Slashdot Mirror
New Dismissal Motion in File Sharing Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A new motion to dismiss an RIAA peer-to-peer file sharing case has been made, this time in Brooklyn federal court, in Atlantic v. Huggins, reports Recording Industry vs. The People. As in Elektra v. Santangelo, the RIAA had served a boilerplate complaint alleging generally 'downloading' ,uploading', and 'distributing', but without naming any specific acts. Defendants' lawyers argue that "the Complaint alleges in conclusory fashion and upon information and belief that defendant used "an online media distribution system" to download and distribute certain alleged copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make such recordings "available for distribution to others." but "makes no attempt to describe the specific acts of infringement or the dates and times on which they allegedly occurred.""
This is why I am waiting for an uploader case to go to COURT. Let's have a martyr ... and watch him live to tell the tale.
If this motion is not denied, regardless if he wins or not, at least this may make the extortion process a bit more expensiver per a person for RIAA, assuming this instills enough fear that they attempt to properly develop a case on a per-person basis. It maybe just whishful thinking on the other hand.
If this continues, we might start to see a rash of people defending themselves against lawsuits, rather than sticking to the time-tested system of out-of-court-settlements our nation is founded on. Who knows what effect that might have on our national justice system?
(*and be resolved in court-- not settled outside*)
makes no attempt to describe the specific acts of infringement
Now, IANAL, but how much more descriptive can you be? They're practically handing them a printout with what illegal files had been being shared, are they not? What else is necessary?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't death a pre-req for becoming a martyr?
I've been wondering when someone would trade several hundred gigabytes of legit stuff from a monitored connection, just to set up the RIAA for a smackdown.
If A copies file F copyrighted by B, can C sue A for copyright infringement?
If so, A could still have a license from B to copy F. Does A have to show such a license for his defense, or is A assumed innocent and the burden is placed on C to demonstrates that A couldn't possibly have a license from B?
This is a general question. F can be software, music, movies, your brother's wedding pictures etc. B and C can be various organizations, laywer firms, artists, producers, your brother.
Here's what happens now. RIAA makes the request to Congress that ISPs open up, on request, records indicating upload (the main problem) transfers citing the obvious rampant criminal sharing going on on the network. Congress, in response, seeing both an opportunity to pad the coffers of its reelection campaigns as well as a chance to strengthen the rights of IP holders, decides to strike a blow to the 4th Amendment and force upload data to be opened upon subpoena.
Both sides in this equation (file uploaders and the RIAA) are in the wrong. You simply can't decide that you don't have to follow the law because you 1) don't like the law and 2) that technology allows you to violate the law easily. Moreover, the RIAA is continuing to alienate its customer base by using heavy-handed tactics on fairly low-level criminals. In addition, by continuing to violate the law and thumbing their noses at the industry, the file sharers themselves are forcing the lawmakers into strengthening IP laws.
I do not blame this guy for fighting the lawsuit. It takes a lot more guts to stare down the RIAA than to give in and pay them their due. But by forcing the RIAA to be more thorough in the future means that future lawsuits won't get away so easily.
And since this is just a motion for dismissal and not an actual dismissal (who knows what judges will do?), the judge may decide that the RIAA has enough evidence to prove that this guy was a file sharer and toss out the dismissal.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
As a former federal practice attorney this motion is going nowhere.
Federal rules allow a plaintiff in a lawsuit to just give enough notice to the defendant so they have a clue; a small clue. Further procedures such as discovery, document requests and depositions are meant to bring out the specifics of how and why. Federal Judges allow alot of leeway in these because that's what the case law lets them do. And, even if the defendants were to show that the plaintiff didn't provide them with enough notice 99 times out of 100 the Judge just rules that the plaintiff has to file a restated complaint with more information. (I have rarely heard of any case which was thrown out because of failure to plead.) Further, the cases these attorneys rely upon are mainly just district court opinions which are presuasive but not necessarily binding. The two appeals court cases they do rely on don't really help--one is out of the appellate circuit which does not make it binding and the other in circuit is just a general clarfication. This is nothing but a drive by the defendants attorneys to rack up billing hours or gain media attention.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Technically, to be a martyr, he'd have to lose. Otherwise he's a hero, which is just about as good. :)
At last, finally, it comes down to "show me when and where and how they broke the law" instead of OMG, they have P2P software, they must have broken the law. Maybe the wildfires in CA are because of their exploitation of the world in general? Well, maybe not, but its about time someone made them prove illegal file sharing actually took place.
My opinion? The Internet is so big, so anonymous, so unstoppable... to try to stop it is just ignorant. Litigation in these cases is so much like trying to stop the tide from coming in with buckets. Get over it, your business model is gone... nobody likes you... start selling your product with at least 20th century means. Joining the 21st century would be better.
When will the world learn that TCP/IP and the Internet are far more than they know how to deal with?
It gives me more glee to see the *AA in a bit of trouble than it does to see MS losing ground in their marketplace...... I don't even care how much trouble, the fact that they have to prove something is just a very good thing. and it is about time.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The RIAA accused them, so they MUST be guilty!
The RIAA has whole teams gathering evidence. They wouldn't accuse an innocent person.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
In long past, yes I believe so.
I don't think death would require status as a martyr in todays age.
If they are fined and so heavily burdened to the point of "cruel and unussual"
punishment for something petty dumb and stupid according to a absurd ruling
it could work. But only if the public at large left and right are condeming
the bought finding and those behind it and calling for people to "swing."
Could it be? The RIAA has gotten away with these silly, "you've been downloading, so it must be illegal" accusations quite a bit over the last year. Maybe it is finally time for the users to finally stand up and say "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
A Linux flavor for every Month!
There are so many issues like this -- there was that questionable BigHack paper about the illegitimacy of digital copyright in the first place, and so many questions of intent that really haven't been addressed. I'm glad to see that . . . you know, I don't care right now.
I know it's a big deal, freedom of speech and information in the digital age, but sometimes I just get tired of it all. I'll care again tomorrow, probably. But right now . . .
http://www.xkcd.com/drawings/copyright.jpg
Anyone wanna go out for a drink?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
I've heard that they give defendants a list of files...but how do they know the contents of these files? If I upload something called yesterday.mp3 how do they know it isn't a recording of me singing the song?
So basically it appears to me that this means that putting a file in a directory, available to whoever is looking to download the file, is not essentially breaking the law if it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the file was downloaded or disseminated in any way. Furthermore even if it was, then it is not the uploader's fault. By simply placing the file in an available directory it does not constitute illegal copying (assuming that the uploader has a right to the file in the first place)
They'll have a hard time trying to prove intent as well. Simply by placing a file in a directory does not assume intent or conspiracy to commit infringement any more than leaving a Harry Potter book you own lying around so someone can steal it and scan the pages.
It seems that the burden of piracy is then on the downloader... but even then the downloader has no real way of knowing what they are downloading - and if it is a legit file or not.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Actually, a hero would be better.
The RIAA won't care if someone wins a dismissal. The defendant had to pay for a lawyer and spend time fighting the case. As long as they sell the tech community on the idea that infringement will cost you something if you refuse to settle they still win, at least idealogically.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
While that may be the most probable path to martyrdom, there are alternatives:
For instance, the defendent in this case could forgo a traditional, or "rational", defense, and instead commit ritual seppukku on the steps of the courthouse. The effects could be wide ranging:
- The judge decides the case in favor of the defendent (he was so moved by the ritual sacrifice)
- The RIAA renounces its single-minded persuit of wealth (because the defendent reminded them how fragile life is) and the record companies go back to advancing music as an art form.
- Ritual suicide becomes an acceptable means of getting almost anything you want (post-humonously, obviously)
- We get to download tons of w4r3z!!!
Let's try not to be narrowminded about this.
dude, ghandi was teaching civil disobedience waay before rosa parks had her ego trip. some people take "black history" way to literally.
bite my glorious golden ass.
The very clearly reasoned and yet utterly unreasonable legal position that you describe illustrates admirably why the law is held in such low regard these days and lawyers are viewed as bloodsucking scum.
Strategies, counter-strategies, technicalities, 10 million stages to the legal "game", and every move achieving almost nothing except a transfer of money into the wallets of lawyers. Absolutely wonderful.
Meanwhile, sight is lost of whether the alleged wrongdoings actually constitute a loss for the plaintiff, rather than free advertising no different to that in radio broadcasting. All that matters for you and your colleagues is that the divine handle of law continue to be cranked, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
WebHostingGuy, your ex-profession is morally bankrupt.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The RIAA want to sue everyone so they'll stop downloading music and actually pay for it. Sounds great, but what about their customers? Broke-ass college students may download the music for free now but would become addicted to always having new music and when they graduated and had massive mounds of disposable income would begin buying CD's in earnest. Why would a college graduate want to buy a CD from a company that sued their best friend back in college? Sounds good in theory, but doesnt work - like communism. In summary - suing your customers is advertising for communists.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Entrapment works the other way. If a secret RIAA member came up to you and said "Give me this file, please" and you gave it to them, that would be an example of entrapment, though as you noted, this is irrelevant in civil cases.
In this case, we have the opposite. The uploader is saying "Hey, you wanna have a file?" and the RIAA member is simply saying "OK". This is not entrapment.
It works the same way for drugs. The cops cannot initiate a drug sale and then bust you for possession. They can, however, participate in a sale that you initiate, and then bust you.
It's about getting the word out to (a) other lawyers and (b) other filesharing lawsuit victims, that there are things they can do.
The RIAA is organized. All of its cases nationwide are handled by a single firm located in Kansas City, Missouri.
The people it is suing, and their lawyers, are scattered all over, and until my blog haven't had a way of getting centralized information to each other, or even of knowing of each other's existence.
If you think lawyers can get rich representing kids with file sharing accounts, or their moms, you are sadly mistaken.
I agree with you that getting victories (or sustaining defeats) will be the most important news, but until now there have been almost no contested cases, so there have been almost no victories or defeats, only giving up.
In that kind of world, the fact that people are fighting back -- and what they are fighting with -- does happen to be news.
Your statement that the motion "is not going to withstand the scrutiny of the courts" is curious, to say the least. I wonder what knowledge of copyright law you have, superior to that of the courts which we cited, that you are basing that on. In the Santangelo case the RIAA's 500+ lawyer firm could not find any authority that contradicted the arguments we have made. Interesting that you can.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
actually obey the speed limit on the interstate? I would estimate about 40% where I live. If you're willing to pay the consequences, you can violate any law you want.
I see his point though. Is music/software/video piracy a social good when practiced on the scale enabled by the internet? I've seen the arguments on both sides for years, so I'm old enough to be cynical about both sides.
Most pirates download because they're cheap and want instant gratification, instead of waiting until they've paid down the credit card a bit. Others are simply avoiding being completely exploited by the media conglomerates. They use a work for a few weeks and then toss it. From the RIAA's point of view, they should pay full price for each product, but as a practical matter, it doesn't make sense. They need to rent at a fraction of the current pricing scheme. If they were forced to pay, they probably would only buy one or two a month anyway. Then there are the hoarders, who just want to brag on having the latest/most/best collection of stuff. Basically piracy is just a defense mechanism media consumers have come up with to satisfy the addiction to novelty created by media advertising.
The **AA's aren't exactly in business to help the artist either. Anyone who believes that they file these suits to get the money that the artists are owed must be living in a bubble. Standard industry practice is to shave off as much as possible off of royalties as "expenses" and then only pay more if the artist gets a lawyer and an accountant. The only worse center of greed, scams and corruption than the media industry is the federal government.
We are the 198 proof..
What exactly does the copyright cover on a musical work ? The notes, the chords ? The lyrics ? a likeness to a song ?
Is the copyright for the entire piece ?
If I downsample something to a 4 bit audio sample, is it a violation of copyright ?
If I get some shitty song stuck in my head and keep singing it, is it copy right infringement ? What if I tape myself ? And Distribute the tapes ? For a fee ?
If I translate a copywritten text to heiroglyphs, poorly, is it still compyright infringment, or just a story with the same plot and same basic them ?
When does something stop being copyright infringment and become something else ?
(checks KJV Matthew 19, v16-23)
No, that just makes you an apostle.
Maybe I'm a little thick, but I don't get this whole digital signature thing. It's a file hash, right? If you created a file in notepad with the text "hello" in it, it would have the same hash as if I created a file in notepad with the text "hello" in it. Likewise, if you ripped a song to a .mp3 using the default settings in CDex (or some other software) and I ripped the same song from the same CD using the same software and the same default settings (not an unreasonable assumption), it would again have the same hash. The hash proves nothing other than that fact that the files are quite likely identical. It does not prove their origin.
Now lets say the MPAA plants a file on the web with some hidden watermark and you download it from a p2p network. They would then have strong proof that you downloaded a copyrighted file. But by placing it on the web they implicitly gave you permission to download that file (and perhaps possibly to distribute it). They can't prove you uploaded the file to anyone any more than they can prove they only uploaded it to one person. They could, of course, download the watermarked file from you again. But what would that prove?
the record companies go back to advancing music as an art form.
When did they ever do that?
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
In which case no law has been broken. That copy was perfectly legal, since it was the RIAA doing it!
Now that they have a file from you, they analyze it. There is digital information in the file that proves that it has been transfered over the internet and how many times.
No there isn't.
So....... you got it from the internet and you made it available through the internet to anyone who wanted it, and THEY CAN PROVE IT.
No, I got it from somewhere, who knows where, and I made it available to only the RIAA themselves as far as they can prove. And making music available to the RIAA, I strongly suspect, is not illegal in any way - how am I infringing copyright if I allow the copyright owner himself to copy my music collection?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.