Login:
Password:

RIAA Sues Deceased Grandmother

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

February 4, 2005, 10:50 AM

The recording industry's latest assault on file sharing has netted an unusual suspect: a deceased great-grandmother from West Virginia. In a lawsuit filed in January, the RIAA accused 83-year old Gertrude Walton of sharing over 700 pop, rock and rap songs under the alias "smittenedkitten."

What the RIAA didn't know is that Walton had passed away in December following a long illness. Her daughter, Robin Chianumba, has lived with Walton for the past 17 years and told the Charleston Gazette that her mother refused to even have a computer in the house.

The Recording Industry Association of America admitted that Walton was likely not the smittenedkitten it was after, blaming the mixup on the time it takes gather information on illicit file swappers.

"Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago," said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

But to many, Walton's case underscores fundamental problems with the RIAA's effort to crack down on peer-to-peer piracy. Because online identities are mostly anonymous, industry police utilize IP addresses to track the specific Internet account sharing music. Unfortunately, the process is riddled with inaccuracies and sometimes innocent -- or deceased -- people are fingered as pirates.

"I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Chianumba told the Gazette. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park to attend the hearing."

The process doesn't need to be perfect, however. While the RIAA may not have enough hard information to win in court, most named defendants opt to settle for a few thousand dollars and a promise they will cease file sharing activities rather than face recording industry lawyers.

"I don't know if this is a scheme to get money, I just don't know what's going on. I am concerned," said Chianumba.

Add a Comment (22 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By syberlink

edited Jun 21, 2006 - 6:44 PM

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said:

Unfortunately, the process is riddled with inaccuracies and sometimes innocent -- or deceased -- people are fingered as pirates.

When you miss the mark, charge the wrong person consider what you have done. You have intentionally filed a lawsuit stating thing which are false. You have an attorney stating thing which are false. You have a judge making decisions on things which are false. Then it is a false and fraudulent filing where no evidence existed that "the named person" never did these things. You need to compensate these mistakes as you call them with considerable amounts of money. After all, these are false claims to obtain money which was never owed to you where a person was innocent. For the false claims, you need to be charged with that crime.

Score: 0

By Andrew Moey

edited Apr 8, 2006 - 3:16 AM

nightops, you sey that they "surely do not have the power required to issue a mandate to Congress to being Martial Law so that we are all held captive by your...brilliance". Unfortunately, they have the next-best thing: a law called DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It enables them to hurt p2p users that much more.

Score: 0

By eleven80

posted May 10, 2005 - 11:14 AM

COOL! So all I have to do when I get a letter from the RIAA is kill myself and I'll get away with it SCOTT FREE!!! =D

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Feb 7, 2005 - 6:29 AM

RIAA, time to wake up. P2P isn't going to die off, it's not a "fad", and you surely do not have the power required to issue a mandate to Congress to being Martial Law so that we are all held captive by your...brilliance. The luster is wearing off RIAA, and the curtains are starting to fall. Another 'organization' tried to force a population to accept their rules and pay their fines, but the people cried out "Taxation without representation." And because of those people, today there is a United States of America. This nation is what it is because people stood up for their freedom and rebelled against a monopolizing government. Now our government is "For the People, By the People" and cannot be restricted. Illegal filesharing is not supporting the artists who need to be compensated, but the vast majority of artists receive most of their money from tours, apparel, and other revenues...not their records. You can't kill P2P, you can't buy it out, and you do NOT have a choice. In the end...you WILL be assimilated!

Score: 0

By redonthehead

posted Feb 5, 2005 - 5:52 PM

This is exactly the reason I will not buy any new recordings. I buy from pawn shops and garage sales,etc.

Score: 0

By linkdup

posted Feb 5, 2005 - 11:38 AM

I'm just waiting for the day they sue ME! That will be the worst freaking mistake they ever made. I have so much evidence, proof and just straight up information to shut them up for good. The RIAA can lick my biskuit, and if any of you from the RIAA (you hear that google? RIAA, RIAA) are reading this. I WILL NEVER BUY ANYTHING AGAIN that gives you money in any way....... BECAUSE OF THIS KIND OF CRAP.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 12:31 PM

The RIAA should be laughed out of court. They are doing a great job of proving that they are absolute and total morons.

Score: 0

By Diamhair

posted Feb 5, 2005 - 8:05 AM

This is a golden opportunity for people being sued to point to the credibility of the RIAA's evidence. They are blindly suing people!

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 1:54 PM

I totally agree. In Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture," he said that the fine for ONE song downloaded ($1.5M) is more than the amount of which malpractice lawsuits are capped at ($.25M). This in itself is fundamentally flawed.

The RIAA is simply too trigger-happy. Instead of suing people for amounts they cannot even afford, why not ask nicely to either keep the songs for 99 cents each or delete them? If the user is simply defiant, then fine... go ahead and stick 'em out.

The music industry's greed has led me to not even bother looking at the charts or download any song (most of the songs are trash to begin with). They are the most ungrateful brats I have ever seen. They have their mansions and expensive junk while others are sleeping on the streets... what more do they want?

Score: 0

By mancub

posted Feb 5, 2005 - 4:34 AM

its very simple realy dont buy any music, software, tapes, films, dvds, videoes, of any kind then they will go bankrupt, is it not the best way to deal with these people then they wont have amasion and all the the trimmings ,come on people the powers in the purchaser not the seller hit the entainment industry were it hurts its bank balance

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 12:18 PM

It's one thing to sue companies or individuals who illegally make music files available to download, but sueing a deceased Grandmother? That's ridiculous!

Score: 0

By wfacer

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 2:03 PM

Same here. RIAA - Really Idiotic Anal A****

Score: 0

By RaveN-FH-

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 1:07 PM

the courts need to step in and stop the riaa from filing john doe lawsuits. lord knows i don't get away with filing a lawsuit without properly serving an individual ... neither should they.

Score: 0

By cowticket

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 12:56 PM

They are suing there own customers. Thats why I will never spend a cent for a cd.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 1:29 PM

I have stopped buying cds too, because of their unethical practices of giving artists small cuts of the profit, and cause of them suing consumers. I hope they consider that factor in when they do these counts of how many sales they lost "due to filesharing"

Score: 0

By Mountain_Man

posted Feb 4, 2005 - 5:38 PM

i also dont buy cds anymore. the money doesnt go to the artists, it goes to the executives so they can force more pop crap down our throats and pay radio stations not to play independent bands. no thanks. i'd be more than happy to pay artists directly for their music, but im not paying some record company to keep good music down and promote crap.

Score: 0

By aszure

posted Feb 5, 2005 - 4:31 PM

Me three. Thats why I got involved with http://www.indieradiolive.com its 24-7 independent radio.

Score: 0

By rnrjunkie

edited Jan 11, 2008 - 10:31 AM

Too bad they shut down! Come visit us at http://www.aiiradio.net ! for the BEST in Independent Music!

Score: 0

By jogygeorge

posted Feb 6, 2005 - 4:28 AM

Surely thier products are the ones that are the most pirated in the modern era! Yes, they go after the pirates, but no, they do not seem to mess their hands dealing with lil individuals. They make their buck and only seem to make a hue and cry if the ones with bigger pockets refuse to put their hand in.

MS with all that piracy makes the money they want and are quite content. Bet the various artists have that kind of attitude too... just that the RIAA seems to be more concerned about the artists than they care for themselves!

Score: 0

By Sunstar

posted Feb 6, 2005 - 8:19 AM

I welcome a lawsuit, I would immediately file a countersuit
these guys are as bad as THE MAFIA in a sense.

the tacics they are using fall under the RICOlaw, it was introduced in the early 70s to do something about mob bosses
look into the law, they maintain thier business using threats and fear tactics which is exactly what the rico law is all about.

Score: 0

By Budgie29

posted Feb 6, 2005 - 1:18 PM

Napster was the biggest threat to the recording industry ... all all they did is to close it down and the artists should go it alone
with out them Sony,emi are nothing
but 99p per track it redilcous

drop your prices .stop ripping us off
fair price for every one insted of the fat cats just creaming everything off and just leaving sour milk for the artists

I will susport where susport is due I have not Bought any music since tapes went from £5 to 7.49
in 1986

most of the compulations that are brought out
its allways a toss up weather or not i happen to like the tracks on it

Score: 0

By dots

posted Jan 10, 2006 - 12:28 AM

if you shut down P2P, how are independant low budget bands suposed to get their music across the country?

Score: 0