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."'"
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...
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?
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.
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.
Another interresting choice of words : not the artist, but "the industry"
Funny : the captcha is "embezzle"
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.
Huh! Not a good analogy. Your analogy implies that they presented completely wrong evidence. They did not. But they did include along with the valid evidence, other stuff that may damage the defendant. And RIAA may further argue that the folder was presumably willingly made public by the user (who they they at that time did not know was different from the defendant) and therefore could not assume that the constituted private information.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
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 (or at least it's the common perception of his job situation). His position in the society strongly suggests that the RIAA made a deliberate choice to include the irrelevant information because it would bring extra pressure to settle.
If the Sargent's position and the choice to include the porn info are really more than a coincidence, then the RIAA lawyers lied in court when they claimed it was merely an oversight.
By extension, they likely had intent to damage the Sgt. with his employer, and took the opportunity (Note: If a deliberate lie occurred, then malice is clearly established, and a modus operandi has already been demonstrated and admitted to by the RIAA. Intent, opportunity, method, a grand jury would see at least half the elements of a crime here as solidly proven, others as probable, and likely find plenty of cause to indite.).
The RIAA were also trying to use the courts to accomplish this. That's a general abuse of the legal system that can warrent disbarment, at the very least. Claiming in court that it was just a coincidental mistake would be perjury if there's any evidence the Sgt's position was discussed in this context, and some of the related remarks would likely be multiple counts of contempt of court. There's certainly enough evidence at this point for a judge to subpoena all RIAA documents relating to this case (although Attny/Client privilege will of course limit that). Worse, some possible evidence comes in the form of the RIAA's legal letters to the Sgt. - the RIAA certainly can't prevent him from using them in the civil suite. Those are available to the court, and the RIAA may be sweating over how they were worded even now.
Alternately, RIAA had the full intent to actually threaten the Sgt. with revealing this irrelevant information unless he settled out of court for whatever amount they chose. There's not as much evidence for this, yet, but even that claim already has some supporting evidence established, and something as simple as one sentence in the wording of a letter pressuring the Sgt. to settle could be enough to make a solid case. That action's extortion. Extortion is a major felony. Using the court system to attempt to do it is an aggravating circumstance which normally calls for additional penalties.
Proving either of these to a full legal standard would be challenging, given who's involved. It's still reasonable to suspect that at least one of these two scenarios is true. Maybe the RIAA's lawyers didn't make an actual threat, or even consider it. Maybe they are either more aware of the law or more decent minded. It's still reasonable to figure that if they went that far down the path towards a very serious crime, they likely have done enough to deserve at least the lesser charges.
Who is John Cabal?