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."
*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.
"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
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
You're right, if people don't pay attention to their abuse of the court system and their attacking of people without the resources to fight back, they'll definitely stop on their own. After all, there's no incentive to their suing for thousands of dollars per song unless Slashdot gets indignant, is there?
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?)
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.
The 5th Amendment only protects you from SELF-incrimination. You still can be charged as an accessory or with obstruction of justice or other such charges if you know the perpetrator of a crime and fail to report it, particularly if the police are actively speaking to you on the matter; it's perjury if you actively lie.
That said, the RIAA is a bunch of douchebags, and I hope EMI pulls their funding. That should start a cascade of flagging support that ends in the destruction of that ridiculous cabal.
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.
except, it's a civil-case, not a criminal case.
I hope EMI isn't the only one that pulls their funding.
And that Congress declares the RIAA as racketeering bunch of a-holes....(under RICO).
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.
"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 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.
Then you're probably not on Comcast.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful