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."
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.
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