RIAA Extortion - New Low

[GhostShip]

My word, how low do theses people go with suing the dead ?

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-wants-to-depose-dead-defendants.html

RIAA Wants to Depose Dead Defendant's Children; But Will Allow them 60 Days to "Grieve"
Just when we think we've heard it all....

In Michigan, in Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant had passed away, the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to "grieve", after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children:

I think this makes it 100% clear this is what is called a "shake down" and nothing to do with copyright infringement.
My personal opinion is to call these people scum, they are not worthy of a better title when they act in this manner.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=warner_scantlebury_motion

Lets see the lawyers serve him these papers. :roll:

[GhostShip]

Oh look folks, big surprise climb down ... :roll:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/7269/RIAA%27s+%22abundance+of+sensitivity%22+ends+harassment+of+grieving+family

Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement:

Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.

I wrote back to ask him this followup question:

Where was the "abundance of sensitivity" when the RIAA failed to initially drop its case against the Scantleberry family following the death of the named defendant in the case? Given that this "abundance" only materialized within 24 hours of this story hitting several large news outlets and blogs isn't it fair to say that the RIAA is demonstrating sensitivity to its public image, and not its sensitivity to the Scantleberry family?

To which he declined to further comment.

I'm sure he did, it must make someone ask themselves why they work for such low-life companies that chase the dead for greenbacks, what was next a application for a "discovery"  backed by shovels ?