RIAA sues computerless family for filesharing

[drjtech]

Local family sued by record companies

04/22/06
By LOWELL VICKERS

A Rockmart family is being sued for illegal music file sharing, despite the fact that they don’t even own a computer.

A federal lawsuit filed this week in Rome by the Recording Industry Association of America alleges that Carma Walls, of 117 Morgan St., Rockmart, has infringed on copyrights for recorded music by sharing files over the Internet. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and requests unspecified monetary damages.

The lawsuit states, “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings, to distribute the copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make the copyrighted recordings available for distribution to others.”

This came as shocking news to the Walls family, who were notified of the lawsuit Friday afternoon by a newspaper reporter. James Walls, speaking on behalf of his wife and family, said they have not been served with legal papers and were unaware of the lawsuit.

After being shown a copy of the court filing, Walls said he found the whole thing bewildering.

“I don’t understand this,” Walls said. “How can they sue us when we don’t even have a computer?”

Walls also noted that his family has only resided at their current address “for less than a year.” He wondered if a prior tenant of the home had Internet access, then moved, leaving his family to be targeted instead.

However, the RIAA’s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: “Who Will Save Your Soul,” Jewel; “Far Behind,” Candlebox; “Still the Same,” Bob Seger; “I Won’t Forget You,” Poison; “Open Arms,” Journey; “Unpretty,” TLC; No Scrubs,” TLC; and “Saving All My Love for You,” Whitney Houston.

The lawsuit follows similar wording as in some 3,500 other lawsuits filed by the RIAA in the United States since June 2003.

Typically, the lawsuits have targeted users of Kazaa, Grokster and other peer-to-peer Internet services – most of which have since been shut down by RIAA lawsuits. With these services, users typically have an open folder on the computer that allows other users of the service access to any songs that have been saved in a digital format, such as MP3 files.

The RIAA lawsuits have come under fire, with critics calling the effort a “scare tactic” meant to intimidate the public from file sharing activities.

However, in a public statement defending the litigation, the RIAA says its efforts have been effective in dissuading illegal activity.

“The industry’s anti-piracy efforts have deterred a sizeable number of would-be illegal downloaders,” the RIAA statement reads. “Although a significant online problem undoubtedly persists, particularly with hard-core, frequent peer-to-peer users, absent action by the industry, the illegal down-loading world would be exponentially worse.”

-drj

[smearbrick1]

I'd like to see the RIAA prove this one in court.

[BJ_M]

yea -- i bet they have kids and ...........

[zzyzzx]

This news article deserves my sig pic...

[adam]

The link isn't working for me but if the above text came directly from that source than it sounds legitimate enough to me (the story that is, not the lawsuit.) I say this because the last time this happened it turned out to be a blatantly falsified story published by theregister.com, something which they are known for doing.

If this family really doesn't have a computer or internet access than it'd have to be some clerical mistake possibly on the part of an isp but probably by the RIAA. They may have intended to sue another family by the same name in the general area. This kind of mistake is not uncommon.

[gadgetguy]

This came as shocking news to the Walls family, who were notified of the lawsuit Friday afternoon by a newspaper reporter. James Walls, speaking on behalf of his wife and family, said they have not been served with legal papers and were unaware of the lawsuit.

Adam, is it common for lawsuits to be filed without any prior discussion with the defendant? It just seems odd to me that they would first learn of it from a reporter.

[adam]

It depends on the cause of action and the nature of suit. In most litigation no it is not common but in this circumstance it is actually impossible to avoid. In order to connect the ip to the account holder's name you first must file a law suit under the name of John Doe #___ and only then can you subpoena the records from the isp. There's no way for them to contact the individual or know anything about them, including their name and address, until after they have filed suit.

It is indeed odd though that they learned of the suit from a reporter. It must have been close timing. The notice would have been sent right when they amended the suit from John Doe to Carma Walls. The reporter must have checked the docket and informed the family while the notice was still in the mail.

[Dv8ted2]

This was for back action. The daughter uploaded music files back in 2003.

[BJ_M]

maybe the REPORTER got the wrong address and wrong "Carma Walls"

[drjtech]

Here's an update to the article. Looks like the family meant to say "we don't own a computer now" and the RIAA said they "continue to use an online media system".

Family sued by recording industry

04/24/06
Lowell Vickers

A Rockmart family is being sued for ongoing illegal music file sharing, despite no longer having a computer.

A federal lawsuit filed Friday in Rome by the Recording Industry Association of America alleges that Carma Walls, 32, of a Morgan Street residence, has infringed on copyrights for recorded music by sharing files over the Internet.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction and unspecified monetary damages.

The lawsuit states, “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, AND CONTINUES TO USE (emphasis added), an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings, to distribute the copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make the copyrighted recordings available for distribution to others.”

This came as shocking news to the Walls family, who were notified of the lawsuit Friday afternoon by a newspaper reporter. James Walls said his family was unaware they are being sued.

After being shown a copy of the court filing, Walls said he found the whole thing bewildering.

“I don’t understand this,” Walls said. “How can they sue us when we don’t even have a computer?”

Carma Walls said that the family did once own a computer – for about two months. They haven’t had a computer in their home for more than a year, she said.

During the short time the family had use of a computer, she did download some music from Internet sites, she said. But she had no inkling that the sites she visited or the practice itself were illegal.

“I thought it was like recording songs off the radio like we did when we were kids,” she said.

The RIAA’s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: “Who Will Save Your Soul,” Jewel; “Far Behind,” Candlebox; “Still the Same,” Bob Seger; “I Won’t Forget You,” Poison; “Open Arms,” Journey; “Unpretty,” TLC; No Scrubs,” TLC; and “Saving All My Love for You,” Whitney Houston.

The lawsuit follows similar wording as some 3,500 other lawsuits filed by the RIAA against U.S. residents since June 2003.

Typically, the lawsuits have targeted users of Kazaa, Grokster and other peer-to-peer Internet sites – most of which have since been shut down by RIAA lawsuits. With these services, users typically had an open folder on the computer that allowed other users access to songs saved in a digital format, such as MP3 files.

The RIAA lawsuits have come under fire, with critics calling the effort a “scare tactic” meant to intimidate the public from file sharing.

But the RIAA says its efforts have been effective in dissuading illegal activity.

“The industry’s anti-piracy efforts have deterred a sizeable number of would-be illegal downloaders,” the RIAA statement reads. “Although a significant online problem undoubtedly persists, particularly with hard-core, frequent peer-to-peer users, absent action by the industry, the illegal downloading world would be exponentially worse.”

While the court papers filed last week do not specify a monetary amount, the RIAA typically files claims demanding several thousands of dollars. The record companies claim that by participating in file-sharing programs, users made songs potentially available to thousands of other people.

Most defendants have settled out of court for a reduced amount.

The RIAA named the following as plaintiffs in the case against Mrs. Walls: Capitol Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records LLC and Atlantic Recording Corporation.

-drj

[adam]

Well there ya go. That's some responsible reporting for you. Wouldn't want to waste the truth on the first publishing.