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."

24 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA by Coraon · · Score: 5, Funny

    *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.
    1. Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA by querist · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's the Jedi _mind_ trick. It needs to be able to target a _mind_ in order for it to work.

      I'll leave the determination of the answer to the parent poster's question as an exercise for the reader.

  2. Stupid RIAA by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Stupid RIAA by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about a class action lawsuit against RIAA. I don't care what we call it.

      Its time to fight fire with fire ... scorched earth warfare! May they all burn in Hell (apologies to all the atheists and agnostics).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Stupid RIAA by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I, also, am not a lawyer. So I googled this discussion of "malicious prosecution", which does apply to civil cases. From that page:

      To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.


      #4 sounds like it would be incredibly difficult to prove. I think the only chance the plaintiff would have would be to assert that RIAA was prosecuting the case for the purpose of inspiring fear in other potential targets of litigation, even in the face of evidence suggesting the plaintiff's innocence in the original suit.

      Anyone else have any ideas?
    3. Re:Stupid RIAA by mikelu · · Score: 5, Informative

      One has already been filed, I think:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/17/1728225

      How successful it's going to be, well...that remains to be seen.

    4. Re:Stupid RIAA by nuzak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about we stop buying their shit?

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    5. Re:Stupid RIAA by dont+shoot+me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what if someone breaks into your house while you're on vacation, stays a while and downloads a ****load of music? Do you have to find out who the intruder was? How can they prove it wasn't some unknown persons and the computer owner is innocent? What about if your daughter's bf comes over while you're out and they download or upload songs? My point is... how can they ever prove who is responsible? The RIAA should be out trying to stop the real pirates who are making lots of $$$$ off them instead of going after kids who can't afford their overpriced CDs? Or is this revenge for CD sales being off?

    6. Re:Stupid RIAA by KefabiMe · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about we stop buying their shit?

      I agree. I'm pirating as fast as I can!

  3. Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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
  4. I wish... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  5. Burden of proof... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Burden of proof... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, not quite. The standard of proof is lower. In a criminal case the standard is 'Beyond a Resonable Doubt'. With civil, it is 'Preponderance of Evidence'. This means that if it is more likely that the defendant committed an infraction than not, then they are found in judgment.

      This is an important advantage to the plaintiff, in this case the RIAA, because they don't have to have rock solid proof to convince the judge/jury of wrong doing. This is why OJ Simpson was not convicted in his criminal trial, yet was so in his civil trial.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  6. Re:*yawn* by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  7. Only they could get away with it. by grilled-cheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  8. Re:5th amendment? by areReady · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:5th amendment? by MoFoQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  10. Re:Pointless beating around the bush... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    if you don't like it, go here and change your settings for what appears on the front page.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  11. I'm not obligated to help you by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I'm not obligated to help you by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "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."

      Dude, thanks for covering for me

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  12. Yeah! Let's drive RIAA affiliates out of business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Stupid RIAA-Stupid ISP by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree. I'm pirating as fast as I can!

    Then you're probably not on Comcast.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  14. RIAA not stupid by rtechie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Squeal or else! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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? That's their philosophy in a nutshell.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful