through no fault of their own.

There are other checks so to speak to limit the damage caused by a defendant dying. For instance all civil causes of action have relatively short statutes of limitations. Once you learn of your claim you have to bring it quickly or you are barred. You can't wait for evidence to get lost or witnesses/parties to die. Whenever any party or witness to a lawsuit dies certain evidenciary rules are relaxed to allow more evidence to get in. For instance, statements made by the deceased outside of court/deposition could be admitted, whereas before they would be barred as heresay. Also the judge always has the discretion to modify any reward to account for hardships suffered in putting on the defense.

As for my house scenario, that's a clear cut example of what I'm talking about . The burden is on the house builder so he is the one that must come forward with evidence. He'd have to present the contract with the purchaser's signature, and he'd have to give a copy to the defendant's attorney. Then the attorney could attack the contract and/or the work.

As for the procedure of suing the children, in the event that Warner Bros. believes they were involved, they would simply have to amend their existing suit. Its a single act they are suing over. They can amend their lawsuit to include any defendants they believe contributed to that act...but they must name all defendants at the threshold of the trial and all the usual notice requirements must be met.

[SquirrelDip]

What?!?!? No bonus points for my layman's example???

[RottenFoxBreath]

If people can have claims to land they sold 300 years ago overturned because the land was acquired due to a bad deal and can remove current residents of those lands, Sony and others should be able to sue families and friends from recently deceased thieves.

aw..for fucks sake,STFU,you dick.
he had,when alive,denied all knowledge of this,and all it will take is his family to deny it too.
people like you piss me off man..with the high and mighty,better than you attitude.
id like to see you call his family thieves,or to say to them to there faces that there recently deceased father was a thief..see how long you lasted in that room.

[adam]

Some sites online are now reporting that they dropped the suit altogether.

[offline]

I don't disagree with the right to sue a deceased estate - but I retrain the right to refer to Warner and their stinking sharks for hire, as SCUM.

[SquirrelDip]

I don't disagree with the right to sue a deceased estate - but I retrain the right to refer to Warner and their stinking sharks for hire, as SCUM.

This was my point - I prefer your wording.

[ROF]

If people can have claims to land they sold 300 years ago overturned because the land was acquired due to a bad deal and can remove current residents of those lands, Sony and others should be able to sue families and friends from recently deceased thieves.

aw..for fucks sake,STFU,you dick.
he had,when alive,denied all knowledge of this,and all it will take is his family to deny it too.
people like you piss me off man..with the high and mighty,better than you attitude.
id like to see you call his family thieves,or to say to them to there faces that there recently deceased father was a thief..see how long you lasted in that room.

Oddly enough, some people would say that with the sewer language you use and your high and mighty attitude while adding zero to the discussion would actually not allow you to maintain a civilized conversation with anyone, dead or alive. That being said, re-read my statement you quoted and you will see that I do not fully support this action and almost wholeheartedly agree with what offline says above.

Those are quick to judge or usually quite slow on wit.

[offline]

RottenFoxBreath and everybody, keep it civil please.

Thanks

[Shadowmistress]

The rules are relaxed a little and what was considered heresay previously can be admitted once the defendant dies? Well, ok, that might be enough to counter balance things. I didn't know that before. And at least the family can give him a decent burial before the RIAA gets all the money.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, yes, but the way the RIAA is working you might as well chuck that arguement out the window. They don't care about proof, they care about bleeding the defendant dry with legal costs until a settlement is reached. No burden needed there. Yes, they are SCUM. So that protection is basically gone.

If what those sites are reporting is true, that the RIAA have dropped this case, you can bet it's because their own legal costs now would amount to much higher than what would allow a profit. It's not like innocence ever stopped them before.


@ROF: With all due respect, I reread your post as well. If you meant it sarcastically, I'm afraid that didn't carry through the message board very well and I suggest you rephrase or drop in a disclaimer next time to prevent miscommunication. When I first read your post I also thought you were supporting the view you presented. Taking away land after 300 years for any reason really, is pretty unfair. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[adam]

Actually Shadowmistress, I think the suit was dropped (assuming its true, but now more sites are reporting this so it probably is) moreso as a result of the bad PR that this case generated. The attorney's name has been dragged through the mud over this, and he was already in the hotseat because of some alleged improper questioning in another RIAA suit.

BTW: The suit was filed by Warner. The RIAA actually isn't a party. Probably doesn't make a difference though.

[Shadowmistress]

It's about time karma starts catching up to them.

Improper questioning eh? I guess they couldn't figure out how to manipulate the testimony of a dead man yet.

RIAA/Warner bros./Sony - whatever. Same sh*t, different pile.

[BJ_M]

@BJ_M: that link isn't working for me. I think they took down the story. Says article not found.

@Conquest: Hey, hey, hey, right back atcha man.

try this

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html

[thecoalman]

Taking away land after 300 years for any reason really, is pretty unfair. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I'd disagree, if my Great Great....... Grandfather owned a chunk of real estate in Manhattan and it was stolen from him you could bet I'm going to pursue it if I have a right to that land. Think of the can of worms that would open up..... Seriously what would make it any different if it was stolen 20 years ago or 300? It's still rightfully yours.

[Shadowmistress]

Well, that's an interesting stance to take. Let's see now.

IF the statute of limitations hasn't run out on your claim, and IF you can prove that the land was really stolen and that you would be the sole rightful heir, I see two things that would make it unfair. One, your grandfather may not have had the money to develop Manhatten the way it exists now so the value of the land today is much greater than what you would have inherited. If you profit, that means somebody else loses what is rightfully theirs which is unfair. Now if your grandfather was let's say royalty and IF you can prove that the land would have had virtually equal value under his and his heirs ownership today, then ok everything is cool.

The second thing is a little bit harder to justify. Being Manhatten, and being it was 300 years ago, the theif himself is dead and the land has been sold and resold. Now these people who bought it were not theives, they paid for it fair and square. How is it justified that they should lose because of something someone else did which they'd have no knowledge of? This is why I think it's unfair.

But I need a lawyer here to clarify something for me as I'm not that well versed in petty theft law. What happens when someone steals something and manages to sell it to a pawn shop. That shop in turn sells it to someone else. When the cops finally track down the item, who gets to keep it and do the people who paid fairly for it get ripped off?

Let's say they catch the theif but he's totally broke and can't reimburse anyone any money. Who takes the loss then? And does that seem fair to you even if it's the law?

[thecoalman]

One, your grandfather may not have had the money to develop Manhatten the way it exists now so the value of the land today is much greater than what you would have inherited.

The value of the land itself would still have value today whether he developed it or not. I'd imagine the real estate values in many parts of Manhattan exceed the value of the buildings on them.

If you profit, that means somebody else loses what is rightfully theirs which is unfair.

It was never theirs to begin with.

Now if your grandfather was let's say royalty and IF you can prove that the land would have had virtually equal value under his and his heirs ownership today, then ok everything is cool.

Why would being royalty or poor farmer make a difference?

How is it justified that they should lose because of something someone else did which they'd have no knowledge of? This is why I think it's unfair.

True but let's not forget that My Grandfather was the original victim, it's just as unfair to him and my family too.

That shop in turn sells it to someone else. When the cops finally track down the item, who gets to keep it and do the people who paid fairly for it get ripped off?

I'm no lawyer but I can pretty much say with certainty that the original owner is going to get it. The person who bought it would have to seek compensation from the person they purchased it from. Again it was never theirs to begin with.

Let's say they catch the theif but he's totally broke and can't reimburse anyone any money. Who takes the loss then? And does that seem fair to you even if it's the law?

Yes absolutely....don't buy from pawnshops.

[ROF]

@ROF: With all due respect, I reread your post as well. If you meant it sarcastically, I'm afraid that didn't carry through the message board very well and I suggest you rephrase or drop in a disclaimer next time to prevent miscommunication. When I first read your post I also thought you were supporting the view you presented. Taking away land after 300 years for any reason really, is pretty unfair. Do you agree or disagree with that?

No way do I agree with that which is why I posted it. I have already moved once because some tribe did not like the beans and liquor someone else gave them 300 years ago to move along. They did not complain while imbiding the liquor and I dare bet they ate the beans. Fair trade. They got what they wanted. If they wanted more they should have bargained better at the time or at the very least in a reseasonable amount of time. But I have to move now 300 years later just because the people who are alive now did not get their liquor? huh? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I want everyone off the planet. My distant ice friends and relatives once glacierized the entire globe and we want our land and water back. I also expect an apology and reparations from the current living people for what their distant relatives and friends did to me. I demand affirmative action.

It is almost laughable if this were not true.

[adam]

Regarding the controversial 300 year old land claims, you guys are referring to the Paugussetts right? If so I'm not sure what the issue is. Their petitions directly to the govt. have been completely shot down, and they basically have no chance in court. Their argument also was not so much that they were defrauded, but rather that the sale was unlawful since it was not approved by the govt., which was required by statute at the time. They also had to change their petition, due to a ruling in another case, to seek backrent instead of ousting the current residents. You cannot evict innocent residents anymore, you can only seek monetary compensation. The statute of limitations on forcible detainer (get the hell off my property) is 20 years for most states. But that's if you can prove the land is yours, like through a deed. If your only argument is that you were defrauded than the statute of limitations on that is a maximum of 6 years.

But then with property there are all sorts of other concerns. You cannot have your sale of the land overturned if the cloud (a suit or claim against the land) is outside of your chain of title. Its outside of your chain of title if a title search would not show the cloud. Its difficult to explain, but imagine if someone forged a deed and sold the land to two different people who then resold and resold it and no one ever knew about the conflict. (actually quite common believe it or not.) You'd have two separate branches of title chains. Property is a crazy area of law in the US. Things were done so wacky back when America was first colonized that we're still trying to sort it all out.

As for something being stolen and then obtained by a totally innocent 3rd party, here is the rule. If it is re-sold by a reputable dealer than the 3rd party takes free and the dealer has to compensate the original owner. If it was sold by anyone else than the 3rd party must return the item and their remedy is to seek out and sue the thief, or someone else in teh chain of possession, and that often means that they are the ones out of luck. Reputable dealers are places like art galleries and well known individual dealers. That's about it. Pawnshops definitely wouldn't qualify.