Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
Hey, I got a link directly to what AOL's letter said, Thanks editors, its more convenient than ever!
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
...but what in god's name does the defendant having MS have to do with anything? Granies, children, the infirm...c'mon. Leave the heart-string pulling crap out next time.
of heartless bastards.
Probably with the judge ruling in favor of RIAA since they most likely have the government in their pocket anyways. =(
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it
Is there a reason they don't hold lawyers accountable for stuff like this under penalties similar to perjury? If not, why the hell not?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
uh-oh...all the personal information in the letter is "redacted", except for one line with (presumably) the defendant's name and address...looks like major privacy breach for Ms. Schwartz.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Nothing to see here... just another story about the RIAA shooting itself in the foot. I just hope that someday the general public gives a shit about who they get their entertainment from, and gets something done about this BS that the RIAA keeps pulling without any oversight from the government or condemnation from the public (except for those of us who are in the 'know').
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Ms. Schwartz needs a stern talking to.
IANAL but frankly I don't see the 'mischaracterizes' part of this whole story. From what I can tell, AOL matched one or more IPs directly to the defendant - name, street address, state and ZIP. If they didn't have an account with AOL how did they know that information?
Looks like the RIAA has probable cause to continue litigation because AOL did in fact correlate an IP that downloaded the music to the defendant. It doesn't prove anything but the RIAA still should have the right to continue with the lititgation, as much as it pains me to say it.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the problem here. Maybe I need someone to clear it up or just put on the 'Evil RIAA' blinders that I guess I'm supposed to wear when reading slashdot.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider.
To say that something "confirms" something is not the same as saying that it has a specific statement. If they have a witness who can testify as to how the internet works and that packets were received from that IP address at that time, then guess what?
You guessed it, the letter would then "confirm that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed."
Jeez, you'd think we were biased against the RIAA or something.
I don't know about you, but it really scares me to depend on the technical expertise of AOL (or any ISP, but especially AOL) to keep straight which customer had which IP at which time. You don't have any opportunity to review how carefully they record who was using which IP or how accurate their clock is set on their logging system.
Ohh great, now it only takes someone to log onto their AOL account to get sued for illegal downloads. Time to disconnect now boys! (Not that any of us use AOL)
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I believe it is relevant and I'll explain why. The RIAA's interest in this case is not the rewarding of compensation for any damages they have suffered - their interest is in representing to the public (not the courts) that 1) copyright infringement is the same as theft 2) if you steal from them they will come after you and 3) when they come after you you'll not like it at all. The RIAA hopes that after enough of these lawsuits no one will bother with downloading their material because of fear of personally devastating law suits. If this is the case (and I've got to say that I have made AT LEAST one error before in my life) then the RIAA is clearly involved in a public relations campaign - the outcome of individual cases themselves is of little concern. Considering all this, if you find yourself opposed to the RIAA tactics and current IP law in general it would behoove you to make the RIAA out to be a bunch of heartless villains who prey on the disabled. The more terrible they seem the more ground they loose in the PR realm and the more likely they are to protect their IP in a manner more condusive to everyone's long term benefit (e.g. a new business model not so hampered by DRM).
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
Actually, it's all about creating an environment of fear for the common consumer.
Like a dog that has been beat for no good reason, less tech savvy computer users will simply follow the entertainment conglomerates bizarre rules out of fear and never consider that the Doctrine of First Sale still applies to their entertainment media regardless if it's in a downloadable package or not.
I've been thinking I should start a simple parent's guide to the Doctrine of First Sale so smart parents aren't teaching their kids stupid RIAA tricks. Yes? No? Is there one already out there?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It's just so amusing to watch. The RIAA is fighting an uphill battle from hell. Randomly picking people out and suing them? Sheer sign of desperation and a scare tactic that really doesn't work. It's always 'Noble' to fight the losing battle while never losing hope, but it can become very stupid... Take the Titanic. The ship's band played until the liner was so far into the water that they could no longer play. That was noble. However, the RIAA is not really proving anything by what they've done. While I admire their persistence, I also can't help but laugh.
Quite a bit of assembly required, actually....
I think the mischaracterization comes from RIAA's claim that AOL's letter shows that the defendant not only had an account with AOL, but was downloading copyrighted information with it. The letter shows only the first part - the second part is a separate claim by the RIAA.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why should we permit this kind of practice. I can understand the greed of record companies, but lawyers are officers of the court and MUST be required to be truthful and respect the legal process, even at the expense of their clients. The tactics used by the RIAA lawyers are calculated to deprive a reasonable defense to victims of these actions. Lawyers who represent these kind of actions are not fit to practice.
Is anyone else fed up with this phrase? Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted. Everything on my website is copyrighted. The Xen kernel I just download is copyrighted. The ISOs of FC6 I just downloaded consist of thousands of copyrighted programs.
My webhost, for example, displays a warning every time I ssh in that says it's a violation of the terms of service to store "copyrighted materials" on the server. Like a smartass I emailed them a few times and asked if that meant I would have to release my songs in the public domain and why they violate that by storing/using copyrighted tools (the Linux system, Apache, etc), but didn't get any replies.
This almost pisses me off as much as calling copyright infringement "piracy".
</rant>
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
I'll agree with you the minute the RIAA and MPAA stop playing the starving artist card.
That ip log looks really wired, on some days she seems to be online all day long, and on other days it looks like she doesn't get any sleep. She also seems to do a lot of redialing, is aol service really that bad(esp. at 4 in the morning?) It also seems a little weird that some days have entries all day long while other only have one(and some days have no entries), I don't know to many people with such a weird usage pattern.
Great comment. I'm not sure if that was written by Jack Kerouac or a dexterous great ape.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I wonder how the RIAA is expecting to get paid from a MS patient no matter how autonomous and able-bodied she is. Family? Friends? Loans? Give me a break. And honestly, I think the RIAA is losing money from all of these lawsuits being as long as they are.
Also, AOL only gave a list of names associated with IP addresses, so how does that translate to "This user downloaded music with these IP addresses at these dates"? Some justice.
I think it's also relevant because MS would hamper her computer use. ... unless she's some sort of pr0n loving granny
The RIAA is claiming this lady is putting musicians out of work and wrecking the entire economy (which is irrelevant), so the lady brings up equally irrelevant stuff (I have MS).
I'm not sure why the RIAA gets a pass on their outrageous claims of looking out for musicians...that's a complete fabrication since the RIAA does not work for recording artists, they work for recording distribution companies. But a lady with MS is pounded on?
But I do expect that corporations and officers of the court to tell the truth in a statement to the judge. The lady didn't lie when she had MS, but the RIAA lied when it said it had a special letter from AOL. And your concern is for the fact that the lady brings up MS? Maybe you want to tear into Michael J Fox, too?
I mean, separate the BS from the facts. Here they are as I read them:
RIAA: Hey lady, you committed copyright infringment
Lady: No I didn't, I don't even hook up to the internet the way you claim. Your honor, please throw this out
RIAA: Your honor, we have the actual proof from AOL
Judge: In that case, no.
Lady: Let me see the letter.
RIAA: Uh... here?
Lady: It doesn't say anything about me. In fact, it keeps mentioning something about a Wookie on Endor. What does that mean?
Ignore the MS part. This is what we have. If the judge threw the lawyer in jail for a week and sanctioned him, along with a few RIAA execs every time they lied, I suspect this kind of behavior would stop in about 20 seconds.
They think she is actually capable of downloading music? -_-
It's too bad the lawyers for the defendant called the ISP "American Online" on page 2. I'm sure they're technical savvy guys, but really.... "American Online" ?
you may have been using it, but they don't knopw that. They ONLY know that there was a computer using that IP address downloading a movie. They don't know it's you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They are officers of the court, and responsible to be true to the letter of the law. They can't permit a client to lie, at least without plausible deniability. Of course the profession is not as effectively self-policing as doctors. That is why there are more lawyer jokes than doctor jokes. With respect to responsibility to truth, I would include tort lawyers who represent clients with a fake whiplash injury, or intellectual property lawyers who file trivial patents. The latter category is more damaging that the ambulance chaser because the issues are harder for juries to understand and the litigation is more expensive. Oh yeah, IANAL either.
"172.200.205.238" on "2005-11-25" at "04:03:44 EST" is:
happy to see that someone else actually appreciates the Joni Mitchell collection they've complied
"172.143.208.80" on "2005-11-26" at "01:48:14 EST" is:
wondering if MSgurl2459 is really as edgey as her taste in 3-6 Mafia seems to be. Wonders if MS stands for Microsoft (ooh a cute nerd chick!)
The more terrible they seem the more ground they loose in the PR realm and the more likely they are to protect their IP in a manner more condusive to everyone's long term benefit (e.g. a new business model not so hampered by DRM).
It's the other way around. The more terrible they seem the more ground they gain in the PR realm (actually, fear campaign) thereby making it less likely that they will ever protect their IP in anything resembling a reasonable manner. This isn't about justice, it's not about protecting any goddamn artists (who, frankly need protection from that hideous collection of oligopolistic blood-sucking corporations known as "the music studios" much more than they need to be saved from the horrors of copyright infringement via P2P.) To the contrary, it is all about scaring people into a pattern of behavior (i.e., fear-stricken regarding P2P) more conducive to the RIAA's ultimate goal of world domination, er, I mean, regaining total control of media distribution.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Look, I appreciate the diligence with which New York Country Lawyer is trying to keep his name on the top of Slashdot...er, keep Slashdot up to date on the minutiae of his cases. But can the editors please stop accepting these posts? Seriously, the legal jargon may sound exciting, but there is actually nothing worth reporting in the details of the timing of summary judgment motions. Seriously, do I write in to slashdot with the minute-by-minute details of my job?
As for New York Country Lawyer's claim that the linked AOL letter didn't say what the RIAA said it did (that his client--who tragically, but completely irrelevantly has MS--was downloading music), the AOL letter identifies the client by her IP address. Now, if the RIAA has information (albeit from another source) that shows that IP address was downloading music, than that shows, at the very least, that there is a question of fact as to whether the client was downloading music. And therefore, the requested summary judgment is in fact not appropriate.
Here's some helpful hints for the RIAA.
1. If consumers like you, they will buy more of your product.
2. If you stop suing consumers, they will hate you less.
3. If you create something new, consumers will be more inclined to buy your products.
4. If you create something that's not easy to steal, people won't steal it so much.
Here's something new that I (a consumer) would LOVE to buy. The tools for this idea are already widely available and used by almost everyone.
Take a Wii with that new style nunchuck controller (or whatever it's called. The thing you wave around in the air). Add a wireless dance pad. Create a dancing game that uses foot movements and hand gestures. You know, dancing. Then put an online store for ordering additional dance tracks, game accessories, etc. Make is so you can link several of these dance mats together at a party. Make international online tournaments with prizes, titles, and a televised championship. Put them in arcades. Put them in fitness centers.
Is that a perfect idea? Hell no. Is it something I would pay $600.00 for this Christmas? Hell yes.
I disagree. Currently the RIAA activities are pretty much underground. Flip on FOX, CNN, or any of the talking-head shows or even the nightly news. Not a lot is mentioned of things like this. But I think all it will take is a slow week in the news. Imagine a day when Congress is out of session (like next week sometime) and perhaps a day when nothing terrible has happened domestically. Then, imagine you are a producer for one of the above networks and you come across this sad story of the RIAA suing a woman with MS. It would be a perfect segment, interview her, try and get an interview with the RIAA (I bet they will "decline to comment on current litigation"), and even bring up the statements of the record exec. whose son downloaded copyrighted music, whereupon the record exec. had a "stern talking" to him. Then, perhaps 60 Minutes or Dateline (both terrible news outlets by the way) will pick up the story. Then, in a matter of a week, the RIAA's tactics of behavior modification (which you mention above) will backfire. The results of their litigation will go from striking fear into the hearts of possible consumers to inciting anger and indignation into the hearts of same possible consumers.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
"it's not about protecting any goddamn artists"
Which is exactly right. Why doesn't the press ever point out that the RIAA does not represent the artist? It represents the people who distribute music, i.e. the middleman.
BMI & ASCAP actually represents songwriters and composers (i.e. artists), and while I don't agree completely with their full agenda, so far they have managed to not sue music fans.
Perhaps the RIAA is suing fans because they've already sucked the artist dry? Who knows.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Here is what the RIAA lawyer wrote in his letter
Defendant's October 28, 2006 letter also provides no basis for a motion for summary judgment. Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent.
AOL confirmed that the Defendant was the owner of the account. The rest of the sentence describes the account and is not a statement that AOL confirmed what the account was being used for.
This should be fairly obvious to most people who can read English.
I think more important is the supposed presumption on the judge's part that it was a premature dismissal request simply because the RIAA representatives said they had a letter. Maybe the RIAA has that judge in their pocket, or vice versa?..Be aware...the RIAA probably will skate free and not have to answer for their willful perjury.
It is said that bad law is indicative of corruption which runs deep.
actually dipshit, a persons health is a very valid consideration in legal proceedings.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.
On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.
-GiH
Not a Lawyer (yet).
When will the RIAA finally be held accountable for all its abuses of the legal system?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
What did they state?
confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Break that statment into it's component parts: AOL has provided a letter stating that the defendant owned an interenet account || through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Unpacking that statment leads me to wonder if they had earlier proven to the satisfaction of the standard of proof required at that time that the person who was using the IP's listed in the AOL e-mail had downloaded such songs. If that's the case, then they are simply linking the evidence of ownership of the account to the evidence associated with the IP address.
Sure, it's a shaddy statement, but isn't necessarily false, let alone and intentional lie. The attorney for the defense had a duty to be familiar with the evidence, to argue against the statement that the letter proved anything. That is how the system works in an advesarial way.
That being said, I get the feeling from the current and prior coveraged that the RIAA is also cloaking its evidence and arguments in illegitimate ways, thus barring the defendant from presenting a solid defense. To what degree this is their fault.. that is not clear from the printed record. I will tell you that it's alot easier to be blocked from entering the legal community than it is to be kicked out.
-GiH
Not a lawyer (yet).
As soon as a lawyer accepts a fee or agrees to accept a payment from a client he/she ceases to be a officer of the court and becomes a mear peddler of their clients version of the truth.
The only way to have them return to being true 'officers of the court' is to have them paid directly by the state. Sort of like doctors in Canada.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I disagree. A quality lawyer serves his client, but within the bounds of decency and fairness. Good lawyers know where to draw the line.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. INTRODUCTION
Oddly, for a session on the future of music, at a music university, I'm not going to play any music, nor talk about performance - because I aim to focus on things around music, on the experiential context around music and how that's changing. I aim to highlight the huge opportunities being created around music at the moment, but also some of the implicit dangers of ill-conceived, careless or uninformed work in this field.
the mistake they made was that it actually wasn't a letter at all, it was actually a free 1000 hours CD that was sent to the wrong address. I can see how they got confused.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Exact wording from November 1st letter to the judge:
... sound recordings were downloaded" ... sound recordings were ... distributed"
...k tra_schwartz_061028anscounterclaim)
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact."
Lawyers love to use long sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The above actually contains several "facts" lumped together.
1) "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account "
2) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
3) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
Number 1) is substantiated by the AOL letter, assuming that one accepts that having an IP assigned for a set time period (i.e. a few hours) to an account holder is equivalent to owning the internet access account in question. I doubt that number 2 can be proved, unless the screenshot giving the IP address actually showed the files being downloaded. The defendent could just as easily have uploaded them to her computer from CDs. Number 3 is a pretty straight-forward claim; however, it is not substantiated by AOL's letter.
Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.
To top it off, the second sentence quoted above is a claim by the RIAA which basically says the defendant hasn't already said something contradicting the claim in the previous sentence (notice they say claim, not claims). This is bogus because they could claim that the lady committed murder and hasn't disputed it (which would technically be true until the defense hears the claim and can say how absurd it is!) Of course the lady's attorney disputed the misunderstood claim pretty much as soon as they got a hold of the AOL letter (that is what the article is about).
I suppose if the judge gets pissed, he can chew out the plaintiffs for sloppy writing and maybe even censure them for making misrepresentations, but not perjury.
Kinda funny though, how the article doesn't mention that the lady has a teenage daughter with friends who used the computer
(see counterclaim 27 at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=ele
science is a religion
It is scary how all these people on slashdot are twisting the truth just because they hate the RIAA.
The RIAA simply said AOL confirmed she does have an account and was using the IP account from which they traced stolen music.
She and her lawyer need to come up with more BS to explain her claims of being internet ignorant. I am guessing they will try the virus excuse; A virus set her up with AOL and stole the music.
Sorry guys, but the RIAA is not going after innocent people. They can get sued for that.
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL
:)
Sounds like the RIAA's lawyer didn't read the letter before spouting off... kinda like a slashdot editor.
In this specific case Ray, what's your opinion of the RIAA's lawyers and their ability to 'draw lines', based on the AOL letter clearly indicating IP addresses and account information but also clearly NOT stating any connection between said account and file sharing activites?
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
Agreed, but I take exception to your .sig... Shouldn't it be "iMac so I don't have to think"? (Not a bad thing, if you take the 'computers should be tools, not ends in themselves' school of thought, but I'll go for the troll factor instead ;)
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
While we all in fact know that the MS is a defence play for pity and is honestly underhanded as it really has no bearing on the case, what the RIAA did is perjury. They lied about the letter flat out. Not only should the case be tossed, but the lawyer that lied should be dis-barred &&|| the non-lawyer that lied should be fined & jailed for 20 days.
(Here goes my karma, but...)
C'mon. What we're dealing with here is (deliberately?) bad English, where a left-out comma changes the meaning of a sentence.
What was written was:
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that the Defendant was owner of the internet account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed without Plaintiffs' consent."
What probably should have been written was:
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that the Defendant was owner of the internet account, through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed without Plaintiffs' consent."
That comma changes the meaning radically -- in the latter sentence, AOL only confirms the account, and it's RIAA who claims what it was used for.
Yes, it's RIAA's fault, and yes, I think they're being bullies, but I also think that the defense lawyer in this case would recognise this and not misrepresent what's clearly a technicality.
Regards,
--
*Art
Please explain the juvenile fascination with the ability to make exact copies of your media. What's the point of bringing this up?
You can do lots of things with it that Apple/Microsoft/... don't want to acknowledge and are very motivated to eliminate.
1. First-sale Doctrine
The courts said, "We held that the exclusive statutory right to vend applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work..." Treats the music like software. You own it despite what the mega-corps would have you believe. http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
2. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 "fair use privilege"
In stark contrast, the court held that the Rio is entirely consistent with copyright law's fair use privilege that gives consumers the right to make copies of works for their personal use. Once a music file passes through a computer, it is not legally required to impose restrictions on consumer freedoms... http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This added to other horror stories about the RIAA lawsuits makes me wonder if they have ever told the truth in any of them? Do they have any concept of what truth is? Hopefully one of these days a judge will have enough balls to have them charged with perjury or at least hold them in contempt.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
> I don't think the fact that the accusee (has multiple sclerosis/is a single mom/is vegetarian/worships the FSM) is relevent to the discussion.
... I don't know. But I do know that my personal, biased opinion of them is that they're heartless bastards. Of course, that's pretty much what I thought of them before I'd ever heard of this case, so yeah...
In this case, having MS is relevant because the stress from the lawsuit can worsen her disease. You're right that it's not relevant to whether or not she infringed upon their copyright, but it is relevant to how heartless they are in prosecuting the cases of someone who can't afford to defend herself without these pro bono (free as in beer) lawyers who are volunteering their time.
What's worse is that there's some pretty damning evidence being shown that:
A) She's not a file sharer and never was.
B) The RIAA has pretty good reason to know this, but is suing her anyway.
In other words, they're willing to terrorize some poor, sick old lady who any idiot with a lawsuit even though they know she's almost certainly innocent. They're pulling every dirty legal trick in the book to punish her for something she didn't do, and they're all but lying [1] to the Court to win instead of dropping the case like any sane person would after considering the evidence.
[1] I'm sure it's not actually "lying" nor anything illegal as far as they're concerned and that they have some complex legal justification that absolves them of any and all liability whatsoever without limitation in perpetuity. In other words, it wouldn't be anything they'd get in trouble for. Maybe it's "pretexting"
How can AOL even say that the account was confirmed to have downloaded music? A list of ip address's even if they link to a account does not mean squat. You have to somehow have captured
the packet stream and reassemble it to say it is a confirmed download. Does AOL intercept and
store every packet going through their network?...I kind of doubt that. I know of course I could do just that but I would have to know who to target for the capture as there is no way to find something like that unless I was targeting a specific user. If I where told that AOL did target
the individual I think then I would look to see if the targeting was a authorized wire tap and if it was not get the whole thing throwed out for illegal wiretapping, then in turn sue AOL for doing so....Interesting case should be fun to watch this play out.
Got Code?
> They're morally obligated to obtain someone's medical records before deciding whether to sue?
From my understanding of things, no, they didn't know that at the outset, but they almost certainly know that now.
In other words, any decent person would've dropped the case at this point. Of course, this is the RIAA prosecuting it, so it's pretty clear why they haven't done so. I wonder if there are any good MS advocacy groups out there who would mind protesting this somehow? And instead of protesting it as the "RIAA" doing it, put a face and a name to the key people on the RIAA side.
Might wake those bastards up to get angry Slashdotters calling them at home, calling them heartless bastards. Or not, I dunno.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
eg: The RIAA have tried to sue people who have never owned a computer or an Internet account for file swapping. Firstly, this would appear to be trivially-resolvable by any competent arbitrator, it most definitely does not need to be demanding vast amounts of time from an already-overloaded court system. Secondly, it is the understanding of us non-lawyers that the worst the RIAA can get for wasting the time and money of the legal system is a rap on the knuckles for a frivolous lawsuit - the defendant is most unlikely to be reimbursed for time and costs involved - which directly implies that it is cheaper to sue first and ask questions later.
Because the rewards are perceived to be high (whether they are in practice or not) and the risks are perceived to be low (ditto), the courts appear to have become the first resort, not the last resort. No matter how unjustified such a perception may be in reality, it is nonetheless the perception that has arisen and that is seriously damaging to the credibility of the system as a whole.
Personally, I would like to see the courts have greater power to call bull - whether by the plaintiff or the defendant - and greater flexibility in the handling of what can only be called abuse of court. That should include the ability to impose fines or jail time on plaintiffs (or defendants) even outside of the frivolous lawsuit mechanism or the final verdict. There may also be problems with the public defender system, as they have developed rather a bad reputation over the years. If the courts need to supervise such people, then they should be given the power to do so.
Does this impinge on a person's right to a trial? No. I'm not saying anything about denying a person a right to a trial, but rather that such a right does NOT imply a right to a trial first, OR a right to use the mere act of having a trial as a means of inflicting punishment on a person if that person is innocent, and certainly does not imply a right to use the courts for entertainment or get-rich-quick purposes.
(That second one is tough. Time is money. Even if all other expenses are either taken care of or reimbursed afterwards, if a person is in court and is not on the court's payroll, then they are not at work. For low-income individuals or individuals who don't have much of a buffer for whatever reason, this can make it impossible for that person to argue their case meaningfully or - in some cases - at all. I don't know how you can easily close that loophole, but this is essentially a denial-of-service attack, and the courts should never tolerate being used as a weapon. They are there to judge on matters of law, they are not there as a cheap alternative to hiring a hitman.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't see the 'mischaracterizes' part of this whole story. From what I can tell, AOL matched one or more IPs directly to the defendant - name, street address, state and ZIP. If they didn't have an account with AOL how did they know that information?
You don't think the RIAA had such a claimed match to start this suit in the first place? It would not have existed without such information. Presenting it again, as if it were new information with sentence that implies AOL backing is clearly misleading.
All of these cases are bogus. The basis of the suit is that the RIAA says the defendant did something wrong. If that's all it takes to prove the wrong, I think I'm going to claim RIAA representatives stole my priceless Elvis wig set. I'll provide the license plate number of Warner CEO and a screen shot of my computer with that plate clearly visible driving down my street. It should be obvious, when the police confirm the identity, the CEO stole my wigs and owes me big time. Really, the RIAA stooge collecting IP numbers could be making them up at random to avoid real work. Why work eight hours when you could just run a random number generator for five minutes? What real, impartial evidence to the have of the actual infringement?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
When WHEN will this madness end?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I believe that Eddie Izzard asked it best, "Cake or Death"?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
She has effectively paved the way for a serious countersuit if there is even a remote indication that her MS became more severe DUE to the stress through which the RIAA's suit put her. Even if she never thought of such a thing, her lawyer should have - and probably has. Believe it, relevancy was never the point - at this time.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Just wondering if anyone knows where and under what conditions the RIAA or its lawyers said they had such a letter. If it was in court can they be slapped with something like contempt of court? Anyone know? It would be great to see the RIAA get kicked in the family jewels for this.
Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.
Seriously, this is exactly why lawyers and judge should debate in PROLOG, or any Turing complete programming language. Except Perl, it would make matters worse.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Can someone please point me to a legal document involved in this case that shows that the RIAA are actively involved? All I can find is letters naming Elektra who is a label.
and say "I have here a county court letter showing that the prosecuting lawyer lives at and could be sodomising little boys".
Hey, he *could* be! And although the council didn't say in the letter this is what he is wanted for but they just forgot a comma.
Even better:
I have a register of sex offenders with addresses of people on the register and a court letter showing that the prosecuting lawyer lives at and they could be sodomising little boys".
Hey, I *do* have a register of sex offenders and that lawyer isn't on it, but I never said he was!
Up the ante as it were.
So are overly freighted terms like "piracy" and "theft" are also bandied about. As is over-inflated claims of damages greater then the GDP of the US.
When they do this why not this woman?
If I said I have the address of this anonymous coward from the council and a list of the sex offenders register and that you could be abusing little boys does this seem right?
You *could* be abusing little boys and I never said that having your address and the register of offenders were related to this accusation, so I haven't lied, have I?
Use the Schwartz, Lonestarr, use the Schwartz!
240 FREE HOURS!
\Wonder if they'd give me a pony to sign up now...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Screw news outlets. If this woman offered to go on Oprah, millions of angry women would tear the US music industry to shreds. The Oprah demographic seems to have the ability to make or break products.
I think they deliberately misled the judge.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
To get a list of IP addresses in the first place?
Last I heard the RIAA weren't some governement agency or anything like the police, just an organization. Why are AOL happily handing over IP addresses when surely there is no legal obligation?
Maybe this guy has MS, he certainly seems to have cognitive impairment.
And you thought the paper clip was only on your computer.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
If they made the false statement under oath it would be perjury and someone should be under indictment by now. If the statement was made by a lawyer without the letter being present why the F!@# didn't the judge ask to see the letter in any of the other cases!?!?! And the lawyer should be held in contempt of court.
So what we have here is 4 possibilities:
1) the RIAA committed perjury and will probably get away with no punishment
2) the RIAA lied to the court (not under oath) and will probably never be held in contempt
3) the judge is incompetent
4) the judge is complicit
This kind of thing really pisses me off, and I don't even steal music online!
-- QED
So they lied. If a child did that they would be sent to their room. Do I detect a double standard.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Nothing wrong with "fighting back". That's the beauty of our country were one at least has the opportunity to "fight back". The problem with the RIAA* case is that it's not a black and white issue. The RIAA are doing some things wrong AND I bet a lot of people are infringing on their copyright. The issue at hand is how to deal with those who "habitually" break the law while not trodding on those who are innocent.
*I should point out that while the RIAA garners most of slashdot's space. Copyright infringement is a big problem for all producers of content regardless of size. That doesn't get as much attention but I know personally some small publishers that have had to deal with piracy. Were's the level of outrage? Or is that reserved for those we feel are taking away our "right to be entertained" and are capable of fighting back?
Unlike DSL and Cable, AOL remains primarily a dial-up network. And when you look at the number of different users who had that dynamic IP address over the days of the subpoena, it got passed around a lot!
Here's the point. Accounts and passwords get stolen/guessed/written on post-it notes, and the like. While a DSL/Cable company has a reasonable likelihood of knowing whose on the other end of the wire, this isn't true in dial-up. Anyone could have called in and used this person's username/password without likelihood of detection until the lawsuit arrived.
Unless they're logging caller-id -- and even that can be spoofed -- AOL can't even prove who the actual user of the account at that time was, let alone if file downloading or uploading was occurring. So how this does constitute evidence of anything?
And add that to the boilerplate common to the complaints that the purported infringement is continual and ongoing, where the IP log shows that every user of that IP address disconnected within minutes or hours at most. And I'm sure that even if there was infringement before, it rather stopped by the time the lawsuit arrived. Yet the lawsuits maintain it is still ongoing, and no efforts were made to even ask you to stop before filing suit.
And don't even mention the claim that the harm is irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of money alone, but that the Settlement Center was willing to settle for a few thousand dollars anyway, and one is left to wonder just what kind of Fantasyland[tm] our court system really is. Outlandish and unsupportable claims seem the norm there, items that would better be part of some theater production on stage.
All this gives me a greater fear of our civil court systems at least than I've ever felt before. And I'll likely continue to have that fear until such claims as these are routinely tossed out the very moment they're first submitted -- along with punishing severely the people who have submitted them!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
And no, I won't comment on how "nice" Windows XP time works for a non-admin user!
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
I am a paralegal and a Wedding DJ and this sticks out like a sore thumb. Tons of illegal 5000 songs to "gas up your i-pods" and 15,000 song hard drives on Craigslsit and ebay. and They are mostly all black people.
and 13 year old Kids being caught are downloading white peoples music the eagles Bob seeger etc.... anybody see a 13 year old black kid on tv being sued? Or a Black college or black High school?
If they sued 10,000 black kids Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would front and center on this issue every day!........ So if any of my friends get caught our defense is: its racial dicsrimination against white people.
The RIAA has to do this to white people , because if we downloaded and stole the music like the black people, the whole rap and hip hop business would collaspe overnight.
There are too many lawyers chasing too few ambulances. The United States is the most lawyered-up country on the planet! In Wisconsin, if you graduate from the law school at either UW-Madison or UW-Milwaukee, you are exempted from the Bar Examination. The most famous lawyer locally is Fighting Joe Paulus, former District Attorney, who is currently serving a few years in a federal prison for tax fraud and accepting bribes.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
The Oprah demographic seems to have the ability to make or break products.
And that's pretty remarkable, when you think about it. I was thinking about going on and telling them my experiences with defective Intel Floating Point Units. That'll teach 'em.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
They may be "underground", as you say ... but everyone seems to know about the RIAA Lawsuit Engine (TM) in spite of that fact. Worse, they've often had their "facts" twisted in such a way as to make the situation seem far worse than it is. And that's no accident.
... but since the RIAA believes that all technology without a UL (Undead Laboratories) Listed sticker on it is to be destroyed, that's probably acceptable collateral damage to them.
Furthermore, mere knowledge of the L.E. juggernaut has deterred some people I know from downloading anything at all, legitimate or otherwise. One of the most valuable consumer-level technologies to come about in the history of the world has been permanently tainted by a group of sociopathic lawyers with an agenda. That particular tragedy should never have been allowed to happen.
Now, that's just a side effect of this anti-consumer charade, I mean, crusade
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
There is truth in what you say. However, the RIAA walks a fine line between deterring infringement of IP and alienating consumers. And the longer this technology is out, the more likely will consumers be alienated by the traditional recording companies as other companies learn how to turn a profit from these kinds of technology and thus provide a viable option to the music consumer. Also, I think it is a matter of time. Currently, a person may have a favorite band and that band has a contract with a recording studio for X number of albums. It seems like after a while, these contracts will expire or be completed, new artists will comes around, and the new companies who want to compete with the traditional recording studios will pick them up.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.