Second Way To Get RIAA To Drop Case: Die And Get Your Story Told Widely

from the start-making-a-list dept

Last month we pointed to a few examples of the RIAA dropping file sharing lawsuits once it became clear that they couldn't prove who was actually using the internet connection (since they only have IP address info to base their lawsuits on). Trying that is probably a more reasonable method than dying, especially after yesterday's story wondering why the RIAA would keep going after a family after the person named in the suit had died. As we explained, even if it was within the RIAA's legal right to go after the estate (as it is), it seemed like a ridiculously bad move from a PR standpoint, for almost no real gain for the RIAA. It appears that, in fact, no one at the RIAA actually thought through the consequences of pushing on with the case (following a 60 day break to allow the family to "grieve"). However, once the issue started getting a bunch of attention over the weekend on various blogs, the RIAA has now decided to drop the case. They explain that the man who passed away had admitted that his stepson had actually done the file sharing, so they were simply trying to finalize the details of a settlement. However, out of their "abundance of sensitivity" (yes, they used that phrase), they have decided to drop the case. Seems a bit funny that said abundance of sensitivity didn't show up until the equally abundant "bad PR" hit the internet.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Bull Shifter, 15 Aug 2006 @ 10:04am


    I went to the RIAA website. It is basically an organization which represents the record companies. The record companies represent the artists, record their music, and tend to various business enterprises, I would imagine. If you're going to condemn RIAA, then condemnation would be in order from top to bottom: RIAA, the record companies, and the artists.

    Although their techniques aren't that palatable, this case of overkill is greatly blown out of proportion. Everyone is siezing on this one instance to rationalize and justify what is basically an illegal activity. I've read on this and the previous post, comparisons to Hitler, Little Big Horn, etc, ad-nauseum, so that people can say this. RIAA is wrong so I can do wrong.

    It reminds me rearing my kids. One of the boys comes home crying because the neighbor kid hit him. I go to check things out and come to find out my kid started the whole thing by taunting and hitting the neighbor kid himself. The moral is this. When you look at things only on the surface they appear alot more damning that if you start peeling back the onion to get the whole picture. Same goes for the MIT student. Look at the whole picture. Ask the hard questions. How much music did the guy ILLEGALLY download. Was it one song? I doubt it. The guy obviously had the whole Motown collection, the Classic Rock library '64-'69, etc, and made no bones about sharing his booty.

    No matter what anyone says, your momma's taught you this. Don't mess with it if it doesn't belong to you

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.