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."
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.
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.
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.
lets bring in the cd sniffing dogs and search his house for incriminating evidence!
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Agreed. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa/ - "The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is the trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US." So, from that I would say that since the RIAA is not an individual company it cannot be a monopoly. Do they qualify as a cartel? Possibly.
... 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 !
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the issue. It's common sense. Yes, the RIAA uses that to its advantage. No, there's not much we can do about it short of lobbying our congresscritters, which I have done on numerous occaisions. Mine don't want to hear it. They get campaign money from the recording industry. So, I don't vote for them. I tell others why I don't vote for them. I can't really afford to do much else. Out of curiosity, what are you doing? Or did you just come here to berate people?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
Cruelty maybe, but not stupidity. They start every single case knowing that they're relying on nothing but scare tactics (which is basically racketeering, illegal under the RICO act... google it, it's 2:30am), and hope that the thought of a several hundred thousand dollar settlement if they win an in-court case will convince them to settle for a few grand out of court. This is one of a few cases where the defendant knew they had no case (or assumed as much), said "OK, to court we go", and then they had to admit they had no case and drop the thing. If they didn't own half the government, I'm almost positive they'd be fined for wasting the court's time.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I agree that they're not a monopoly, but I suspect that they might be a "trust" (which AFAIK is the same set of laws in the US under which monopolies are dealt with), defined as "a consortium of companies formed to limit competition". They all agree not to under-cut each other on prices, and to work together to protect their cash cow.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
Yes, more specifically they're probably a cartel "A cartel is a group of formally independent producers whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition."
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...
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.
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?
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
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.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net.
Whose ass did you pull that number out of?
I rip my CDs with EAC and compress with LAME or aoTuV vorbis because that's the only way I know I'm getting good quality. So much stuff on the net is ripped in igorance. I use EncSpot to check over anything I do download and most of the time it reports sync errors and crapass encoders like Xing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I rest your case.
Actually, calling a copyright infringer a pirate just makes the act sound cooler than it actually is. Plenty of cracker groups in the 80s and 90s latched onto it for that very reason.
Of course, these days it has lost most of it's potency- positive or negative. Calling a copyright infringer a pirate is given no more thought than calling a custodian a janitor.
The use of the term as a negative propaganda tactic has failed miserably.
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?
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.
most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
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.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
Can you back that up? I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your ass. Like you, I can only speak of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to meet someone who downloads music he already owns the cd for.
Of course it might be that I'm simply hanging around with the wrong crowd but I suspect that's not the case.
No sig
They probably have the lawyers on retainer, so they pay the lawyers regardless of if they're sitting around twiddling their thumbs or scaring private citizens into coughing up money. They most likely cut back on the lawsuits whenever they need the lawyers for more legitimate purposes.
Think about what we are saying here folks. Piracy is wrong. It is at the VERY LEAST immoral.
Is it more immoral than the vast theft that was perpetuated on the public with each extension of the term of copyright? All those works were created, published and sold under the terms of copyright at that time. Yet, the MAFIAA was able to unilaterally change those terms by bribing enough people in congress.
If stealing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars worth of content from the public is not only OK, it is sanctioned by the people who should be looking out for the public's interest in the first place, then on what grounds is it immoral when members of the public do the very same thing back to the MAFIAA, except on a much, much smaller scale?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Nope, they are paying them by the hour.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Perhaps because it's such a recurring thing, that it isn't news anymore.
You misspelled money.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
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 ----
The RIAA once sued a woman who doesn't even own a computer. They have questionable evidence of some scren shot and an IP address. They then get names from the ISP of who should be using that IP. They do not sue people who download (yet). They sue people who upload. I have also heard they use the ISP to get information off the harddrive of the user, but I have never checked into this and it sounds odd.
If there is a case where someone had and account undersomeone else's name, or someone's computer was being used without their consent, or someone had an open wireless connection and they can show there were several strange internal IP address, there are still many reasons why they may settle instead of fighting RIAA or sueing RIAA. Maybe RIAA has more money, power and desire to be in court? Maybe the defendants don't want to pay lawyers, take off work and have their lives continually disrupted just to deal with nasty tactics from an army of well paid lawyers who have nothing else to do but work on the RIAAs case.
The RIAA is rich and powerful, what every they say about the ripple effect. The RIAAs lobbyist have already bought the politicians and changed US laws for the worse. They are also using our tax dollars as well as their own money to try to pressure other countries into changing their local laws. Have you noticed what's going on with allofmp3?
What makes you think you can stand up to the RIAA in court in the real world? They have more money, more influence and more experience. They also don't give a rat's fanny about justice. If they aren't paying the judges that accept screenshots as evidence, they should be (I'd rather have corrupt judges than stupid one). You can tell me how it works on paper. I'll believe it when I see it.
All you "They must have done something wrong" people don't get it. In theory, the RIAA is supposed to prove they did something wrong. Instead, they do little better than pull names out of a hat, and proceed on the theory that everyone is guilty of something. Thanks for backing them up on that.
{stands up} No, I am Paule Wilke
{sits back down}
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
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!
And later:
He was never "served" this charge in the first place, nor have any of these high-profile cases against what appear to be largely innocent, unassuming individuals. He was only contacted by the settlement facility long after the RIAA decided he had already "been served".
This is without question the most crooked legal tactics I have ever seen in my life. In my opinion, the time for a class-action suit against the RIAA and each of the major distributors it represents is long overdue. I would love to see someone with deep pockets take that one on.
Having said that: of course piracy is rampant. But holy crap people. Legal precedent! Due Process! Yadda yadda yadda!
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
The withdrawal was clearly consensual and mutual. Yes undoubtedly Mr. Wilke could have insisted that the case continue. Usually, though, when the plaintiffs want to drop the case, the judge will let them. However, they might still be liable for attorneys fees. See Capitol v. Foster.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?"
I would say that the amount of content available right now has almost nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. It does have a lot to do with population, literacy, pop culture, and perception of the trade (there is this idea that writing for a living is this wonderful, glamourous life with lots of sex and money, but that is almost never the case in reality - the joke in the trade is that if we had exciting lives, we wouldn't be spending all our time writing). But people start creating out of love for the craft. When they get good enough that they can spend months on a single project and have it be worth something, they need to support themselves, and copyright law is there to prevent them from getting screwed over.
For example, one of my acquaintances is an amateur writer who has actually stopped posting her work. From what I hear, she's only a couple of steps away from her writing being professional quality. But, every time she posted a story, a bunch of websites copied it, took her name off it, and slapped on their own. That's what copyright is supposed to protect artists from. I really wish she had the time and money to sue those people - the credit for her own work should never have been taken away from her. And now she's been so badly burned that it's quite possible that none of her new writing will ever see the light of day - content none of us will ever read.
This is an abuse that shows up a lot. There was even a Slashdot news story about how a lot of bloggers were plagerizing, rather than doing their own work. Copyright is the law that allows the original author to fight against that.
The idea that society can't afford all of this content is laughable. Society doesn't just buy content wholesale - creative artists put it on the market, and people buy or rent what they like. And there are lots of inexpensive means of distribution. Songs can be listened to for free on the radio. Books can be borrowed from a library for only the cost of a library card. Movies can be rented for a minor fee from a video rental outlet. And that's not counting all the content that shows up on television, paid for either by advertisements that don't cost the consumer a cent, or a small fee in the case of cable television. And then there's places like Amazon, which offer discounts on pretty much any orders. We may be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of content, but unable to afford it? Not at all.
To think that copyright prevents the free flow of ideas is nonsense. Copyright law does not allow one to copyright an idea - only a specific implementation of one. There is nothing stopping somebody taking the same idea and going their own direction with it, nor should there be. Patent law, which is a much different matter, allows one to monopolize an idea. And copyright law is not about taking away the expression of thoughts and ideas - merely ensuring that the creator of the expression of thoughts and ideas is able to decide what happens with their own work. Having to pay X amount of dollars for a book doesn't stop that book from being on the bookshelf in the first place. It's still available. It's just your choice whether or not to pay to read it.
To deal with your final paragraph:
"Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?"
Yes, it is okay to demand pa
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Unless you were being ironic, in which case, it's all in good fun.
More than mere navel gazing.