The RIAA is involved in a lawsuit with some poor bastard, but he inconveniently died. The ever-generous RIAA is allowing his children 60 days to “grieve” (quotes are not mine) before deposing them. Christ. The guy is DEAD, and what kind of children AREN’T going to say, “I’m really not sure (or I don’t remember). You’d have to ask my father. . .only he’s gone to his Eternal Rest”? What’s the fucking point of continuing? He’s dead. D-E-A-D, as in no longer living, heart no longer beating, brain no longer functioning. Worm fodder, permanent vacation, not coming back. Anyone alive who even MIGHT be able to give you the information you seek to win the suit for damned sure isn’t going to do it. Give it up. Only in America. What a country! Bleh. Well, at least he did own a computer while he was alive, so this is one of their more sensible suits.
P.S. Google DOES have the right to defend their trademark. If they don’t, people will be googling MSN or Yahoo!. You can’t google MSN, you can google only Google.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:51 am
There’s something I don’t understand about this thing with the RIAA. I thought that if the defendant in a civil lawsuit dies, the suit is automatically dismissed because, as you pointed out, the guy’s dead. If the plaintiff wants to bring a suit against the defendant’s estate then it would seem to me that they’d have to start from scratch, since the estate is a different legal entity than the dead guy. IANAL. I have to check this out.
[Balthazar (still hanging in) adds that in ancient Babylon the RIAA was an even fiercer entity with it’s own temples and bloodthirsty rites. I think he must be conflatin the RIAA with something else, but he insists.]
August 15th, 2006 at 9:59 am
PS
Not only does Google have the right to protect its copyright, it has the responsibility. If a company doesn’t do due diligence on this, the copyright can be declared null and void.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Oh, I know that Google is doing it because they must–didn’t bandaid and aspirin lose theirs for just that reason? I think Xerox still has theirs, but it’s not from lack of people “xeroxing” their arses at the office Christmas party instead of photocopying them. 😆
The RIAA is an anachronism, or at least with their current business model. As society becomes (arguably) more computer literate, we’re learning that we don’t necessarily have to accept what we’re handed because there are alternatives. I’m perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for music, but I’m not willing to cough up fifteen bucks for a CD with one good song on it, and that’s what they’d have me do. Not only that, they’d have me buy it all over again if the disc should become physically damaged and that one good song no longer plays. I realise that I didn’t buy the music or the rights to distribute it, but I’m not asking for that, I’m asking for the right to put my CDs safely in storage while I play the songs I like on my computer, my CD player and my iPod, or any device I may own in the future. I’m asking for the right to buy only a song that I want, not a bunch of shit that I don’t want, and to play those songs on the electronics of my choice, not someone else’s choice. We’re getting there and eventually they will be dragged into the 21st century (or will become extinct), but they’re going to kick and scream every step of the way. It would be wonderful if they couldn’t purchase their own politicians, but…what a country! 😉