Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Once again the RIAA has dropped a case with prejudice, this time after concluding
it was the defendant's daughter it should have sued
in the first place. In the case of Lava v. Amurao, mindful that in similar scenarios it has been held liable for the
defendant's attorney fees (Capitol v. Foster and Atlantic v. Andersen), the RIAA went on the offensive. In this case there was actually no attorney fee motion pending, making their motion all the more intriguing. The organization argued that it was the defendant's
fault that the record companies sued the wrong person, because the defendant didn't tell them that his daughter was the file sharer they were looking for."
These guys are getting too much attention. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go away?
which is totally what she said
*waves hand* "I'm not the file sharer your looking for..."
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Why should anyone tell them who anyone is? Shouldn't the RIAA be held for wrongful prosecution or whatever it is, for bringing suit against the wrong person?
Why aren't judges allowed to look upon all RIAA suits with some level of mistrust. They've been proven wrong in so many cases that it is criminal. YES CRIMINAL. Someone should go to jail for all the crap they've put people through.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So when are they going to sue his daughter?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"It wasn't me! It was her!"
How often do you suppose they hear that? And has it -ever- worked?
Out of curiosity...I know that there's a principle where spouses cannot be forced to incriminate one another; does this sort of thing extend to children?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
I know things called "rules" are hard for you guys at the RIAA, but there's this one thing called the 5th amendment. I recommend you check it out. It's a good read.
Hey, it works for extortionists. Once you pay them they never come back for more.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Not exactly the same, but it is a problem when other people are taking them seriously. Which means we kind of have to.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I was under the impression that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
But then again, I was also under the impression that the best way to make money is to sell things to your customers instead of sue them, so call me old fasioned.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Only the RIAA could get away with a defence of "it's your fault because you didn't provide us grounds to sue your daughter".
Please!
(yes, why didn't the defendant say that?)
I don't know if their motion is all that interesting, really.... Isn't there some precedent for this sort of behavior in civil cases (defendant was actually shielding another party)? That's not, of course, to say that they should have filed the suit in the first place.
All of these articles about the minor skirmishes in *AA's war against infringers are boring and serve no purpose other than to provide yet another forum for some people to say: "Copyright infringement is wrong, like stealing," and for others to claim: "No, it is not exactly the same as stealing, and therefore good." The exact details of each legal encounter don't change anything, and are only useful to the practicing lawyers...
Unlike the emacs vs. vi flamewars, this one can, actually, be resolved with some certainty, and whoever can be convinced is convinced already...
Perhaps, our distinguished editors can delegate these articles to some peripheral subsection instead of the front-page?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ya know, I was just sitting here thinking. Has anybody ever thought to check some of the lawyer's computers to see if they have "illegal copies" of music on their HDD? or even the RIAA execs? Be interesting to see what would happen if someone....say, and actual Artist... were to go after them and see what kind of defense they'd use.
These people are fucking insane. I would have done the same thing and not "tattled" on my daughter. Yeah, let's turn family member against family member. These people need to be taken out back "behind the woodshed" for a "talk".
Hire the lawfirm of Guinness and McGregor
If you ask me "did you download this file/commit this crime/say this phrase yesterday?" and I answer "no," I am under no further obligation to assist you. I may know that Joe over there is who you're looking for, but you failed to ask the proper question. You asked a specific question, and I gave a specific answer. Don't get all pissy at me and start claiming that "lie of omission" bullcrap. There is no such thing (more specifically, it's an ethical issue rather than a legal one, but that's a rant for another thread.) Ask the proper question next time. I can't read your mind, and until I can, there's no way for me to know what information you really want unless you ask for it.
Yep, two goes out behind the woodshed, but only one comes back - guess who'd that be?
Hint: Daughter couldn't be without a Daddy, now could she?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
"your honor, I'm an asshole because the defendent didn't tell me to behave! I demand a hearing on this issue!"
some day, some where, somebody is going to take them up on that offer. they can be fined and jailed for abuse of the federal court system.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Is anyone even counting how much waste of taxpayer's money is going to give the RIAA time in civil courts? How much money, funding, time and resources have they wasted in these frivolous charges? Is there a governing body that oversees the just use of public courts? Probably not but I mean, I'm not only angry at their stupid bull-headed thinking and their obvious strive to make money off of the misery of unsuspecting victims. Even the financial market has put a serious black dot on them saying that when a company stops inventing and starts suing to make money, it's time to let go and sell sell sell.
I mean seriously, why is the RIAA even allowed such blatant abuse of civil courts?
I am not a lawyer, but would a lawyer point to some answers about this abuse? We could all use the info. Maybe next time we write our congressmen, representatives or legislators, we can include more educated information and opinions about this particular topic.
My $0.02
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
I've begun associating CDs with fear so music isn't relaxing now, it just reminds me of thugs and court orders. The gentle wirl and hum of hard drives and fans has become much more pleasant to me.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
So now the RIAA can just sue anyone who happens to be in the vicinity of illegal file sharing and blame the defendent when they don't rat out the real offender? Whatever happened to concepts like "probable cause", "reasonable basis" or "good faith belief" before you sue someone? Not only should the RIAA be made to pay the defendant's attorney's fees when they've been shown to have sued the wrong person, they should also be paying for the taxpayer related court costs incurred by their frivilous lawsuit.
Is this what America has come to? Wasn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Now, not only are you considered "probably guilty" from the start of the case, but in order to prove myself innocent, I must produce someone else who can go to jail? Let the witch hunting commence. Coming soon to a court near you: Sued by the RIAA for running open wi-fi when it's obvious they have no evidence to sue you.
How about we stop buying their shit?
Done. I haven't knowingly purchased RIAA affiliated music in years. Yet I still buy and download quite a lot of non-RIAA music. I don't even listen to those radio stations anymore. You know the ones... they play the same 50 RIAA songs all week long. I listen to my local college station. Not every song they play is a hit, but you're guaranteed to hear different music every day. Don't have a decent college station? You can even listen online! Here's my local station. They're awesome. They even stream in ogg. Their playlist is online too, so when you hear a song you like, it's easy to check for RIAA-ness. If the RIAA bastards have anything to do with the music, just don't buy it. According to iTunes, I've purchased 12 songs this month. Not one thin dime went to RIAA affiliates.
PS. Fuck You U2. After reading your press release of late, I will never buy your shit. EVER. Nothing you can say or do will change that. You've joined the ranks of Metallica. Go straight to hell. I hope you get hit by a bus the next time you cross the street. You have the gall to ask "Who's got our money and what can we do?" Allow me to answer that here, since I'm required to join you website to send you feedback: "Who's got our money" The customer has the money. It isn't yours unless earn it. "What can we do?" You can drop dead. I'll never buy your music. I'll never support you in any way. I will will actively discourage anyone I know who might. Big mistake assholes. One happy customer might tell one person. One angry customer will tell everyone he knows.
The judge decides whether or not he will grant the motion. Of course, even if he grants the motion the defendant's counterclaims will remain. A lawsuit doesn't end just because the plaintiff drops its claims. It's easier to get into court than it is to get out again.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
that his daughter was the one - then he still would have had to pay? Or would his daughter have had that on her when she started earning money? I think that in either case that guy was right to remain silent.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
*waves hand* This is not the file sharer you are looking for. He can go about his business. Move along...
Weaksauce as they say...
Knowingly suing the wrong person - and the RIAA knows that, at best, they've only found the ISP account holder - should be the cause of severe sanctions against both the RIAA, and the judge who let's this case continue a moment longer than necessary. Either the RIAA shows evidence tying the person sued to the actual infringing user and computer at the time of filing, or they have no case, and no right to extort innocent broadband account holders. This close-enough-for-government-work, let-us-poke-around-long-enough-and-I'm-sure-we'll-uncover-something approach has to end!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Then you're probably not on Comcast.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
On TV shows like "Matlock" or "Perry Mason" the defense proves their guy innocent by not just establishing reasonable doubt, but going out and solving the case and dramatically revealing who really committed the crime. Unfortunately for the RIAA, the real world doesn't work that way, and the defense is not under any obligation to figure out for them who the true copyright-infringer is, just to show that the evidence does not support the accusations against the defendant.
For those wondering why the RIAA dropped this case, it's largely because they wanted to avoid any case law on this motion which asked the Plaintiff to actually provide a detailed listing of the infringing songs AND (this is very important) a breakdown of "infringement expenses" for each individual song. The record companies don't HAVE this information, they pull the numbers out of their ass. If they're forced to actually PROVE losses, they have no case and they know it.
If that were me, I so would counter-sue the RIAA, especially after they lied about their "statistics." Even better, I've been told my state doesn't have a cap on the amount of civil damages one may collect!
LOL.
U.S. and its capitalism slowly degrades into weird Stalinism. The case reminds me of way Stalin and Brezhnev regimes had dealt with unwanted people.
In Soviet times, if something happens, regime always looked for scapegoat. They'd took some guy they do not like off street and claim that he did it. When he tried to argue "there is no incriminating evidence!" response given was quite predictable - "hey! you are spy! capitalists have taught you how to hide your tracks!! that's why we can't find evidence!!!" So instead of ending up being simple criminal, the falsely accused person were ending up being a spy.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
If they're both going to pollute the planet with their litigious nonsense and racketeering, we should at least be getting some entertainment value out of it all.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
IIRC, this is a common law protection based upon the assumption that husband and wife are one legal entity. Historically wedding agreements, when they existed, codified the daughter leaving the father's home and entering her husband's, with either a bridal purchase agreement or dowry, depending on the culture (generally, polygamy => bridal purchase, monogamy => dowry, but exceptions exist).
As a result, the wife wasn't a separate legal entity from the husband, so testifying against him was pointless. The real concept of marital units not being a legal entity is relatively recently in the legal system, really the past 30-100 years.
That said, it hasn't been tampered with, because there is an assumption that one should be able to speak to one's spouse in confidence, without fear of being compelled to violate that trust. The same idea for attorney-client privilege, or the constantly attacked Executive Privilege. The privileges are based on the idea that these are people that you should be able to consult with, and the need to disclose later would render such advice impossible in the future. Whatever state interest is served by compelling one spouse is not made up for by destroying families by removing that sense of confidentiality.
Shame on you for not throwing your child under a bus to save yourself...
IANAL... But I play one on
"the defendant didn't tell them that his daughter was the file sharer they were looking for." These are not the file sharers you're looking for. These are not the file sharers we are looking for. Have they never seen Star Wars?
Case law is death to these guys if it supports the actual, proven losses. If your neighbor chops down a tree and drops it on your fence and car, you have to show the cost to repair or replace the destroyed item. You can't just make up numbers.
Why can a Corporate Body like the RIAA just arbitrarily do it? How have they gotten away with it for this long? I would love to see case law established forcing an accounting of the cost of a lost song - then they'd have to show how many times others had downloaded it, provide a reasonable accounting of how many sales that had cost them and guess what....it wouldn't be anywhere near what they ask for!
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
And yet another idiot AC that doesn't know the difference between the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is always supposed to be presumed innocent in the US. You are not presumed guilty in civil cases, the bar is simply lowered in proving accusations. You cannot file a complaint, provide no evidence to support that claim, and win in civil court.
No, he's just not afraid of being caught because he is on Comcast.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire
Where I work, people who waste this money end up getting caught by our yearly "expenditure/necessity audits" and go looking for new jobs. Who the hell is letting this happen?
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
These articles are interesting because they tell the story of the ongoing intersection/collision between big business, intellectual property law, free culture, and case law involving the internet. The subject touches on both technology and justice, and fits in very well to the Slashdot omelette.
$META_SIG_JOKE
Bono is such a fucking poser anyway ...
except, it's a civil-case, not a criminal case.
Ah, well then, in that case, welcome to civil discovery and mandatory disclosures where the 5th Amendment is in many ways largely made a mockery of.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You actually bought and listened to U2 in the past???
Ooops, you just disqualified 99% of slashdot participants — thus underscoring my point.
Now let me demolish your point... Some real musicians, such as Metallica and U2 think, "the vultures" aren't aggressive enough.
As for your "sue children" — please, stop the demagoguery. If the same cheeky child was throwing a rock through your window every morning, you'd be suing him and his parents within a week — there are plenty of misdeeds, for which young age is no excuse.
All that said, you are welcome to give your own music away on whatever terms you wish. Just don't prevent others from enforcing their rights to control their creations...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.