Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Backtracks After Embarrassing P2P Defendant
Harmony writes "When the RIAA sued Sgt. Nicholas Paternoster, it included a screenshot of a shared folder with over 4,600 files — some of which were pornographic images unrelated to the case. Last week, the RIAA got permission from a judge to, as a 'professional courtesy,' swap out the original exhibit for one with only the 350+ songs the defendant is accused of sharing on Kazaa. The RIAA's carelessness may come back to haunt it, however: 'After the suit was filed — and the exhibit made public — Sgt. Paternoster decided to fight back, filing a counterclaim accusing the RIAA of violating his privacy and seeking to "shame Counter-Plaintiff... into giving in to their unreasonable demands regarding their copyrighted materials."'"
Sgt. Pornstar?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The linked article is pretty light on content. It does have a link to this article which actually goes into detail about the countersuit.
He should also go after Mediasentry if they were responsible for obtaining his information and dishing it off to the US Department of RIAA
Infiltrated dot Net
Porn? On the web - showing up on my PC? Whoooa !!! Whatz next?
From the more detailed article:
"Paternoster was unaware that the Kazaa software was installed on his computer. While on a tour of duty in Germany from 2004 to 2005, the document says, another soldier downloaded the software and set up a Kazaa account under Paternoster's name. Last summer Paternoster discovered the software and 'thousands of files downloaded on his computer by the soldiers he housed,' and he uninstalled the software and deleted the files, according to the document."
So, is unknowing possession a crime in this case? Let the poor analogies begin...
1)Download lots of porn
2)Download handful of songs
3)Wait for RIAA
4)File a counter-suit
5)PROFIT!!!
Hmm lawsuits for defamation of character are quite common and, hopefully, quite easy to win *Rubs hands together and laughs at the thought of how much RIAA wil pay*
(write-line *coolsig*)
I hope Paternoster's lawyers force the judge and the RIAA to go on record as violating evidence rules, and show damages for those porno files that are not evidence of any crime.
The RIAA, and any other complainant (like you or me, if we file a complaint) has to identify the "stolen" property in specific detail, and the police must seize only that property under a specific court order.
The police state tyranny of extorting suspects by confiscating all their property they need to live and work was already in violation of our rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Corporations using the police as a mercenary army is fascism: government by, for, but not of, corporations. Using coercion and intimidation as the fear to enforce corporate government "discipline".
--
make install -not war
Hopefully he'll get a nice fat settlement. I mean the RIAA was expecting it out of him just for downloading some songs..what if he had exposed some of their embarassing info? They'd be wanting his head on a stick.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
In The Deathly Hallows by JKR there is this conversation: (nah, it is not a spoiler. Don't worry.)
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Vasquez believes that the RIAA could be vulnerable to charges of malicious prosecution, but even that would be difficult. "It would likely take someone on the inside testifying that the RIAA pursued people that it knew were innocent," Vasquez explained. "Then there would be a serious risk of malicious prosecution. But you've got to have them cold."
The article goes into why a RICO prosecution is really just good PR and probably wouldn't work in court.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
No seriously, this is troll, right? Not even the RIAA would be dumb enough to sue someone named "Sgt. Paternoster."
Three Squirrels
It boggles the mind. You've heard of the four horsemen of the apocalypse? Here we have the Three Stooges of copyright enforcement. Oh, a wise guy, eh? Wo-wo-wo-wo.
Except the Three Stooges were funny and, overall, I think they could do a better job of copyright enforcement.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
He was in GERMANY when this happened? I know he's a US citizen, downloading RIAA "protected" songs, and probably in US territory (i.e. bases) when this happened but...come on. The fact he was in Germany should mean SOMETHING to the case.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
What the fuck?
"You're honour, here is the gun the defendant used to kill Jane Doe"
"That looks like a hammer"
"Oh, shit. I can swap it for a gun?"
"Sure thing, let's call it a "Professional Courtesy"
Summation 2
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Posession is the crime. The circumstances which surround it help decide if charges are pressed or if the defendant is found guilty but the actual cries is in the posession.
...on improving the business model, thinking up new ways to make money by offering better goods and services, people might actually like the RIAA and spend more money. Just a thought. :-)
This thread is useless without pics.
Like what? That they are suing children?
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Perhaps musicians should finally understand that the era of recorded music having "intellectual property" has come to an end.
The time that a musician could play a song once, put it on a record, CD or whatever and sit on his ass while the money comes running in is nearly at it's end.
Little more than halve a century ago a musician had to play his music in front of an audience in order to make money.
It will not be long till this "normal situation" will return and we will remember the last halve a century as that ridicules time in which musicians usually were killing themselves with drugs or misbehaving due to the fact that they didn't have something to do.
If you think this is nonsense, then ask yourself the following question: do you think it is normal that people who sing a few nice songs make more money then the president of the US?
RIAA just proved how easy it is to manipulate the screenshots. It doesn't matter if they blurred or cropped the image, it should now be crystal clear even to most tech illiterate judge how easy it is to tamper the screenshots they are proposing to use as evidence.
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
I've been pirating like a maniac for the past 8 years or so. I've got around 500 albums on my computer that I've never paid for. I used to feel bad about it in the past, but I'm having mixed feelings at the moment.
up until about 2 years ago, I always intended to legally purchase these cds someday (No, seriously) once I get out of college and into the real world. At ~$15 each it would come to $7500, which I suppose is a lot but spread over a few years, it wouldn't really kill me. The problem is I can't stand to contribute a single cent to the sleazy companies behind the RIAA. On the other hand, I am getting a bit tired of mp3 quality and I'd like to have actual cds to rip into a lossless format.
Any suggestions? Anyone else feeling the same way?
I was thinking something along the lines of a memo that said something to the effect of:
"We need a lot of people to sue. Priority on children, the poor, and the very old. Even if they can't pay up, we can cut 80% off of our original demand and still look good in the end. There will be a bonus for whoever gets the biggest settlement; I need to make a yacht payment this month."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The RIAA doesn't want to be in court. In court, their claims could be debunked, while in a settlement, where you pretty much plead guilty, they don't have to prove nothing. Even innocent people would rather go and settle for 2k bucks if they can't afford a 10k lawsuit battle.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then you still have legal rights to the music, but you don't support the RIAA. If you want to support the artist, buy their merchandise or attend their concerts.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Being in court under public scrutiny is the last thing they want...
No sig today...
"This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books."
With these sorts of lawsuits flying around, people are going to start having to be very careful about who they allow to use their computer.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
While ignorance of the law might not give the RIAA a leg to stand on, knowledge of it will. In general, while the pictures are protected under copyright law, the contents of a directory are not.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
"A Porn Tester"
Co-incidence?! I THINK NOT
To the tune of Metallica's "Don't Tread On Me" MP3s or death, what we so very much need. But once you deny it, we will beg and plead. Never thought it was a crime, never, but don't want to pay. Never knew before, but now I have my own made. So be it, time for war. I'll sue Napster and sell out once more! So be it, settle the score. I'll send my lawyers marching up to your front door! Don't download me!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
speeding is illegal too. Are you saying we shouldn't differentiate between that and Vick's dog fighting? I don't see your point here, you yourself acknowledge that the difference is criminal compared to civil...so it is not "illegal" in the eyes of the law, but copyright infringement. A better comparison would be someone borrowing Vick's ferrari and getting pulled over for speeding. Guess who gets the ticket?
Walk with Music;
finally we've got a COMPLETE plan for profit!!!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Sgt Paternoster. It means "Our Father".
Sgt Nicholas Paternoster should not be confused with
St Nicholas, otherwise known as Father Christmas
Hey troll, go back under yer bridge there!
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you have to ask this your too stupid to be a thief and deserve to get caught. Go home and play with your toys.
Them wanting to keep the latest rap song off of P2P and internet radio is total crap. As Roger McGuinn of the early 60s band "the Byrds" said, the old illegal Napster revitalized his career.
The problem with internet radio and P2P is that the labels can't control it. They want to kill kazaa and bittorrent not because their stuff is on it, but because they can't keep indie stuff off of it like they can the radio.
Face it, if I want the latest pap from the RIAA labels all I have to do is plug my sound card into my radio and sample. I then have ALL the latest hits, at a better quality than the highest bitrate MP3.
They want internet radio and P2P dead because their competetion is on it. It's not about keeping their stuff off P2P, it's about the artists who have discovered that they can make their own CDs in a professional studio and have copies professionally duplicated and packeged for only a few thousand bucks (far cheaper than the labels would chargeback), and promote them via internet radio and P2P.
This is about killing the competition before it kills them, plain and simple.
-mcgrew (AKA "Three-eyes")
Personally, I'm more apt to believe that Vick is guilty because witnesses have come forward and said that he not only bought the property in Virginia for dog fighting purposes, he financed the entire operation. Obviously these witnesses have yet to be cross-examined, so who knows what will come out. He can't claim ignorance, because he attended dogfights. Attending dogfights, of course, is not a crime, but it does mean he knew damn well where his money was going.
For right now, the Sergeant does not have multiple witnesses testifying against him, and Vick does. This is why I am more likely to believe that Vick is guilty.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
the RIAA and its spies never catch anyone downloading files from someone else, because it's impossible for them to do so.
what they can catch are people sharing files. if you have a shared folder, you're saying "hey look what i have, come take some!" and the RIAA will notice that and may sue you. once they sue you, they can see if you've also downloaded files and add that to the lawsuit.
therefore, if you do not share, or you share an empty folder, there is no way for the RIAA and its spies to catch you in the act of doing something wrong.
of course you're right though, if no one shared, there would be no one to download from.
Thanks for all the replys.
I will probably go the used CD route. I may actually begin building my collection now as some of the more obscure music I like can be found on eBay for $.99 plus $3.00 shipping for still factory sealed.
I've ruled out iTunes as I prefer to be able to use my music however I want. I currently use an iPod, but that doesn't mean I will forever.
Two things I should have pointed out earlier. Yes, I do go to concerts. I've always felt nothing can replace the experience of live music. Additionally, there is positively, absolutely no question that about 90% of the music I listen to is stuff I've found through downloading. I certainly would never have come across artists like Strike Anywhere or Mastodon by listening to the radio. Because I've downloaded their music, I've ended up spending money to attend their concerts. I think that's probably far more beneficial to them in the long run.
Note to Lawyers Defending Against the RIAA: Check Exhibit B lists of your clients as well. Require that the RIAA can prove copyright on all alleged filenames they've submitted to the court, and not just the ones they've claimed to have downloaded and proven.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
RIAA: May we present exhibit 12, your honor...
JUDGE: Go ahead.
RIAA: Here we have a screenshot of the respondent's computer. And here you can see some filenames that we believe describe files that we believe contain copyrighted material. And if I can direct your attention over here...
JUDGE, et al: *GASP*
RIAA: This is DIRTY FILTHY PORNOGRAPHY, your honor! This is lewd sexual behavior! This is nudity and eroticism in a completely obscene fashion!
JUDGE: Oh my.
RIAA: Oh... sorry about that, I didn't realize that was there. Let's just put that away as a matter of professional courtesy and forget allll about that disgusting collection of filth. That this disgusting criminal collects. Alongside his disgustingly illegal STOLEN MUSIC COLLECTION.
Yeah... sound real professional to me!
Thanks for the clarification.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
When the RIAA and the record industry behave as they do, and continue to fix prices as they do, one must consider if copying RIAA CDs is more ethical than actually buying them. I certainly wouldn't give any of my money to this scum.
Fuck off troll. 100K profit for a song sounds fair. Compose 12 every year (reasonable) and you got yourself 1.2M just selling CDs and iTunes. You can still perform at concerts and sell merchandise.
This is more than enough to make a living. If you can't create enough, you shouldn't be an artist.
Could someone tell me again what do we need Big Labels for? Oh right, ripping off artists and scam the public. THIS MIDDLEMAN HAS TO GO
This isn't necessarily relevant to this particular story, but since they're not an agency of the US government, we should legally be able to wear RIAA 'raid jackets' in protest for their strongarming of american citizens (and I believe they've in fact worn these jackets too). The point of the jackets would be that wearing a jacket with RIAA on it doesn't give them any more power than you get when you wear it, and simultaneously making a tongue in cheek statement about their sense of empowerment.
I'd love to take it a step further and have everybody wear HL2 combine style gas masks and attire, but that wouldn't be practical.
Anyway, if we could get someone to silkscreen some, we could have as much fun on our powertrips as they do.
Does he have a case? If they post the contents of his entire Shared folder, can he claim breach of privacy? Anything you put into that folder is expected to be made public, right? It's not like they hacked into his machine and took them without the consent of the user.
Of course, the article says he didn't install it, other soldiers living in his home did, so it looks murky from a legal standpoint if he can get damages.
Seems to me that this guy should put a letter in to the nearest presidential candidate wannabe, I mean, what better way to simultaneously say "I support our troops" and "I am not sold out to lobbyists [yet]" than actually doing something about it...
Depending on the which songs were in the folder, they might actually be more embarassing than the images. He should ask them to censor out his Spice Girls collection before his Girls Gone Wild.
Simple. Buy the CDs on the used market. RIAA doesn't get a cent for it. Same for DVDs, buy them on the used market as well. It'll lower your cost of fulfilling your pledge as well. Most CDs used are half the price, or less, than new.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Have you ever been to a monster truck show?
I used to buy music CDs and music online. After RIAA started with their intimidation tactics, I no longer buy music CDs or music online. That's really the only thing that matters to them. Action speaks, words are unnecessary.
Here is what I would love to see happen.
This guy sues the RIAA for this. Before it goes to court he offers a plea to the RIAA. They say no, so it goes to court. The RIAA knows they can't lose this or it will open the flood gates (even to past plea deals) so they roll out the big guns and it cost them a lot of money. The trial starts to go bad for the SGT. Paternoster. When it looks like the RIAA is going to clean house and ask for court costs, SGT. Paternoster withdraws the suit.
Then I would like to see how they handle that because they are in a real bad situation. If they go after court cost it not only looks bad (But hay, what do they care) but it sets up how everyone sued by them is going to counter-sue. If they do nothing they are out more money and since they are assholes they deserve it.
--
This sig intentionally left blank
No, but I really want to go to one
This reminds me of arguments I used to have with a musician friend of mine (who IMO, was a very good musician, but very computer illiterate at the time). He was a struggling musician type, He'd been in several bar bands through college, cut a few basement-recorded CDs that they would try to sell at shows, always hoping to "get a contract" and "have their shot," without ever making any money except for the few bucks that they would get from the clubs they played at. Well, he used to decry Napster as stealing from musicians, while I would argue that they aren't stealing from musicians so much as stealing from the record companies. He believed that record companies were there to help musicians make money, and that stealing from them, meant they couldn't pay musicians as much.
His attitude did a complete 360 when one of his band mates, who had done all their computer mixing and CD burning, created a website. It featured schedules, and club's sites linked to it. In addition, you could download their entire album in lo-fi, and two songs in hi-fi, and you could order a CD for about six bucks. They didn't get rich, but it was the first time they made any significant money off of their recordings (better than selling them at shows, anyway).
He had finally realized what I had been trying to tell him: the recording industry is a middleman, that makes their money connecting artists with consumers. Modern technology has eliminated the need for such middlemen, and that is why they are up in arms. They have carved out a niche as necessary parasites of artists, and seeing that necessity vanishing, are lashing out in any way they can to hold on to the position of power they held when limited technology made them useful.
This is always what happens when a middle-man sees their position becoming obsolete. Another great example is health care. Why does socialized medicine have no chance. Is it because the people don't want it? Hardly. Is it because doctors don't want it? Not really. Is it because the existing insurance companies don't want it? Bingo! After all, pass true national health care today, and every health insurance company (with their average 18% overhead, as opposed to Medicare's 2%) is out of business tomorrow (Ever wonder why, after Clinton's absolute failure with his plan for socialized medicine, Kerry came along with his plan that you could have any private insurance you wanted, but the government would pay the bill). Another example. Do you think defense lawyers who defend drug dealers want to see any drugs legalized? HELL NO! Illegal drug sales are their bread and butter. Legalize pot and many of them would have to go out and get real jobs.
Get a lawyer pro bono. They'll work for free knowing they can get legal fees out of the suing party when it's all said and done.
The plaintiff in this case is in a position where he is conceivably likely to be judged with exceptional harshness by his employer when it comes to possessing perfectly legal porn
I don't think there is any difference under copyright law when dealing with porn vs music. Unless he made the porn, I find it highly unlikely that he owned copyright on it. In that case... his alleged distribution of porn is not any more legal than his alleged distribution of music. Possibly worse, because it's my understanding that distributing porn without verifying the age of the recipient is a federal offense.
The RIAA represents multiple media companies. Many of those media companies also deal with porn... Although the RIAA is chartered to deal with the music business, I would be very surprised if not one of those pornographic files was copyright by one of the media companies the RIAA represents, or perhaps one of their subsidiaries.
n/t