The article says it was a stipulation to dismiss, not a motion to dismiss. If it was a stipulation to dismiss, the judge will sign it and the case against Patti Santangelo will be closed.
I never said I never met a person that had engaged in filesharing. Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I said that the MAJORITY had not engaged in filesharing. I didn't say NONE had engaged in it.
It produces a large number of people who did engage in filesharing. It produces an even larger number who didn't. Even if there were a 50% likelihood, that is not a good enough reason to make someone a defendant in a federal lawsuit. That's not the way our American system of justice works.
In those cases where someone in the household has engaged in file sharing, it is USUALLY NOT the person who pays for the internet access account.
I've spoken to many hundreds of people who've been targeted. And from my experience the majority of them have not engaged in file sharing at all. Most never even heard of it. I've been working around the clock on this issue for more than 2 years. Why would you dismiss what I'm telling you as "bullshit"? What experience do you have that makes your knowledge of it superior to mine? Some cases involve people who don't use computers or who don't own a computer. Some involve people who own or use a computer but have never engaged in file sharing.
The RIAA's "investigation" tells them nothing other than the name and address of a person who paid for an internet access account. They do not know, and cannot know from their investigation, what person set up a shared files folder, as their expert witness admits. (I bet you never even bothered to read the transcript of his deposition.) Why would it surprise you to learn that such an investigation produces more innocent people than culpable people? In most households the person who pays for the internet access account is the least likely person to have engaged in p2p file sharing, if indeed anyone in the household did.
Your opinion is of no moment, because you are entirely ignorant of the facts. Opinions that are not based on fact are worthless.
I never said that no defendant ever infringed a copyright. I have said that (a) the RIAA has no information that the defendant committed a copyright infringement when it commences the suit (see the admissions of RIAA's "expert", (b) most of the suits are against people who did not commit a copyright infringement, and (c) as to those who have committed copyright infringement, they can and should assert several affirmative defenses, including (i) the fact that the remedy of $750 per song is unconstitutionally excessive (see decision of Judge Trager in UMG v. Lindor and Texas Law Review article, and (ii) the fact that the collusive conduct of the record labels constitutes copyright misuse (see litigation over motion in Lava v. Amurao.
The RIAA's own expert testified that based upon the information the RIAA has, it is impossible to determine what person committed a copyright infringement.
You know nothing. You do not even know what copyright misuse is, but have the nerve to tell me that what I have learned from more than 2 years of day-in day-out experience in these cases is "bullshit", proving yourself disrespectful as well as ignorant.
You don't fool me with your statement
"Don't get me wrong, I think the legal practices of the RIAA are despicable. Intimidation and extortion are horrible tactics. However......"
Every RIAA troll always says that. Just most of them use "but" instead of "however".... (nice twist.)
How can this guy justify the RIAA's strategy of bringing lawsuits against people in order to conduct an investigation? You're supposed to conduct your investigation before, not after, you start a lawsuit.
The real issue for me is whether they should be able to conduct their investigation through a pending lawsuit against an innocent person.
Lawsuits cost time and money and deep emotional anguish, and are not to be used as investigations. They are supposed to have investigated BEFORE they sued. It is now clear that they have not.
(PS They don't. They get a screenshot of shared files, which could be on one computer or spread out over a whole group of computers called nodes and super nodes.).
Their policy is to sue people who have paid for an internet access account that they think is linked to a p2p shared files folder.
They know, and don't care, that this will result in many innocent people being sued.
Then if they figure out the defendant didn't do it, they try to use their pending lawsuit against an innocent person as an investigative platform with which to look for others, all the while terrorizing the innocent defendant.
That is exactly what happened here. (The defendant here, in fact, has never even used a computer, believe it or not.).
A ruling like this is important.
The case should have been thrown out a long time ago, but every little bit helps.
Incorrect. In this case the defendant turned over her complete hard drive. When the RIAA could find nothing on it to support their case, then they started pursuing her relatives. That's the way they operate.
You are exactly right about that. At least one judge has held that they cannot have access even to the defendant's hard drive, that it must be done by a neutral third party. SONY v. Arellanes.
At last. A voice speaking in favor of the rule of law.
Thank you.
I don't appreciate voices, including Mr. Cuban's, which pretends the law isn't there, or doesn't mean exactly what it says.
The richness and diversity of the internet is exactly what Congress and the President were intending to protect.
YouTube's entire business model was based upon the existence of the DMCA, and it wouldn't have been created were the safe harbor not there to protect it.
Regardless of what Mr. Cuban thinks about the DMCA, or whether it should apply to YouTube, it is clear that it DOES apply. YouTube has scrupulously adhered to the DMCA safe harbor rules, and the case, I predict, will be thrown out for that reason.
Having read the complaint, I think it's a frivolous pleading.
Would like to clarify something you said. There is, in fact, nothing whatsoever in the RIAA's investigation which would indicate whether the defendant "used a P2P file sharing system to obtain a song that the RIAA holds copyright on". They have no evidence at all as to (a) how the files in the screenshot were obtained, (b) who obtained them, or even (c) whether they were on a single computer or on a number of different computers in different places. See, e.g., RIAA expert witness deposition.
The RIAA lawyers seem to be confused. Last week they were adamantly fighting for their withdrawal of the case to be "without prejudice" -- i.e. so that they could pursue it again. This week they're willing to "covenant not to sue". It seems to me that they are just flaking out.
Thanks for your kind words, Ledgem. Actually I will care about what the final score is, but that's something I have no control over. The only thing I do have control over is my own actions, or inaction.
I have never said that every single person who has been sued did not commit copyright infringement.
I have said, among other things, that (a) the RIAA has no information that the defendant committed a copyright infringement when it commences the suit, (b) most of the people who are sued did not commit a copyright infringement, and (c) as to those who have committed copyright infringement, they can and should assert several affirmative defenses, including (i) the fact that the remedy of $750 per song is unconstitutionally excessive, and (ii) the fact that the collusive conduct of the record labels constitutes copyright misuse.
So get your facts right before you run someone down.
Unless of course you work for the RIAA, in which case getting your facts right isn't an arrow that exists in your quiver.
The whole anti-lawyer thing plays right into the hands of the RIAA and other mega corporations, who would prefer for the little guy not to trust lawyers.
Get over it. Lawyers are people just like everyone else.
There are good people in this field; there are bad people in this field; just like everywhere else.
We get up in the morning and try to make a living just like everyone else.
There are honorable lawyers. And there are bottom feeders like those who assist the RIAA in trying to terrorize 10 year olds in order to force their mothers into submission.
Slashdot Mirror
The article says it was a stipulation to dismiss, not a motion to dismiss. If it was a stipulation to dismiss, the judge will sign it and the case against Patti Santangelo will be closed.
It produces a large number of people who did engage in filesharing. It produces an even larger number who didn't. Even if there were a 50% likelihood, that is not a good enough reason to make someone a defendant in a federal lawsuit. That's not the way our American system of justice works.
In those cases where someone in the household has engaged in file sharing, it is USUALLY NOT the person who pays for the internet access account.
The RIAA's "investigation" tells them nothing other than the name and address of a person who paid for an internet access account. They do not know, and cannot know from their investigation, what person set up a shared files folder, as their expert witness admits. (I bet you never even bothered to read the transcript of his deposition.) Why would it surprise you to learn that such an investigation produces more innocent people than culpable people? In most households the person who pays for the internet access account is the least likely person to have engaged in p2p file sharing, if indeed anyone in the household did.
I never said that no defendant ever infringed a copyright. I have said that
(a) the RIAA has no information that the defendant committed a copyright infringement when it commences the suit (see the admissions of RIAA's "expert",
(b) most of the suits are against people who did not commit a copyright infringement, and
(c) as to those who have committed copyright infringement, they can and should assert several affirmative defenses, including (i) the fact that the remedy of $750 per song is unconstitutionally excessive (see decision of Judge Trager in UMG v. Lindor and Texas Law Review article, and (ii) the fact that the collusive conduct of the record labels constitutes copyright misuse (see litigation over motion in Lava v. Amurao.
The RIAA's own expert testified that based upon the information the RIAA has, it is impossible to determine what person committed a copyright infringement.
You know nothing. You do not even know what copyright misuse is, but have the nerve to tell me that what I have learned from more than 2 years of day-in day-out experience in these cases is "bullshit", proving yourself disrespectful as well as ignorant.
You don't fool me with your statement
Every RIAA troll always says that. Just most of them use "but" instead of "however".... (nice twist.)I'm too busy fighting these jerks to sit around debating with myself as to whether they will win or we will win.
I hope you're not giving up.
That is a precise description of their strategy. Make every case as expensive as possible.
How can this guy justify the RIAA's strategy of bringing lawsuits against people in order to conduct an investigation? You're supposed to conduct your investigation before, not after, you start a lawsuit.
See Brief of ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma.(pdf)
Hope your post gets modded up.
Thanks for the input.
The record labels persecuting Ms. Lindor are:
-SONY BMG
-Motown
-Interscope
-Arista
-Warner Bros
-UMG
Lawsuits cost time and money and deep emotional anguish, and are not to be used as investigations. They are supposed to have investigated BEFORE they sued. It is now clear that they have not.
(PS They don't. They get a screenshot of shared files, which could be on one computer or spread out over a whole group of computers called nodes and super nodes.).
Their "investigation" proved only that it could not have been Ms. Lindor's computer.
Their policy is to sue people who have paid for an internet access account that they think is linked to a p2p shared files folder.
They know, and don't care, that this will result in many innocent people being sued.
Then if they figure out the defendant didn't do it, they try to use their pending lawsuit against an innocent person as an investigative platform with which to look for others, all the while terrorizing the innocent defendant.
That is exactly what happened here. (The defendant here, in fact, has never even used a computer, believe it or not.).
A ruling like this is important.
The case should have been thrown out a long time ago, but every little bit helps.
Incorrect. In this case the defendant turned over her complete hard drive. When the RIAA could find nothing on it to support their case, then they started pursuing her relatives. That's the way they operate.
Good point. But UMG (Vivendi Universal) is just one of plaintiffs. SONY, Warner Bros., EMI are also involved.
You are exactly right about that. At least one judge has held that they cannot have access even to the defendant's hard drive, that it must be done by a neutral third party. SONY v. Arellanes.
There is no fight. The law is clear. It definitely applies to YouTube. I predict the case will be dismissed.
Thank you.
I don't appreciate voices, including Mr. Cuban's, which pretends the law isn't there, or doesn't mean exactly what it says.
The richness and diversity of the internet is exactly what Congress and the President were intending to protect.
YouTube's entire business model was based upon the existence of the DMCA, and it wouldn't have been created were the safe harbor not there to protect it.
Having read the complaint, I think it's a frivolous pleading.
Would like to clarify something you said. There is, in fact, nothing whatsoever in the RIAA's investigation which would indicate whether the defendant "used a P2P file sharing system to obtain a song that the RIAA holds copyright on". They have no evidence at all as to (a) how the files in the screenshot were obtained, (b) who obtained them, or even (c) whether they were on a single computer or on a number of different computers in different places. See, e.g., RIAA expert witness deposition.
The RIAA lawyers seem to be confused. Last week they were adamantly fighting for their withdrawal of the case to be "without prejudice" -- i.e. so that they could pursue it again. This week they're willing to "covenant not to sue". It seems to me that they are just flaking out.
Thanks for your kind words, Ledgem. Actually I will care about what the final score is, but that's something I have no control over. The only thing I do have control over is my own actions, or inaction.
I have said, among other things, that (a) the RIAA has no information that the defendant committed a copyright infringement when it commences the suit, (b) most of the people who are sued did not commit a copyright infringement, and (c) as to those who have committed copyright infringement, they can and should assert several affirmative defenses, including (i) the fact that the remedy of $750 per song is unconstitutionally excessive, and (ii) the fact that the collusive conduct of the record labels constitutes copyright misuse.
So get your facts right before you run someone down.
Unless of course you work for the RIAA, in which case getting your facts right isn't an arrow that exists in your quiver.
Nice blog. Keep up the good work.
Get over it. Lawyers are people just like everyone else.
There are good people in this field; there are bad people in this field; just like everywhere else.
We get up in the morning and try to make a living just like everyone else.
There are honorable lawyers. And there are bottom feeders like those who assist the RIAA in trying to terrorize 10 year olds in order to force their mothers into submission.