Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Lawsuits from a John Doe's Perspective

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the through-the-wringer dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Nick Mamatas was sued by and subsequently settled with the RIAA for file sharing. He wrote a piece for the Village Voice describing his experience, and he goes on to briefly discuss the implications of "John Doe" file-sharing lawsuits. He argues that the labels are using these suits as a source of profit; he also claims that when his lawyer contacted the RIAA to discuss the suit, he was put in touch with a regular staffer, not another lawyer. 'It feels like they're doing a volume business,' Mamatas' lawyer notes."

2 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. does it matter? dont pay. by x757x · · Score: 5, Informative

    its a civil suit judgement, correct? I had one from 1998. I did not pay it, no big deal. It is not the court's responsibility to force you to pay. (at least not where I live). its "on" my credit report, but i have never been turned down for anything since then, (have a very nice credit score actually) and it will get removed soon. I actually called the lawyer representing the person that sued me one day, and asked him about it (thats mostly what he does for a living). He said a good percentage of the judgements he wins never get payed, as there is no way to force the loser to cooperate. Maybe its different in other states? If I lost the case, I would basically be like kiss my ass RIAA.

    --
    http://music.x757x.org/ - techno dj mixes for your pleasure
  2. Re:Proof? by BoneThugND · · Score: 5, Informative
    This isn't criminal law. In a tort case, they don't have to prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' They have to prove it 'based on a preponderance of the evidence.'

    Which basically means, if the judge and/or jury thinks it's more likely you committed the tort than not, they can force you to pay damages.