Apparently death is now again a safe place to escape the long hands of the RIAA, but for their family the lawsuit lives on.
As was previously reported, the RIAA wanted to depose the children of a man accused of copyright infringement. The problem being the man had passed away. Well, the lawsuit is apparently a supernatural creature and lives on from generation to generation. The RIAA, in a bout of kindness, no doubt hopped up on coffee and the new Paris Hilton album, were kind enough to grant the children 60 days to mourn the loss of their father and agreed to keep the evil lawsuit at bay until then. How benevolent of them right?
Well, now the intoxicating effects of caffeine and a shrill voice have worn off and they realized over the weekend in moment of epiphany that this story is bad press, real bad press for them in fact . They have decided to retool the lawsuit so that the other family members are the target instead.
PC Pro reports this morning that the RIAA intends to pursue the case "…unless it reaches a settlement with Scantlebury’s estate or other family members involved," and that it "… intends to reword the lawsuit to name the other family members." So apparently even death offers no respite from the RIAA’s determination to "vigorously pursue" illegal file-sharers.
"Vigorously" is putting it mildly.
Here’s an excerpt from the motion to stay the case:
1. Plaintiffs have recently learned that Defendant, Larry Scantlebury, passed away on June 20, 2006. Please see the attached Death Certificate.
2. Prior to Mr. Scantlebury’s passing, Plaintiffs believed that there was potential to resolve the case. While at the time of Mr. Scantlebury’s death, he had not responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery (he had asked for and received extensions), he had indicated that others, in addition to Mr. Scantlebury, were involved in the infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
3. 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.
4. In the event the parties do not reach a resolution with Mr. Scantlebury’s estate or the other family members involved, Plaintiffs anticipate amending the complaint following depositions of members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court stay the case for 60 days and extend all deadlines 60 days.
Related Posts
- RIAA Wants to Depose Dead Defendant’s Children; But Will Allow them 60 Days to “Grieve”
- RIAA’s “abundance of sensitivity” ends harassment of grieving family
- RIAA goes after more kids
- RIAA gets hit by lawsuit over
- Business As Usual As RIAA Targets ESU in P2P Lawsuit Campaign
Loading ...
This is not new. Pcpro is just not up-to date. It links to the outdates “motion to stay”.
This is just disgusting. How low can the RIAA get than this?
they can sue a dead family.
or someone who’s gonna die of cancer.
lol you asked.
This is a bunch of BS! You can’t sue the family if the family is not the party that was involved in the so called acquisition of file downloading/uploading! I really hope the judge if it makes it to court laughs at the RIAA and say’s “Are you F**kin’ nuts?
It is just posturing on the part of the Recording Industry in no way will this fly. A dead man cannot testify but he also cannot be prosecuted. Civil suits are not inherited by family.