Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops Case In Chicago
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."
I am dumbfounded at their stupidity... wow.
The RIAA has slowed down on the old lady and jobless wonder hunts? I don't hear much in the news about them lately =o
FIRST POST BUAHAHAHAHHAHA
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.
Why have us millions of USA-bound users not sued the **AA over a monopoly control? Sure, we can sue under RICO and such especially in this case, but we need to be suing the **AA for A COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUTDOWN, and not one single /. user, including myself, has the balls to just plain out sue the **AA in a full-blown class action lawsuit, when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net. Here's my suggestion, if we don't have the balls to do it, don't mention it, because it's waste amongst all of us.
Bring on the downmomds, and those will be the ones that are the most ballless of us all. I forsee it, and I predict it. That's right, you've been planned for in advance, so mod me down as only your ignorant minds can. You are planned and accounted for, cowards, since you can mod yet you don't have the balls to do anything.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
When's the last time the RIAA sued a new batch of people? It seems like with all these setbacks that they might be slowing down the lawsuits.
Is this the guy who was so rich we were all saying "So, the minute anyone with money puts up a fight, the RIAA runs away?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Someone who probably did steal music via downloading from a peer to peer application has beaten the RIAA in court.
Now what, we're supposed to celebrate.
Think about what we are saying here folks. Piracy is wrong. It is at the VERY LEAST immoral.
The RIAA is flailing about and sueing people who have by and large actually commited piracy.
Maybe this was an isolated incident of an innocent person being sued and getting their day in court and winning. More than likely though its someone that was stealing and has now gotten away with it.
lets bring in the cd sniffing dogs and search his house for incriminating evidence!
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me.
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site. Standards people, standards!
You take it, I don't want it...
... all these songs from exhibit B, which resided on my HDD, were duped from perfectly legal sources (namely CD's) that I rushed out and bought right after RIAA has launched its accusations. I find them pretty good... My pirating days are over ! Set me free !
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.
Call me crazy, but something doesn't make sense. For the RIAA to have a screen shot of any relevance, it has to be of a file listing on a p2p network of someone with an IP traced back to Mr. Wilke. A screen shot of his actual computer would not only be impossible to obtain, but would also not show any infringement, and there aren't many other types of screen shots that would make any sense in this context. If it is also true that "3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings," then the only scenario that makes sense is the following:
The RIAA took a screen shot of something on a P2P network with either IP addresses or user names which were then incorrectly traced back to Mr. Wilke, who had never logged onto the network but coincidently had the songs in the screen shot.
This sounds a bit unlikely to me. The statement sounds a lot like, "I never touched the girl, and in any case she kissed me first." Perhaps even more accurately, "Yeah, sure I did it, but we both know you can't prove it." I don't approve of the RIAA lawsuits, but I don't really like to see dishonesty coming from either side. I wish that the side getting sued would counter sue (to keep the RIAA from just backing away from people who try to fight them), be honest about what they did, and then win in such a way as precedent keeps the RIAA from ever successfully wining such a suit again. Getting the suit dropped because they accidentally put down the wrong first name seems like a hollow victory at best.
You present essentially every defense you can think of. You are presenting multiple levels and angles of an argument. It's like if you asked if I robbed a store and I say "No I was at work that night, and even if I was near the store I'm not nearly stupid enough to do something like that." The second part of the statement isn't saying the first is false, it's just saying that even if you don't believe me that I was at work, you still should believe I didn't do it.
In the event of a lawsuit like this, that's how you'd go about it. Off the top of my head I'd challenge if the listing was undoctored (since screenshots are easy to fake), if it was of the right client (many P2P networks will misreport what you have on accident sometimes), if they verified the contents of the files, if they verified that they were coming from the stated IP address, if the IP to account mapping was accurate and unaltered, and if there was a way to prove that nobody else was using my network. It's just pointing out all the levels of problems. So even if the judge/jury buys everything else is legit, they believe it is likely someone else was using my network.
You'll find in some civil cases there can be hundreds of responses as to why the plaintiffs are full of shit. It's just how the game is played. You throw out any and everything that is wrong with their case, and see what you can get to stick and shoot it down.
I'm not sure about the RIAA's evidence, but suffice it to say, from what I've heard them use in the past, I wouldn't count it as evidence of anything. Anyone can fake a screenshot (or just make some stupid program) to show any IP they want sharing copyrighted files.
As for the lists of songs, the key word here is "some". If he really had been the infringer they allegedly identified, shouldn't he have had ALL the songs he supposedly shared on there, not merely a few of them?
As for probability, please remember the Birthday Paradox. If you have 30 people in a room, the chance that two of them share a birthday is NOT 30/365, which would be under 10%, but rather considerably higher. Google if you want the exact answer, there are lots of good explanations of it online.
congresscritters
I wish the 4 or 5 people that still use that Limbaugh-favoured term would stop doing so.
To me, a 'critter' is a fuzzy little (possibly annoying) animal or pest. Are vultures, sharks, sloths and blood-sucking leeches also called 'critters' in your vernacular?
Quickly, everybody, comment on parent! This is the rare chance to get to use "loose" correctly!
(Since we cannot lose the incurable misspellers, maybe we can at least loose them here...)
Funny! But that last line should read "And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until music is dead."
...had he listened to this first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
He keeps on getting sued for the same thing again and again, it's clearly harassment.
But seriously, these fucktards in lawyers clothing *ARE* harrassing innocent people, because regardless of the fact that they undoubtedly catch copyright infringers in their nets, the innocent are dragged right along with them. That ought to be unacceptable in any sane society. The life (or livelihood) of even one innocent person ruined even among 100 valid or semi-valid catches is not acceptable.
And the extortion tactic that they use is totally beyond the pail and should be disowned and despised by all honest lawyers. I don't see how lack of funds to defend yourself and consequent caving in to the extortion settlement despite complete innocence can possibly be supported. The fact that it is allowed and supported by the legal profession just shows how generally corrupt it is.
There is no doubt how this will evolve.
You cannot legislate how the IntraTubes get used... not really.
And the IT's are a better mousetrap for distribution.
In the future artists will charge much more for the creative process... cause that's all they will get.
Art is open source by nature... & since distributing this art is no longer difficult or expensive... well...
In space... no one can hear you scream.
Relax... You're soaking in it." -Madge
esp. if your CDs are in the car, or elsewhere. but I don't think the number's anywhere near 60%.
The more interesting number is: how many people would buy the song they're downloading if they had to. Even from iTunes? for $2?
I think 2%
The other more interesting number is: how many sales are *generated by the other 98%, when they user plays it for her friend, or ends up buying it, or whatever. Does it balance out that 2%?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
...had he listened to this first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
Weird Al Rocks!
Latewire
Last I checked, it's the riaa's job to find the evidence. It seems like in this case they are saying they don't have enough evidence to prove guilt, but because they "strongly suspect" the other party is guilty, that the courts should go on a legal fishing expedition to try to find evidence against him.
That's why we don't just issue search warrants because someone suspects you are guilty. You have to have credible evidence to go looking (legally) for additional corroborating evidence. You use evidence to go digging for more evidence. Not suspicion.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Please Mod Up!
Rhetorical and snarky question perhaps, but I'd actually love to hear some analysis of it from a lawyer's perspective.
Pi Ran Out
And you will still get ground into the ground until you submit.
He was wealthy and able to fight, it was worth it to them just to drop it. The PR of actually losing the case would be much worse.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
{stands up} No, I am Paule Wilke
{sits back down}
That's a good point. Unfortunately, memorability and low syllable counts are mortal enemies of accuracy.
Here's an unofficial contest entry form. Try your hand at injecting colorful, catchy words into the popular culture to differentiate the following cases from "pirates":
Someone who downloads copyrighted files: improve on "downloader" or "p2p user"
Someone who shares copyrighted files: improve on "filesharer" or "uploader"
Someone who violates the DMCA for legitimate, otherwise legal purposes,
e.g. to play a DVD on Windows Media Center* or Linux, or to move PlaysForSure
or FairPlay protected items onto incompatible devices: improve on __________?
(And I suppose I should add the obligatory "....Profit!")
--
* Windows Media Center does not support commercial DVD playback, even with a licensed CSS decoder installed, except in the rare case when (a) there is no TV Out device enabled on the system and (b) the monitor resolution is at 640 x 480 or less.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894323/en-us
Pi Ran Out
It's an important point, and kind of answers a lot of the questions posed in the rest of the thread: the RIAA can't sue again with the same allegations.
It would be interesting to find out if RIAA and/or MPAA had hired Abramov in their lobbying efforts.
(A cursory search didn't find any connections.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The few thousand dollars here and there is hardly a drop in the bucket. It's more of an anti-piracy marketting tool.
The purpose of the suit is not to make or recover money from the lawsuit. The idea is to create fear. This is the same thing that the MPAA and Mattel does.
Many people see "grandmother sued for $1,000,000 for downloading music on the internet" and will be afraid to download music unless the RIAA gives its blessing. The same thing with thing with the MPAA and movies. Though they pay lots of money to their attorneys, their point is made.
The RIAA filed a dismissal on the eve of a bad ruling against them. I had Mattel do the same with a libel claim, when the judge asked what was libelous, Mattel dropped it. They do this to prevent a bad ruling against them, because they will be stuck with that bad ruling.
Fight Spammers!
lol. fixed it for you :)
I wonder, is it possible to request from the judge etc that the case continue, so that you can in fact prove yourself innocent and/or set a precedent (as well as the moral victory). Countersuing's an option too, but I think there's a special procedure for that insome cases, and you could probably also sue for defamation etc.
He should counter sue the RIAA claiming emotional distress as well as financial damages due to legal costs. THe fact that the RIAA decided to drop the case indicated that they really did not have any "TRUE" evidence of guilt.
He, on the other hand, has proof of defenses costs (his legal bills) and can certainly make claims that his reputation is now damaged. Just looking at what people are saying on this website indicates that there are certainly difference of opinions as to his innocence or guilt.
He'd probably make a fortune as the claims he can make include:
harrassment
defamation of character
emotional distress
financial burden
If they claim they did nothing wrong, he can simply state that they "failed" to provide adequate proof before subjecting him to a lawsuit. (Hence the reason they dropped the lawsuit was to try to save face of their own reputation without adquately compensating damages made to him for their mistakes.)
1.) Receive Law suite from RIAA
2.) Counter sue for damages
3.) Profit!
One can only bring civil suit against another in good faith, that is, you have reason based on presentable facts, not suspicion, that your case has a chance of succeeding. The "presentable facts" must be evidence that can be used in trial. The facts do not have be complete, but they must reliably show a "tip of the iceberg" that you have been wronged.
A screen print of files from someone's computer, even if the files are copies of songs you own the copyrights to, is NOT a presentable fact of wrongdoing *by anyone*. For example, as Wilke claims, the copies may be legally his thru purchase unknown to the RIAA. Unless the RIAA can show a judge that it has FACTual knowledge that those copies are almost certainly infringing, there is no presumption of guilt, and no case. An example of this would be if the copies were of songs that RIAA held rights to that had NEVER been released at all. Then finding the songs outside of the RIAA's vaults (or whereever they were kept) would be almost certainly infringing, and a lawsuit (and discovery) would be reasonable.
Discovery is NOT for a fishing trip to find if the copies are legal. If the RIAA had reliable proof (or "near proof") the copies were infringing, then discovery would be to find out how they got there, who specifically may have been involved other than just the accused, how widespread the infringement went in order to establish damages, etc.
GP is correct - "strongly suspecting" someone of guilt is not only NOT a basis for discovery, it's not a basis for a lawsuit in good faith.
IANAL, as usual.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
If the only data the RIAA had was a name, and they looked him up in the phone book to figure out who to sue, then they may actually have the wrong guy.
Additionally, it depends on how the RIAA got the name in the first place. Did someone at an ISP look up at a log listing, type in the name from one record while meaning to get it from the line above or below? Etc, ETc. An incorrect name can be an indicator of a missed target; and given the RIAA's usual amount of air-tightness in their "evidence", it's not that far fetched.
If the cops nabbed a guy for mugging an old lady, they'd probably have a lot more to go on than just a name to tag the accused to the crime. In that case, a name mispelling WOULD be a "technicality" that shouldn't be the only reason to set him free.
The RIAA's interest in taking people to court has nothing to do with whether those they accuse are guilty - they're making their money cuz people roll over, guilty or not. So the RIAA has no reason to make sure they got the right guy - he'll probably roll over anyway, why bother?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Back in the 90s, when CDs existed but mp3s on the internet did not, plenty of young people that I knew had HUNDREDS of CDs. I do not know anyone doing this anymore.
Let me get this straight. Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA, but how the HELL can you NOT find someone who is guilty of file sharing and convict them? Jesus... its really not that hard.
The last time the RIAA dropped a case with prejudce it was determined that the defendant was the prevailing party, and under existing copyright law entitied to all reasonable expenses. Hope that happens here too. Lose a few more like this and the RIAA will be a lot more careful about who it sues with what evidence.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
AREN'T purchasing hundreds anymore. They aren't purchasing any. Five steps forward, three hundred back does not move you forward.
How many CDs have you NOT purchased because you heard the mp3 and decided it wasn't as good as you thought it was, or that a few listens was enough? Probably more than five. For many people, it is nearly 100% of their music. Most importantly, it is precisely those who WOULD buy hundreds that most likely to become pirates. Instead of buying many, they buy a few (but probably still more than a non-music fan).