Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When a Judge agreed with the RIAA's claim that 'making available' was actionable under the Copyright Act, in Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA was quick to bring this 'authority' to the attention of the judges in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Those judges were considering the same issue. When the that decision was overturned successfully, however, they were not so quick to inform those same judges of this new development. When the defendants' lawyers found out — a week after the RIAA's lawyers learned of it — they had to notify the judges themselves . At this moment we can only speculate as to what legal authorities they cited to the judge in Duluth, Minnesota, to get him to instruct the jurors that just 'making available' was good enough."
The RIAA wouldn't sabotage their own chances in court? The humanity!
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
...Kentucky Fried Recording Industry Association of America!
Personally, I would like to see someone march a slew of television and radio commercials from vendors and how you can "Share your favorite files, songs!" and sue the vendors who touted the abilities to do so by buying their products. How many advertisements has one seen from computer manufacturers and software developers telling people about the ability to store, share and "make available" their favorite files and songs.
Infiltrated dot Net
This happens all the time. Of course the RIAA is not going to "rush" the court to bring forth the case. Geez, get a grip. It's like no one has ever seen the way the legal system works. When something bad happens to you, you aren't the one to bring that up in the court--the other guy does. It's amazing to see the amount of stories about how the RIAA does something in court and how people are shocked, shocked I tell you, to believe they did that. Let me fill you in--most of the stuff they do is what all lawyers do.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I wouldn't expect the RIAA to report a decision that hurts them, but I think that could be an illegal act. I think not telling the whole truth about the precident in a case is illegal. Does anyone know for sure? I'd be amazed if they got away with this, but I'm not shocked that they'd try it.
Unless she gets an appeal, it won't matter. Failing to cite a single case in a different jurisdiction is hardly a sanctionable offense.
Every few days there is another RIAA story and every story seems to be going in a different direction. they lose, they win, they lose... ugh. I'm just as pissed about this stuff as the next guy and I do like to know what is going on; But when are we going to have this stuff get to the point where we can see a real change?
The issue here isn't that the RIAA has unethical lawyers, its that the defense has crappy, undiligent lawyers. Slashdot seems to be saying "shame on the RIAA lawyers for not doing the job for both side's lawyers!" Gimme a break.
what happens in law when Decision C is made based on earlier Decisions A and B,
and then Decision A is reversed ?
So it gets turned over on appeal...and it happens enough times that these lawsuits become a waste of their time. One can only hope that they start losing countersuits, finally getting a clue that their outdated business model that screws over artists and consumers has run its course.
What we really need here is the Gowachin Justice system where the winning lawyer kills the losing lawyer. It would certainly help cut down on stupid lawsuits.
Arent they *required* to disclose this information? Couldn't the entire case be tossed out and them held in contempt?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IAAL, and I've worked directly for judges. This won't win the RIAA lawyers any friends on the bench.
There is an ethical obligation to inform the court of legal authority (cases) in the controlling jurisdiction (same state, or federal circuit, for example) known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2).
Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence".
The commentary suggests that a "lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statement of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 3.3, cmt. 2. That's pretty inclusive, and I'd feel comfortable arguing that failing to disclose the reversal of authority you've previous cited is an ethical violation. A referal to the state bar commission could be in order here, and let them sort it out.
Wondering if this is flamebait or troll...
/. reverse psychology moderator manipulation (in which one writes a statement indicating one will be modded down, and is modded up instead) is clearly in effect.
Yes, it is. But the classic
Given that it might be either how about a reply instead of a mod for a change?
Let's get something straight - sharing copyrighted material is a crime, and if the the RIAA went about prosecuting just for that they wouldn't get half the flack that they do. But so far they have failed spectacularly to do so. Part of this is down to the basic structure of the internet - proving that party A shared a copyrighted file with party B beyond all reasonable doubt is hard. As they are pursuing civil actions they are going for the much easier burden of on the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately they are using the lack of knowledge in juries and judges to do so, rather than evidence of a crime.
If you present a printout of a screenshot of a file sharing client with my ip address and the name of song - that is not evidence.
Before you reach the evidence stage you need to provide:
A log of an ip transaction from a reputable source - ie a router at an ISP.
Proof that the file was not mislabeled - a hash of the transfer that shows the file contained copyrighted material.
Proof that the person being sued is responsible for files offered at that ip address.
Until then the RIAA is just pissing in the wind and winning temporarily until they get struck down on appeal.
Even if you show infringement of copyright, the "exponential" damages being asked for are absurd. Let's see a bandwidth breakdown from the ISP being converted into a "number of cds distributed" and then converted into damages.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
The RIAA is so evil, and so frightening in their litigious pursuits, even the devil himself created an account on iTunes.
Wondering if this is insightful or informative...
Remember that one?
Ya, you have a good point. And all the ISPs touting how fast their service is and the ability to "download movies at light speed!" and so on.
I think that the woman is probably liable (not guilty, it's a civil proceeding not a criminal one), and should be required to pay an appropriate penalty. However, the important thing to me about this case is that $220k is *not* an appropriate penalty. It's too high by an order of magnitude or two. In some of the cases the RIAA pursues, they clearly pursue the wrong defendant well past the point where it is clear that the defendant is not liable.
My objections to the RIAA are to their tactics, which are clearly intended to intimidate and extort, and are in many cases outright illegal. I also think that the punishment should fit the crime -- thousands per shared song does not seem to be connected to any real world concept of how much she's hurt anyone. A few tens of dollars in lost sales per song, perhaps multiplied by some amount as penalty (the penalty for getting caught doing the wrong thing should be more than it would have taken to do the right thing in the first place) would be reasonable -- and wind up at perhaps $100 per song, not $9000.
Of course, I also object for a variety of reasons to the DRM and other anti-customer tactics taken by these groups, but that's a different discussion.
"Let's get something straight - sharing copyrighted material is a crime, and if the the RIAA went about prosecuting just for that they wouldn't get half the flack that they do."
Hmmm...crime? I don't think so. How about a tort? "Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought."
However, I will agree wholeheartedly with you that the burden of evidence needs to be increased. That has been my biggest problem with their cases to this point. Show me the evidence! A smoking gun, in your hand, with no one else holding a gun will be sufficient.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I don't know much about the tax protesters, so I'm going to decline to engage your specific example and challenge the logic of your argument. The critical remark you make is "They still cling to these arguments even when no court has ever ruled in their favor". Because of Stare Decisis it is possible for the court system to repeatedly act contrary to fact and logic. And here lies an important point, there is a distinct difference between what courts do and what the law is. Those two things are not the same, but a trial judge is not (usually) receptive to interpretations of the law at variance with precedent. This is why we have appellate courts and the supreme court; those judges and justices have a bit of discretion to reconsider whether the precedent and the actual law agree.
But here again is an important point: neither the appellate courts nor the supreme court act of their own volition. They require first that a party challenge the interpretation. Consequently, I find your attitude of "give up, you lost already" rather out-of-touch with how the court system functions and the meaning of truth.
I don't know how to break this to you but
-copyright infringement is NOT a crime
-the RIAA, thankfully, doesn't have the power to "prosecute" anyone, and
-if the RIAA had the ability to get the prosecutors interested in prosecuting these ridiculous cases, they would have done so already.
The Department of Justice stated in its brief in Elektra v. Barker that it DOES NOT PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR "MAKING AVAILABLE" and that the only internet copyright prosecutions it has prosecuted were piracy cases.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"The United States is a nation of laws - poorly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
In our federal system, when is a trial judge in Minnesota bound by an decision in New York?
If he is a federal judge, he looks first to appellate decisions within his own Circuit - the Eighth. U.S. Courts If he is a state judge, he looks first to appellate decisions within his own state.
But he is free to roll his own, subject only to the risk of reversal on appeal.
It is within bounds for a trial judge in Duluth to decide that the opinion of a trial judge in New York was correctly reasoned and that the opinion of the appellate court in New York was not.
The sate appellate courts of Minnesota can disagree with the state appellate courts of New York.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis can - respectfully - disagree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
It is the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve such conflicts - if it believes that they are needlessly disruptive and of Constitutional significance.
But the Supremes take on only 100-200 cases a year.
Does anyone else see personal interest as their only motivating factor now?
I call bullshit.
I have hundreds of files and loads of songs I can store, share and make available leagally. No one should EVER be held liable for their customers using their (legal) products to facilitate crime.
Of course, if there was a law against incitement to violate copyright that might be a different thing. There isn't, and it is so so so so so so so so wrong that I think their needs to be.
Nope.
/.
NewYorkCountryLawyer is a Minor Deity here at
I cannot abide some RIAA sleaze taking him out.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Doesn't an officer of the court have an obligation to provide all relevant material? If so, does this mean Thomas is likely to be overturned by the judge? Puts the judge in a rather awkward position, having to reverse himself, but if I were him I'd shoot the RIAA's lawyers out of a cannon if they truly did know, and didn't disclose.
Is there an allowance to get a case overturned/re-tried if there's evidence that the plaintiff did not fulfill their duty to the court (and the law)? It seems to me that if the RIAA lawyers were citing cases that were later overturned, and that this was the basis for the precedent that "making available" was valid as a form of distribution (and thus a key-point to the case), then it seems that the case may have very well gone the other way if the hadn't "cheated"
So when will this lawyer be disbarred for obviously, knowlingly, and willingly breaking the law, not to mention bringing disrepect and irreparable harm to the image of the courts and integrity of lawyers?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
> sharing copyrighted material is a crime,
They why is it legal in Canada?
Maybe because copyright is an ARTIFICIAL law, that only existed since the 16th century. And Americans are waking up that there is no difference if they loan a friend their cd, checkout from the library, or share songs. Either way, someone heard the music, and the artist isn't getting paid.
I followed the case through the press (and your blog) and was curious whether the actual trial was available somewhere, for pay or for free. I'd like to get an idea of what the jury saw -- I guess while I thought it was a bit of a crap shoot whether they'd find her liable or not from the coverage in the press, I'm astonished at the size of the award and wonder just what happened in there.
I wish you better luck with your case, and thank you for keeping an online library on the matter. At some point it'd be nice to see more people aware of the fact that this is not simply about piracy but also about setting a reasonable standard of proof for any activity one might be (possibly wrongly) accused of on the Internet. Or concerned about the idea that maybe a law that can financially ruin a family over a handful (or a couple thousand, or even two) songs is ethically wrong. I know I'd be less frustrated if a particular jury happened to think along these lines, or put themselves in the position mentally of having one of their kids download enough to bankrupt the family without their knowledge, but I suppose they might have been overloaded by the technical nature of the subject and claims of billions of dollars of losses due to piracy, etc.
It sounds quite plausible to make an appeal, however after reading some articles about the woman and the overall case I find it very difficult that she is going to proceed, mainly because of the money.
The problem with the appeal I guess is that she still does not know if she is going to *win* the appeal, and, if she loses the appeal then she will have to pay the attorneys fees plus the fine she must pay now.
However, I would really like to see this case continue, I myself do not know if she is guilty or not, and from all the information I have got, it seems everything seems to show that she indeed performed the file sharing. However, I would really like an appeal because I believe there are several issues that must be brought forward with regards of the state of the laws and the verdicts and the only way to do that is to continue litigating.
Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the case that, when doing the appeal, it is done to a higher court?, or specifically to some place which has higher law status than the ones that made the decision?
I ask this, because, in Mexico happened something similar (bear with me and read a bit more), where a woman (Lydia Cacho) unveiled a pedophile ring where a lot of very powerful Mexican people was and they tried to put her in jail and whatnot. She (and her lawyers) started fighting legally, but, as we all know in corruption in Mexico is very high and they had to go appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court because all the lower courts were indeed corrupted.
Therefore, the idea is the same (I think) in that, if the lower courts in the USA are still corrupted by the hand of the RIAA, it may still be possible to appeal to higher courts, until there is someone who can really hold the law.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It was difficult to read and didn't flow.
Your post reminds me of idiots.
Income tax makes sense. It's common, and as you note, it's well established that it must be paid. The relationship between income and tax due is well known and accepted. Those who cheat do not owe orders of magnitude more than those who don't, when caught.
This copyright shit is not well-established. There is no clear relationship between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. We have the RIAA claiming that ripping a CD that you own is stealing, and that it should be punishable with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. But nobody agrees with that. Flat nobody.
Your comparison isn't just a little flawed, its completely broken.
Sorry, this is wrong. As officers of the court, lawyers have obligations to the court that override their obligations to their clients. For example, a lawyer may not suborn perjury by his or her client and may not intentionally misrepresent the facts of the case. When a lawyer submits case citations, they must, as far as he knows, be valid. If a decision is overturned while the motion is still before the court, the attorney is obligated immediately to notify the court. Failure to do so is fraud upon the court. Not only will the defendant here have an additional ground for appeal but the RIAA attorneys are subject to sanctions.
WHERE IS THE PUNISHMENT TO THEM FOR THESE ACTIONS? Punishment sufficient to fully deter them from ever trying this again? In the Duke Rape case, the public prosecutor was disbarred - and he only ruined 3 lives along the way (a few more than 3 if you count his own, and that of his family).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The RIAA lawyers had an obligation to inform the judge and the other party as soon as they learn about that case being overturned. This is a clear cut case of malpractice, if the facts are as stated in the article.
>Maybe because copyright is an ARTIFICIAL law
Um, hate to break the news to you, Sport, but all laws are artificial.
Wrong, Spud. Try again.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Disbarment would have to be used much more frequently than it currently is to be an effective deterrent. As it is, you have to get to Nifong levels of craziness before you have to worry about it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There's speculation among some legal authorities that there might be a constitutional limit on how far statutory damages can depart from actual damages. There was a notable Supreme Court case that put such a limit on punitive damages (BMV v. Gore, 1996), holding that punitive damages can only be a relatively small multiplier over actual damages (the court suggested 10x or more would be highly unlikely to qualify). No case about statutory damages has made it up that high in the 11 years since, so whether court would extend a similar ruling to statutory damages is all speculation. In part this is because statutory damages usually are actually reasonably close to estimated actual damages, so there's no occasion for an appeal on those grounds. Copyright laws are an anomaly in that respect, but also don't come up much because convictions like this one are rare.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One defendant, in UMG v. Lindor, has actually raised this defense, and the judge accepted that it can be added to the case, rejecting the RIAA's arguments that it was implausible or inapplicable. In particular, the judge wrote in support of the defense's plausibility: "...Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
yes they won this case for now. but people seem to forget they still havent payed up on the case they lost.
acully in the books taxes are a tempery thing it was never changed. however if you look at like this even if people voted down taxes it wouldent be a good thing. any services provided by your tax dollers like police fire healt care ssi and so on would be in big truble.
It's such a shame there isn't money to broadcast this fact to every idiot, even the ones who frequent Slashdot.
How we know is more important than what we know.
That the RIAA is staffed by bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling.
Let's take a look at the case:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-judge-bars-riaa-president-from-testifying-in-capitol-records-v-thomas.html
This afternoon also marked the appearance of Jammie Thomas [defendant] on the stand. She was called by the plaintiffs immediately after lunch, who started by questioning her about her experience with computers.
NEVER let the defendant testify, especially in first trial! Or is this a civil case where you have no 5th amendment rights? Anyway...
The questioning then turned to her CD-ripping habits. In her deposition, Thomas said that she ripped no more than six or seven CDs per day, but on the stand today, she said she could have ripped over 2,000 songs in a little over two days.
Wow. Then,
She originally had said that she bought the PC from Best Buy in 2003 and that the hard drive was replaced in January or February of 2004. After her forensic expert inspected the hard drive and found that it wasn't manufactured until January 2005, she then said that she bought the PC in 2004 and that the hard drive was replaced in March 2005. "I was a year off on everything in my deposition," she said.
Lying on the stand isn't good either.
Finally,
"He also said that the 'jury could do the math' on whether it was possible for her to rip 2,000 or so tracks over a two-day period given the demonstration earlier in the day."
Well, I'm a bit surprised too...but...this is the best defense?
Silly me, I thought the RIAA spoofed her computer and faked the whole thing.
Not too menshun skool!
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
See, you made the fatal mistake of refrencing Apple. Fanbois won't bother reading the reverse psycology part and will mod you up for showing iTunes sticking it to the man! (oh the irony)
In this case this was an order, not a binding precedent. And it was from another jurisdiction for which the judge in the present case can wholly ignore. And, unless there was an issue at hand for which the judge was ruling on, immediately does not mean drop all cases to telephone the judge. (I think you would agree it would be brought forth during the next hearing/conference/meeting with the judge in person?)
While I do not know all the facts of this case, an argument can easily be made that the vacated order was showing logic of a legal argument and was not binding, therefore the vacated order was not necessary to bring forth to the judge in the instant matter because it is not binding and your honor already knows this. And the fact that the order appears to be vacated because the defendant in that case appeared in the matter does not invalidated the legal argument set forth in that order.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
They cited the Atlantic v. Howell case to instruct the jury in the Minnesota case.
I tried posting the paragraph from the document and encountered a filter here on slashdot.
you'll have to read for yourself
link to online documentsfrom this article
Wow. You really are a lawyer. You've completely ignored the main point of my post (which was that the RIAA has resoundly failed to provide evidence of anything) to focus on a tiny technicality. And unlike the poster above who simply noted that I don't know the difference between a tort and a crime (which I don't, to be fair) you've spread it out into an entire rant.
I never claimed that the DoJ was prosecuting for "making available", I pointed that the RIAA in their suit managed to swing the judge into accepting this claim. Gosh, you know, like the point of TFA. And finally, because you were so pointlessly adamant about your technicality I went and looked it up - according to the description of the '97 NETact copyright infringement (for non-commericial purposes) is a criminal offense. So although your first statement may be true in some cases, you are also guilty of getting the technicalities wrong on occasion - and unlike me you really should know better as a lawyer.
PS Do you charge by the post on slashdot?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Let's go visit some of these places and flame on them. Their representatives brought this suit and they are just some of the multimillionaires who will profit from it. * Guns N Roses- http://web.gunsnroses.com/ * Vanessa Williams - http://vanessawilliamsonline.com/ * Janet Jackson - http://www.janet-jackson.com/ * Gloria Estefan - http://www.90millas.com/ * Goo Goo Dolls - http://www.googoodolls.com/ * Journey - http://www.journeymusic.com/ * Sara McLachlan - http://www.sarahmclachlan.com/ * Aerosmith - http://www.aerosmith.net/ * Linkin Park - http://www.linkinpark.com/ * Def Leppard - http://www.defleppard.com/ * Reba McEntire - http://www.reba.com/ * Bryan Adams - http://www.bryanadams.com/ * No Doubt - http://www.nodoubt.com/ * Sheryl Crow - http://www.sherylcrow.com/ * Richard Marx - http://www.richardmarx.com/ * Destiny's Child - http://www.destinyschild.com/index2.html
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else here - but that's the practice of law - it's not "deliberate concealment". If the lawyers for the RIAA were expected to be impartial and thorough advocates for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant - the people they sue wouldn't need their own counsel, would they?
/.
Of course, submitting a case to a judge and not advising the judge it was overturned tends to make the judge question everything you told him or her from the next moment forward. That's the risk you run when you don't note up your cases or bet the other side won't. Seeing as most lawyers have to appear before the same judge multiple times in other cases over the course of years - it's professionally very unwise to do it. Little more.
Lighten up
.Robert
Telling a judge about how some other judge ruled, but leaving out the fact that the case was overturned is perfectly acceptable. They don't need to tell the judge it was overturned, but usually the other side will and make them look stupid. This is not the same as withholding evidence. Two different topics.
Doubt me take a look a Groklaw.
First of all IANAL, and I know nothing about US copyright laws (and I'm not living there). A quick search on the 1997 NET Act seems to reveal that for such non-commercial infringement to be criminal, the value of the infringement must be greater than $1000. Your blanket statement that "sharing copyrighted material is a crime" does not hold.
Of course stating that "copyright infringement is not a crime" does not really show the whole picture, but it's just similar to the statement that "drinking (alcohol) is not a crime" -- it depends on circumstances (eg. where and when you drink, what you are doing at that time, etc.). The GP was just pointing out that your statement is wrong, not to claim that copyright infringement acts never amount to a criminal offense. And unlike the poster above who simply noted that I don't know the difference between a tort and a crime (which I don't, to be fair) you've spread it out into an entire rant. Because that's entirely the point. The RIAA can not CHOOSE to prosecute the defendants under the criminal law because they are not in the business of doing that. And your whole (original) post seems to be based on the premise that somehow it is not right for the RIAA to "prosecute" the defendants under the civil law due to the reduced burden of proof.
I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence, and I definitely don't know how evidence is going to be handled in internet related cases, but I can assure you that at least in the jurisdiction here, a screenshot itself is NOT enough to prove anything, even "on the balance of probabilities". I admit I know nothing about the case in the story, but the second half of your original post seems exactly like those where the posters know nothing about relevant law and yet babble as if they do. I guess the GP was polite not to point this out
Don't quote me on this.
To quote GP: Slashdot is full of excuses and rationale why it's not a crime And now your argument is that copyright shouldn't be a crime AT ALL because the punishment is too high? Well if the punishment is too high then reduce it to reasonable levels. It's not a valid argument for "copyright is not well established" (it is, unfortunately we have at least a hundred years of history for copyrights), nor a valid argument for "copyright infringement should not be punished". If you think otherwise you probably need a to take a simple course on introduction to logic.
I probably despise the current "copyright regime" as much as you do, (for freedom of speech, knowledge and information reasons... you aren't decrying copyright so that you can get the next crap movie in BT before its launch... right?) but living in your own bubbles of reality isn't the way to change things for the better. Unfortunately, the "them" camp (eg. RIAA, MPAA, copyright holder corporations, etc.) seems to be living in another opposite-yet-similar bubble of reality, and moreso that they have a greater influence than Slashdot nerds on lawmaking bodies.
Don't quote me on this.
I smell a mistrial!!
I never claimed it shouldn't be a crime. I claimed that the current enforcement is so obscene that it would be better for society if it was not enforced at all.
And yes, I claim that ripping a CD I bought onto my hard drive should not be a crime at all. I do so without regard to what the punishment is.
Oh, and I understand you're nothing but a miserable, low-IQ troll, but quotes are supposed to be used around direct quotations. Please don't go around manufacturing quotes, claiming that I said things that I didn't. That's just lying.
Now go fuck yourself, idiot.
Jammie Thomas has asked me to notify people that contributions can be made via Paypal at freejammie.com.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No my point was that the RIAA had failed to provide any evidence at all, under either burden of proof.
Try reading the article (no seriously, I'm not just flaming you). The RIAA's case was based on a screenshot of kazaa with the defendent's IP address and a filename, plus the dubious claim that "making available" the file was illegal.
I'm fairly sure that in my jurisdiction a screenshot isn't valid evidence of anything either, but in the case under discussion that is how it went. My post was pointing out that such a decision is bullshit, and clearly a travesty of justice.
If the second half of my post seemed like "a poster who knows nothing about relevant law and yet babbles as if I do" then perhaps you should read the context above it that explains the list of points are things that the RIAA did *in that trial* which do *not* constitute proof. Not a description of my understanding of law.
Perhaps then you will understand why NewYorkLawyer made an ass of himself, and why that *was not the point* of the post.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Hey I quoted the GP... no I didn't intend to quote you (although you seem to think that your views are very important), and clearly stated in my post as such.
Learn to read?
Duh. And do those people who have = 3 digit IDs somehow like to resort to flaming, name calling and swearing for no good reason? I noticed that the quality (or at least maturity) of the comments have improved since I first learnt about Slashdot...
You don't even have the balls to flame me while you're logged in. They don't make trolls like they used to.
A few tips, n00b:
Tip 1: You are supposed to reply to the post that you're addressing. If you're going to falsely claim that you were replying to the parent of my post, then you posted in the wrong place. Learn to use the internet, you fucking retard.
Tip 2: If you're trying to troll somebody, don't troll by claiming that low UIDs are a bad thing. It's too fucking far from believability, it makes the troll too obvious. Learn to troll, you fucking retard.
Tip 3: If you're going to flame somebody who just flamed you for being an idiotic maggot, don't do it AC. That's fucking weak-sauce. Learn to grow some balls, you fucking retard.
Tip 4: Kill yourself.
Hope that helped! HAND! DIAF!
Have you heard of these Piracy Hothouses called "Libraries" that accept donations of and sometimes even buy creative works to give out to total strangers?!
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."