Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient

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."

Comments

Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[SamP2]

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". Judge's favorite way of avoiding responsibility for a legal precedent for hundreds of years.

But at least it shows you why choosing a judge in such cases is a much better option for the defendant than a trial by jury - technicalities count, precisely for the reason that judges have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, while juries prefer to take the big-bang approach.

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[rking]

It'd be like having [insert person here who has done many criminal and despicable things] on trial being found not guilty because the state couldn't prove it. Infinitely better than having someone on trial who couldn't be shown to have done terrible things being nevertheless convicted on the basis that 'we just know you did it'.

Having the law say its illegal and people getting away with it on technicalities, that isn't good for anyone. Again, it's not a technicality. And having the law say things are illegal but that we'll only punish people who can be proved to have done them is a very good thing indeed. Sometimes it will lead to unsatisfactory results(again, infinitely better than the results of the alternative), but it hasn't here.

You seem to be proceeding a. on the assumption that the defendant actually did infringe on the copyrights, which we don't know, and b. as if the judge had actually ruled the defendant not liable, which hasn't happened.

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[GodInHell]

Yes. As a human being I'm able to go with things such as common sense, common knowledge, reality and my gut unlike a court of law which has to find things on either a preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt. Are you truly saying you think this person hasn't shared music illegally over p2p? I'm not sure where you get the idea that "preponderance of the evidence" and "by looking at the evidence and going where my gutt tells me" aren't effectively the exact same thing. . . the judge can't peel back the layers of time to look at what really happened to see if the plaintiff has found 51% of the proof available.. he looks at what's been presented and then issues a ruling based on what he *feels* has been proven. That's why there's an appeal system - because judges often *feel* in ridiculous or plainly erroneous ways.

Now, the second question - has he done something Illegal - goes to the root of what the article is about. Since this is a question of law ruling - not a ruling on the facts - the judge is addressing EXACTLY that point. The Judge's answer was that there would need to be SOME proof this guy actually shared a file. Not someone using his account or his connection - but him. You need to show a tanglible link - some evidence that the defendant cannot counter with evidence to the contrary - that supports your position.

Now.. I hear you saying - but that's what I mean by "my gut" - the judge can't just look at the account name - see a guy named jeff - and say "you're guilty." The reason that is the case is that this is NOT the final disposition of the trial. This was RIAA requesting that the trial be ended now in their favor. A judgement before the jury reaches a conclusion on the evidence. In federal court there must be *no* relevant questions of fact left to be decided to support their ruling. This just forces RIAA to go through more of the trial - possibly even allowing a jury to hear the evidence and rule on their gutt. (Imagine, implementing the system our founder's evisioned!?)

And yes, your "feeling in your gutt" would be applicable if you were a juror and had listend to all the evidence - because it's a civil case, and the purden of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

-GiH

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[NMerriam]

But juries are more likely to rule on "feeling" than on the basis of what is said in a statute

That's why judges still run the courtroom, even in a jury trial. We count on juries to refuse to convict based on "feelings", which is the whole purpose of having 12 random Joes rather than a professional jury class. But we also count on judges to both regulate what evidence is presented to the jury and overturn convictions where "what is said in a statute" is not met. It's basically the best of both worlds, assuming you believe it is better to err on the side of allowing guilty men to go free rather than imprisoning the innocent (not that both don't happen regardless).

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What you are, in fact, objecting to is due process, a bedrock principle of our judicial system. One of the most important obligations of the courts is to ensure that the laws on proper procedure are followed. If a person's due process rights are violated, it is the court's responsibility to either declare a mistrial or find in favor of the wronged person. Due process issues may seem like technicalities at times, but they're actually terrifically important if you want fair trials. Thank you for that.

GP is saying that it's a "mere technicality" that the RIAA brought a frivolous suit unsupported by evidence. I hope the author thinks twice about such a ridiculous statement. If he or a loved one were sued unjustly, he wouldn't think it's a mere "technicality" that the people suing him had no factual basis for their lawsuit.

Now, that's in interesting way to handle it

[Rogerborg]

If you read the actual ruling (and I know none of you will), it turns out that the defendant has been served, but has never bothered to respond or show up. The RIAA have then gone for a default judgement, but this apparently makes the judge responsible for carefully checking their allegations. Normally that would be the defence's job. So the defendant has in effect managed to get himself a free legal defence, of the very highest quality: the judge himself.

It's a risky strategy, but at least he isn't getting reamed by some guy who makes $300 an hour for playing a lawyer on Slashdot.

Re:RIAA heading for a big fall?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wonder why the RIAA is persisting in taking this high risk approach. It may be cheap to not bother actually obtaining and presenting evidence, but when the courts realise that the RIAA is depending on lazy judges to just rubber stamp the case, there will surely be retribution. The reason is this: they don't actually have evidence that the defendant committed a copyright infringement.

Generalize. Fitting Punishment.

[Erris]

In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.

That would be true if the RIAA show trials were different from each other in any way. None of them ever present "sufficient evidence" of damage. If other judges look at this decision and follow, the game is over as it should be. This judge has come close to understanding that the charges themselves are unsupportable.

The sad fact of life for the broadcast and recording companies is that they have nothing special to offer. Anyone can now make good quality recordings and everyone has access to the same, dirt cheap promotion platform. Their position as the sole promoter of music can only be maintained by eliminating everyone else's rights.

The nature of publishing has changed and the laws need to move with it. If the goal of copyright it to maximize culture and the state of the art, copyright law needs to become more accepting of new publication methods not less accepting. Terms of exclusivity and punishment for violation of that exclusivity need to more closely match the lower costs of recording and publishing. 100 year copyrights and $200,000 judgements are absurd. You will never see anyone prove actual damages like that because it never happens.