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
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!!!
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"
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?
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.
"A Porn Tester"
Co-incidence?! I THINK NOT
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")
The difference between civil and criminal law is that a violation of law that is civil effects just the victim and criminal law violations effect not only the victim, but society at large. This is why they are punished by different means and are prosecuted by the government.
Essentially your argument boils down to "Vick was accused of a more heinous transgression, so his assertion of unknowing is not valid. Whereas the Sergeant's alleged activity was less severe, so his assertion of unknowing is valid."
In general, there is no such causal relationship between severity of alleged crime and veracity of defendants' claims of unawareness.
In truth, each defendant's claims will be evaluated by the judge/jury in question and the cases will proceed or not as they will. However, both are making the same claim, which was my original point that you couldn't see.
Again, if you don't like the law that is being enforced in the civil court, then work to have the law changed.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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
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.
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.