So, you don’t own a computer and don’t have internet access. Why should you care who or what the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is? After reading this, you may think twice about that.
In the RIAA’s latest lawsuit extravaganza, they have managed to sue a family with no computer and no internet access. Carma Walls is the latest victim of the RIAA who’s subpoena 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'."
What’s interesting here is that the subpoena says "has used, and continues to use." However, as stated before the Walls don’t even own a computer or have any internet access. Are you really surprised? How can they “continue to use” something they do not have (and have never had) in their possession.
Walls also stated that his family has lived at their current address less than a year. The prior occupants could have had a computer and internet access. The prior family could also be the at fault party. However, the RIAA is refusing to even consider this a possibility and insists that Carma Walls infringed eight copyrights.
News source: p2pnet.net
In the RIAA’s latest lawsuit extravaganza, they have managed to sue a family with no computer and no internet access. Carma Walls is the latest victim of the RIAA who’s subpoena 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'."
What’s interesting here is that the subpoena says "has used, and continues to use." However, as stated before the Walls don’t even own a computer or have any internet access. Are you really surprised? How can they “continue to use” something they do not have (and have never had) in their possession.
Walls also stated that his family has lived at their current address less than a year. The prior occupants could have had a computer and internet access. The prior family could also be the at fault party. However, the RIAA is refusing to even consider this a possibility and insists that Carma Walls infringed eight copyrights.
News source: p2pnet.net
Now you are compairing apples and oranges.
I'm simply saying that "old news" is relative to the reader. What's old to some, is not old to all. Judging by the majority of the comments in this article, there where a lot of people who don't consider this "old news" and are here reading it for the first time.
its knida the same
It's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that the article was posted here today. Not everyone has already heard about it. If you wish to have more recent news feel free to use the news submission page available here on Neowin. If you choose not to use it, you have no right to complain. This story was not previously submitted.
With the amount of successful lawsuits from the RIAA, I'm beginning to wonder.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.