Thread: Proof the RIAA is made of the worst of humanity

RIAA sues a disabled stroke victim – Who had already sent a notice to the RIAA that he had not violated any copyright laws – Before he suffered the stroke.

The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk:

Summons in Warner v. Paladuk*

Although the defendant John Paladuk, an employee of C&N Railroad for 36 years, was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement, and despite that the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year which resulted in complete paralysis of his entire left side and severely impaired speech, rendering him disabled, and despite the fact that his disability check is his sole source of income, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007.

Note a few other... interesting... things they have done.
These are also against disabled persons
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...tic_v_Andersen
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...tra_v_Schwartz

Oh, and lets not forget:

The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."

the RIAA...ghad...so f-ing annoying.

"I'm a billion dollar industry.....i need more money!"

americans.

"how the rich wanted to be richer"

They can sue whoever they want. When they start to sue deaf people then I'll go 'HUH?!'. Stroke victum, cripple, 12 year old girl... I don't care. If they can make a case then they can go right ahead. If they can't then they're wasting the courts time and they'll be treated accordingly. If the guy is innocent, then it should read 'RIAA suing innocent man'. Who gives a fuck if the guy had a stroke or not?

Originally Posted by Volvogga

They can sue whoever they want. When they start to sue deaf people then I'll go 'HUH?!'. Stroke victum, cripple, 12 year old girl... I don't care. If they can make a case then they can go right ahead. If they can't then they're wasting the courts time and they'll be treated accordingly. If the guy is innocent, then it should read 'RIAA suing innocent man'. Who gives a fuck if the guy had a stroke or not?

I get what your saying but I dont think its really right to sue a guy who recently lost control of half his body for burning some dvds or whatever he was doing.

you should be glad you don't know the SACEM aka french RIAA, because they are as much stupid....
last exemple is suing a school because the children sang 2 or 3 songs to a departing teacher with the parents present... (and it was old songs which i personally used to sing at school when i was a little child and where the SACEM and RIAA weren't such dumbasses)

Theyre the musical equivalent of the MPAA. >_>

Yay for what precious little has entered public domain. Sad, really.

And moving right along (because I feel a rant about the broken copyright systems comming on), since it is a civil matter and not a criminal one, I concede the point that they don't have to sue anyone.

Oh, and for those of you that didn't know, yes. Copyright infringement is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

Actually, the guy had already sent a notice to the RIAA, before he had his stroke, that he had not violated any copyright laws. [He hadn't actually done anything]

Originally Posted by Volvogga

They can sue whoever they want. When they start to sue deaf people then I'll go 'HUH?!'. Stroke victum, cripple, 12 year old girl... I don't care. If they can make a case then they can go right ahead. If they can't then they're wasting the courts time and they'll be treated accordingly. If the guy is innocent, then it should read 'RIAA suing innocent man'. Who gives a fuck if the guy had a stroke or not?

Agreed. It's totally irrelevant.

What IS relevant is the dubious case in the first place.