Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient

Posted by kdawson on from the so-prove-it-already dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge David G. Larimer, presiding in Rochester, New York, has denied an RIAA application for default judgment on the ground that the RIAA's evidence was insufficient, in that it contained no details of actual downloads or distributions, and no sufficient evidence that defendant was in fact Kazaa user 'heavyjeffmc@KaZaA.' The decision (PDF) concluded that 'there are significant issues of fact regarding the identification of the defendant from his alleged "online media distribution system" username.' (In case you're unfamiliar with the term 'online media distribution system,' that's because it is a term the RIAA coined 4 years ago to describe p2p file sharing accounts in its lawsuits; the term is not known to have been used by anyone else anywhere else.) In August a similar RIAA default judgment motion was denied on the ground that the pleadings failed to allege sufficient factual details supporting a claim of copyright infringement, in a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez."

4 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" by rking · · Score: 5, Informative

    Decided by question of fact, not question of law. Instead of "not liable in principle" it's "not liable because they couldn't prove it". You're turning the word "technicality" on its head. Not finding someone liable (yet) unless the case against them has been made is the very core of the system. It's the whole point of the proceedings. It's as far from being a technicality as anything could be.
  2. Re:Now, that's in interesting way to handle it by rking · · Score: 5, Informative

    Denying a default judgment does not mean that the case goes away. It just means that the judge isn't prepared to rule on it on the basis of the facts currently in the record. The defendant can still lose later.

  3. Defendant is still not out of the woods by LinEagle · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the pdf link to the decision, it is noted on page 4 at the bottom that there will still be a further hearing. It is here that the RIAA will get a chance to substantiate its claims.

    However I will say it is good that the judge actually read the arguments and understood that the RIAA did not provide the evidence.

    --
    All posts released under the GNU Free Documentation License
  4. Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Informative

    What on earth are you jabbering on about? In an adversarial system, it's the prosecution or litigant's job to "prove" the allegation. Where in any statute can I find a reference to conviction on "principle"?

    He means that the judge found him not liable because of insufficient evidence, not because the judge thought that filesharing shouldn't result in lawsuits or that the label's case was tainted or something.

    If the judge had said "non-commercial infringement is not something you can sue over" or if he had said "your tactics to collect this evidence were illegal", then the case would get thrown out, and other judges would be given ammo to do the same thing. In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.