Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Backs Down Again in Chicago

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the can't-win-them-all dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City. It has once again backed down in BMG v. Thao, after suing a misidentified defendant. Same thing occurred last October in Elektra v. Wilke. In the Thao case, the RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber (pdf) of the ISP (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time."

7 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. That's not backing down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Realizing you are suing the wrong person is not 'backing down'.

  2. Re:Backing Down? by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like 'oops, wrong person'. Not their fault they were given the wrong information. Ooops. Sorry about sending you to Guatanamo. We had the wrong info. No blood, no foul, right? No hard feelings? Just sign this release form.

    Oh? Did you have a promising career all planned out just before this little mishap? Sorry about that. No blood, no foul, right? We're sure your home country will have some nice relief services for people who are down on their luck.

    Have a nice day!
    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  3. Re:Glad to see it by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In most cases, if you read the briefs, the lawyers are clueless about the evidence presented, in almost ANY field, not just in tech. The verbage indicates ignorance in many many areas. In most cases though, the lawyer is more up to speed then is the judge. Think that one through and you will understand the ture pickle we are in...

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  4. This makes no difference at all... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...unless the defendant turns around and sues the RIAA to recover court costs, attorney's fees, the value of the time he lost defending himself, and a hefty sum on top of that to make them think real hard about doing something like that again.

    The only way the RIAA is going to stop harassing people through the courts is when it costs them so much that they can't sustain it anymore. That won't happen simply by suing for court costs and attorney's fees -- the RIAA (through its members) is much too wealthy for that.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  5. Re:Backing Down? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, lets see a newspaper pull that off. "But your honor one of our sources reported that Celebrity T was doing R bad thing at the time therefore we didn't slander them."

    Guess what, if you sue someone it's now your problem. If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Trial is supposed to be the last thing in a long line of to do's, one of which is verifying that you've got the right person. The RIAA doesn't do that long list, which is horribly wrong but not quite illegal, and more and more often it's coming back to haunt them.

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  6. Let's name actual companies: Sony etc., not "RIAA" by KWTm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As others have noted, the RIAA has been successful promoting themselves as a concept in people's minds so that we direct our ire toward this nebulous phantom group, rather than the actual companies. If you look at their list of members, you'll find that there appear to be many many --until you see shenanigans with member names like "Universal(1)" and "Universal(2)". Like, wow, there are so many members of RIAA that Universal is on there twice! And Sony ... well, there's Sony Direct, Sony Labels, Sony Music Special ... gimme a break.

    Wikipedia has a comment about this:

    The RIAA's website contains a list of members, which has been disputed in the past, as Matador Records, Fat Wreck Chords[4] Lookout Records, Epitaph Records and Bloodshot Records (who are not members) have been listed there.[5] Some may have been automatically included in the list as they were using RIAA members as distributing labels.
    --from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA

    Let's name the actual companies involved: Sony, Universal, Capitol, KGB Records, Synapse Films... We might even make up a new acronym for the coalition.
    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  7. Re:Glad to see it by CowTipperGore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think of it this way. We know the standard Slashdot opinion of politicians and lawyers. A judge is a lawyer that is more politically savvy than most. /shiver