Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Drops Case In Chicago

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the keystone-lawyers dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA has dropped the Elektra v. Wilke case in Chicago. This is the case in which Mr. Wilke had moved for summary judgment, stating that: '1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under. 2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded]. He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CDs owned by Mr. Wilke. 3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.' The RIAA's initial response to the summary judgment motion, prior to dropping the case, had been to cross-move for discovery, indicating that it did not have enough evidence with which to defeat Mr. Wilke's summary judgment motion. P2pnet had termed the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder."

10 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Counter? by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So is he going to counter-sue for the time and money spent defending himself against the allegations of the RIAA?

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:Counter? by Swampwulf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah. The RIAA'll just refile with his first name spelled right and nail him in the second round.

      --
      -On the internet, no one cares if you're a dog.-
    2. Re:Counter? by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Loser-pays, man. Loser-pays.

      But he didn't lose, the case was dropped, "amicably". Nobody won, nobody lost. But the guy is still out his time and legal expenses. What if they'd searched his house, confiscated his equipment, sent him to the point of bankruptcy with legal fees and then went, "Ah, hah-hah, we ,er, don't have a case. Yeah, er, sorry about that. Let's call it even, eh?"

      Or worse, at that point, they say, "Well, the evidence is shaky. But we've got the time and money to draaaag this out.We're very persistent, you know. We believe you're guilty of *something*. Care for an out-of-court , undisclosed, settlement?"

      How many cases does the RIAA have to screw up like this before the law realises that they're out firing random lawsuits at people on the internet?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  2. Re:Why?? by saxoholic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I disagree. All of the people that I know who download music (which is a lot on my college campus) do not own ANY of the music they're downloading. however, I think we all can agree that the RIAA and MPAA are out of line in what they're doing. I don't think that a lawsuit against them would be very succesful, but I could be wrong... I was wrong once.

  3. Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He didn't beat them in court, there was no judgement. They just backed out of the lawsuit.

    And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?

    RIAA vs. Osama Bin Laden Aliscool, tonight, on THE PEOPLE'S COURT.

  4. Re:Leave it to the RIAA by Crimson+Wing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no end to the stupidity of the Human race--expecially in large groups.

    --
    Sig? What's that? Oh, 'signature'...and it's supposed to be witty? Right...
  5. here's one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try a price fixing cartel. Technology indicates that pre recorded music should be much cheaper than what it is, yet you look on the shelves-and it isn't? Coincidence, or large scale and entrenched (and ignored) price fixing? Or if you are an "artist", how about for fraud. Their contracts would make a mafia loan shark blush. Or how about collusion for bribery in congress? How about no matter how many of them get caught doing some form of payola, none of them are ever forced to stop being in the recording and distribution business *at all*? Why is they are allowed to continue, decade after decade, getting away with the same crimes and just passing along their joke fines they get wussy slapped with to the consumer?

    There are several potential avenues to explore.

  6. Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly by tchristney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Piracy is wrong. However, using the term pirate to refer to a copyright infringer really makes the act sound much worse than it actually is. It's propaganda, plain and simple. Try and keep a little perspective on the rhetoric, OK?

  7. Re:Change in attitude? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You still don't get it, do you? They'll find you. That's what they does. That's all they do! You can't stop them. They'll wade through your lawyers, reach down your throat, and pull your fucking heart out.

    Listen. And understand. The RIAA is out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

  8. Re:Leave it to the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    [...]will convince them to settle for a few grand out of court.

    It makes me wonder how much money they're losing if they're paying their attorneys and only getting a few grand here and there.

    RIAA is funded by the same record companies that claim to be losing millions due to piracy, while throwing money to support the whole RIAA infrastructure and to be spent on stupid (or cruel) lawsuits like this one.