The RIAA didn't drop the complaint. They just amended it. Is this actually allowed after a judge has tossed the case.
At best they should have to grovell humiliatingly to the judge, at worst start a whole new case from scratch. It's common to dismiss a complaint and grant leave to replead. In this case the judge expressly gave them leave to replead.
Sorry to hear that. But I guess there is no way to force all judges to be rational. We have had some bad decisions by local judges around here, too. It's not as bad as that. If you read the transcript you'll see that () the Judge didn't make any decisions, and (b) he evidenced awareness that it was impossible for them to have 'detected an individual'.
He just seemed to think it was bad form for me to have brought up Rule 11.
They replaced the "and/or making available" language with language claiming that they "detected an individual". Aside from what the attorney linked to in the article says about the dropping of the old language being a defense, there is also a more positive defense now, from their claim:
Regardless of whether a computer downloaded or served certain files, they did NOT "detect an individual" at all! What they detected was an IP. If your sister or cousin or the neighbor had theoretical access to your computer at the time (and it only has to be theoretical), then then cannot pin this on an individual, so they have no case.
Other cases have been won on the basis that the person who allegedly did the downloading had an open wifi access point on their internet connection, so the "crime" could actually have been committed by an unknown party, half a block away. I brought this to the attention of the Judge at the June 29th conference in Warner v. Cassin, where the attorney, Timothy Reynolds, actually said to the Judge that their investigator had "detected an individual". The Judge got mad at me, though, when I indicated to him that it was a violation of Rule 11 for the attorney to have made the deliberately false statement, instead of getting mad at the attorney who'd lied to the Court.
It claims they "detected an individual" who is "distributing".
But they don't actually detect any distribution. Nor do they detect an "individual". An IP address isn't an individual. If you're lucky, you might be able to connect it to a particular computer at a particular time. Precisely.
They say stuff like that based on the assumption, correct in some cases, that the judge doesn't have any understanding of computer technology.
Isn't it uber-ironic how this woman, who may be "doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now", doesn't even use a computer, or probably never even heard of P2P software until this trial? Yes, it really is ironic.
But here's the recipe for what has happened here:
1. She is totally and undeniably innocent. 2. The RIAA and its lawyers have no conscience or respect for law, and therefore don't care that she's innocent. 3. She won't pay extortion money. 4. The RIAA stonewalls everything and fights over everything, and will never compromise on anything.
To those of you who are doing this I would like to say thank you to each and every one of you, but I'd probably get modded "redundant". So I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you.... you know who you are!
I already posted this on an above comment but wanted to make sure you see it since i'm sure there are a lot of replies to sort through.
Will we be able to know how much money has been generated or will this be attorney client privilege?
Sent some money.. hope it helps. Thanks very much.
The account was set up by family members, not by the law firm.
As to whether to disclose the amount that comes in, I really don't know.
On the one hand I'd love for people to know the figures. But don't you think the RIAA would love to have that information?
Ray - she'll be receiving a check from me (or PayPal, if you manage it). I don't have much but you guys deserve the best society can heap upon you for what you're doing.
Saying 'Thank You' doesn't even begin to cover it. . Thanks, Balance. Much appreciated. PayPal account is now set up
"is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony." Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to/. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most/.ers are such excellent lawyers. lol... well for starters, the "RIAA's expert testimony" was not given by lawyers, and regardless if I would hardly call them experts in their field of law, but by so called Computer / Network experts of the RIAA. Actually the Slashdot community was extremely helpful in helping to both formulate questions for the expert, and in reviewing the transcript of his testimony.
It was not legal, but technical, input we were looking for.
As for Slashdotters being lawyers, as I said when I was interviewed in September, 2006, on Slashdot, I learned a valuable lesson then. One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot. If something is modded +5 on Slashdot, it must be the law as well, even if neither Congress nor the Courts have recognized it yet.
In the grand scheme of things, what I can contribute is very little, but you will receive a check from me. Also, don't be surprised if you find a modest bottle of scotch deliverd to that address as soon as I figure out the best way to have one legally delivered.
That said... I'm sure this has been discussed before, but are there any legal reasons that you couldn't set up a website and/or Paypal account to accept further contributions? I'm sure that myself and Vlad Petric aren't the only/.'ers willing to contribute to the cause. Good news. A family friend of Ms. Lindor's will be setting up a PayPal account for contributions to help her defray the costs of defending herself from the RIAA. Will post the information as soon as the account is set up. I will post the information here and on Recording Industry vs. The People.
a home health worker who has never even used a computer Uhh... WHAT?? Yup.
Believe it or not, the RIAA has sued as an 'online media distributor' one of the only people I have never met who has never used a computer. She has never even turned one on. The only thing she has ever done with a computer is to dust around one sometimes.
That should tell you the kind of "human beings" I am litigating against.
Let's donate some money to her defense fund... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that. If you send a check to Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, As Attorneys for Marie Lindor" we will deposit it in our escrow account and apply it to Ms. Lindor's account. I can assure you she will warmly appreciate it. Our mailing address is: Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, 110 E. 42 St., New York, NY 10017, Att: Ray Beckerman
We can also always count on the random A.C. who doesn't have even a smidgen of understanding to carry on about STEALING. There's this thing called "the Big Picture" which you are apparently failing to see. You had best understand that both sides in this conflict have rights under the law, but only one side is interested in removing the other side's rights... permanently. I've come to the conclusion that the Anonymous Coward posts of that nature on/. are from an RIAA shill or troll. They're totally offtopic, and neither you nor I nor anyone we know has ever met anyone in the real world who believes such nonsense.
I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file.
It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books. Thanks, RESPAWN.
I don't know about her, but I could really use one about now.
Perhaps these lawyers have convinced the RIAA that such action will be cost effective. I'd sure like to be fly on the wall when they make that presentation.
Slashdot Mirror
He just seemed to think it was bad form for me to have brought up Rule 11.
They say stuff like that based on the assumption, correct in some cases, that the judge doesn't have any understanding of computer technology.
They say stuff like that based on the assumption, correct in some cases, that the judge doesn't have any understanding of computer technology.
In the RIAA v. Consumer cases I am aware of MediaSentry involvement, but not Media Defender involvement.
Does anyone out there know of Media Defender involvement with the RIAA?
But here's the recipe for what has happened here:
1. She is totally and undeniably innocent.
2. The RIAA and its lawyers have no conscience or respect for law, and therefore don't care that she's innocent.
3. She won't pay extortion money.
4. The RIAA stonewalls everything and fights over everything, and will never compromise on anything.
That simple equation has led to this endless litany of litigation events, and there's no end in sight.
On PayPal at wraymond@hotmail.com
To those of you who are doing this I would like to say thank you to each and every one of you, but I'd probably get modded "redundant". So I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you.... you know who you are!
The account was set up by family members, not by the law firm.
As to whether to disclose the amount that comes in, I really don't know.
On the one hand I'd love for people to know the figures. But don't you think the RIAA would love to have that information?
Done.
PayPal account has been set up.
Moderators, I'm sorry if this is "redundant" but it's important that I get the message out to those who want to assist this poor woman.
PayPal account has been set up.
OK folks, I am pleased to announce that the PayPal account for Ms. Lindor's legal defense has been set up.
The email address is:
wraymond@hotmail.com
It was not legal, but technical, input we were looking for.
As for Slashdotters being lawyers, as I said when I was interviewed in September, 2006, on Slashdot, I learned a valuable lesson then. One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot. If something is modded +5 on Slashdot, it must be the law as well, even if neither Congress nor the Courts have recognized it yet.
:)
Meanwhile, about that drink......
Believe it or not, the RIAA has sued as an 'online media distributor' one of the only people I have never met who has never used a computer. She has never even turned one on. The only thing she has ever done with a computer is to dust around one sometimes.
That should tell you the kind of "human beings" I am litigating against.
Thanks
I don't know about her, but I could really use one about now.
Boy have you got that right.
They lie in all of them.