The RIAA is at it again, this time suing the children of a dead man! Since the accused is no longer around, RIAA figured it was a good idea to go after the children instead.

3. Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate to discuss a resolution of the case with the family so close to Mr. Scantlebury’s passing. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.

4. In the event the parties do not reach a resolution with Mr. Scantlebury’s estate or the other family members involved, Plaintiffs anticipate amending the complaint following depositions of members of Mr. Scantlebury’s family.

How despicable! But it didn’t take long for RIAA to face the backlash from the public. The news spread like wild fire, appearing on major news outlets such as Boing Boing, the Inquirer, ZDNet and more. In light of the bad publicity, RIAA has now decided to lift the charges.

An RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, told Boing Boing:

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.

But Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow calls it bull:

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?

Suing grandmas, 12-year-old girls, wrong people and now dead man’s children, what’s next?