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.
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
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?
Publishing the sub-set of this information required for the lawsuit is acceptable disclosure, publishing unrelated information is not. While analogies are often misleading, this one might work:
Consider a prosecution for producing something like methamphetamine. It would be acceptable for the prosecution to enter as evidence (and thus make public) the information that the defendant had purchased certain precursor chemicals at a pharmacist. It would not be acceptable for them to publish that the defendant had also purchased STD medicines (for example) at the same time, and this publication.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
"A Porn Tester"
Co-incidence?! I THINK NOT
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?
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.