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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Who said it had to be an artist currently signed to one of the labels? Could always be an independant band with some pull. (Radiohead, NiN...etc). The idea is simply a case of giving them a taste of their own medicine, and make them accountable under the same rules they are holding everybody else too.... if not moreso.
As for the cop breaking the law analogy. It happens. But the cops are held to the same laws we are, and often get punishments on the harder side of what you could get. The logic is they are a cop and should've known better. The problem with the **AA right now is that they aren't being held accountable for any of their actions and get to do whatever they want.
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.