Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else

Zonk posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-why-didn't-you-tell-us-you-were-innocent dept.

Music 195

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

*yawn* (1, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236422)

These guys are getting too much attention. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go away?

Maybe they'll go away? (3, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236470)

Hey, it works for extortionists. Once you pay them they never come back for more.

I wish... (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236472)

Not exactly the same, but it is a problem [xkcd.com] when other people are taking them seriously. Which means we kind of have to.

Re:*yawn* (5, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236480)

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?

Re:*yawn* (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236860)

If I had mod points I'd mod you down.

There is no worse enemy to man than his own apathy. People like you deserve what's coming to them. It's unfortunate that people turn a blind eye to circumstance befallen to someone else for when there is need to protect yourself from the vary same sharks, you'll be the one whining how cruel and unjust your fate is.

Re:*yawn* (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236954)

It's called a joke o_0 I don't like these guys any more than the rest, though this particular article just seems pretty pointless, it's like haha look how stupid the RIAA are, I mean we all know that, but what are we doing about it beyond pointing and laughing?

Re:*yawn* (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237424)

Simply because it is a war of ideas and of propaganda. When we no longer have to suffer [youtube.com] through such anti-piracy adverts, and when an industry doesn't heartlessly prosecute [torrentfreak.com] our children to make examples of them and extract a profit, then the war will be over.

The beautiful thing about the internet is that pointing and laughing leads to discussing and linking, which gets the issue out a lot quicker than knocking on doors would - what do you think we should do beyond that?

I don't even enjoy listening to music anymore (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237010)

I've begun associating CDs with fear so music isn't relaxing now, it just reminds me of thugs and court orders. The gentle wirl and hum of hard drives and fans has become much more pleasant to me.

Now I have to produce a criminal? (3, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237028)

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.

does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (5, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236430)

*waves hand* "I'm not the file sharer your looking for..."

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236678)

your --> you're dumbass.

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (1)

Blyss73usa (1067290) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236940)

I figured it would not be too long before someone said it...

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (4, Funny)

querist (97166) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237368)

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.

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (2, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237786)

well, they had to be smart enough to pass the bar exam, wait...Jack Thompson passed the bar...never mind.

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237882)

They're "minders" (trans: heavies involved in gruntwork and bodyguard duties), and I guess the mental exercises involved in their legal landmines could be considered a mindfield (sic).

Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238166)

Ours is the wisdom of solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.

And the "solomon" typo of BumbleFinger.

Stupid RIAA (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236438)

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.

Re:Stupid RIAA (2, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236488)

IANAL.. but I believe wrongful prosecution is only valid in criminal, not civil cases. In this case, the defendant's recourse would be to mount a counter suit, and add some sort of charge involving malicious persecution of something...

Re:Stupid RIAA (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236538)

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).

Re:Stupid RIAA (5, Informative)

mikelu (120879) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236686)

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

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

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237240)

Sweet! If they win we can all get free DRM encumbered MP3s!

Re:Stupid RIAA (5, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236698)

How about we stop buying their shit?

Re:Stupid RIAA (2, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236882)

They will hit pirates harder because they will se decline in their profits.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

mikelu (120879) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236990)

And by pirates, you mean anyone they suspect of downloading songs, or just someone they want to make an example of. Is there a good writeup somewhere on the net of the actual process the RIAA uses to decide who they prosecute? I realize this is going to spawn a host of sarcastic comments, but I'm totally serious here.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238182)

By pirates I mean RIAA::pirate

Re:Stupid RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236922)

Because they offer a good product (well, at least a small portion of their product is good).

Re:Stupid RIAA (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236996)

How about we stop buying their shit?

You can do that, and I suggest that you do, but they will just use it against us by saying that the decline in sales proves that people are pirating.

Win/lose situation?

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237054)

And no matter how hard they try to sue me, if I don't have anything of theirs on my computer, there's really not much they can do about it, now, is there?

I've been boycotting the RIAA for a while now. I mainly listen to foreign-language music, or instrumentals, or the old classics, or music from independent artists. I make a conscious effort to avoid anything that the RIAA might be involved in at all, specifically because of this nonsense.

The RIAA can blame the decline of a few sales per year directly on this boycott, which is specifically because of their asinine lawsuits. It's not much, I know, but it makes me immune from prosecution.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237738)

And no matter how hard they try to sue me, if I don't have anything of theirs on my computer, there's really not much they can do about it, now, is there?

Well, they could try to get laws passed forcing all internet users to pay them $5 per connection - I mean, such a concept got rave reviews here on social^h^h^h^h^h^hslashdot yesterday.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237824)

Be less expensive and less of a hassle than this current nonsense, anyway. And it could still be circumvented, with a bit of cleverness--consider, say, buying a single 'internet connection' for an apartment building, and setting up a network behind it, would share out this $5 fee over a large number of users.

Alternatively, a neighbourhood could set up a wifi grid with a similar arrangement. Might as well put those blasted HOAs that seem to be coming into so much vogue these days to some use, eh?

As usual, it's not a question of technology, but of cooperation and social networking. This requires that you speak to your neighbours and get out of the basement from time to time, o'course, but the sacrifice is worth it in the end.

Re:Stupid RIAA (5, Funny)

KefabiMe (730997) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237060)

How about we stop buying their shit?

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

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238090)

I know you're probably joking, but by pirating their wares you're effectively endorsing them.

Re:Stupid RIAA-Stupid ISP (5, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238250)

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

Then you're probably not on Comcast.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237134)

I would recommend, by the way, http://www.riaaradar.com for your music selection needs. Very useful to find out who's RIAA and who isn't.

Yeah! Let's drive RIAA affiliates out of business! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237500)

How about we stop buying their shit?

Done. [riaaradar.com] 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. [wknc.org] They're awesome. They even stream in ogg. Their playlist [wknc.org] is online too, so when you hear a song you like, it's easy to check for RIAA-ness. [riaaradar.com] 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, [slashdot.org] 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.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237692)

How about we stop buying consuming their shit?

FTFY.

It's not like it's food, water or shelter. It's amazing how much none of this stuff really matters when you couldn't care less about the product in any form or method of delivery.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237736)

How about we stop buying their shit?
What they don't blame on piracy they'll blame on a poor economy. In the mean time, they have a huge pile of money they can throw at politicians to help them create laws to maintain their antiquated business model.

They need to be fought, not suffocated.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238170)

I did that nearly (over?) a decade ago now. I also recommend the same to anyone that asks me.

My impetus was not this round of abusive suits, it was their blatant purchase of the DMCA, which I consider to be a much more heinous crime.

Re:Stupid RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236902)

We could help too.

Re:Stupid RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237200)

well... that might work in the short term.

but i still like my idea of just killing them. its a permenant solution. and way more entertaining. slap it on pay per view tv.

not to mention cheaper than wasting court time and giving lawyers money.

you can get 10 bullets for a penny!

Re:Stupid RIAA (4, Insightful)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236666)

I, also, am not a lawyer. So I googled this discussion of "malicious prosecution" [answers.com] , 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?

Re:Stupid RIAA (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236826)

#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.

A suit for malicious prosecution would be a civil matter. Hence, the standard would be a proponderence of the evidence. So you would only have to convince 12 jurors that the purpose was more likely improper than proper.

Probably incredibly difficult also.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237336)

A suit for malicious prosecution would be a civil matter. Hence, the standard would be a proponderence of the evidence. So you would only have to convince 12 jurors that the purpose was more likely improper than proper.

Probably incredibly difficult also.
Not really. The only reason for suing someone for copyright infringement that isn't improper is that you had a reason to believe you committed copyright infringement. So you would have to show that they had no reason to believe this. As soon as you have refuted any evidence that they bring for your copyright infringement (not to a degree to convince the judge, but to a degree that the then plaintiff who may have withheld information to the judge should know better), and they continue, then it is improper.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236866)

IANAL as well, but to be honest it would be dropped by #4. Opinion vs fact in a court of law. I'm sure if such a case was made it might not even hit the courts until someone tells the new crews, and even then it'd just be media hype. You probably can't even argue it since the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Re:Stupid RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236982)

Yeah, how about addressing element 3? They did have probably cause that this guy was the file sharer they were looking for. It was the IP address of his computer, in his house, that they were looking for.

You know how they should fix it? Next time they file the action, in the caption put the name of the guy they're suing (Daddy whatever his name is), AND "Jane Doe/John Doe, said names being fictitious and representing any additional unnamed users of IP address 0.0.0.0 on 1/1/01 (whatever the IP address and date were)

Seriously though, I hate how every time a technicality gets a case thrwon out, Slashdot throws a parade. Huh, you know whats funny? RIAA now has a great account of Daddy implicating his daughter as a file-sharer in public records. Now, that can't be used against her per say, but it means that the next time they catch her IP address and trace it back to Daddy's house, they'll know to file it against her, and in future lawsuits, they'll know to include a "Blah Blah Doe who also used Bill Bob's IP address at this time" the same way foreclosure proceedings are captioned against "any other tenants in possession"

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

louisadkins (963165) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237068)

I see, in my mind, a reporter scribbling down notes and coming back with "So, what you are saying is that the RIAA is a terrorist organization that is, partially, responsible for the worldwide recession?"

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

celle (906675) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237728)

#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.

Isn't that terrorism? Let's make use of the laws they helped put in to get rid of them.

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236878)

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?

If it's clearly negligent, yes, but in this case they got the correct house, and the parent is trying to play games, in my opinion.

Obligatory car analogy: Imagine if they could prove your car was used in a hit in run case, and that it wasn't stolen but started with the original keys. The cops are going to lean on you pretty hard until and unless you can point at someone else in the house you loaned the key to, right?

Similar thing here - if they can show for sure it's your internet connection responsible, then I think you got some 'splainin' to do.

Re:Stupid RIAA (5, Insightful)

dont shoot me (1230034) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236900)

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?

Re:Stupid RIAA (3, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237406)

What about if your daughter's bf comes over while you're out and they download or upload songs?

Face the grim reality of propably never having grandchildren ?-) Seriously, only on Slashdot...

Re:Stupid RIAA (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237538)

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?
They don't have to. In civil cases, the burden of proof is much less. If they have a large pile of evidence that you did what they claim you did, and you claim that it was actually someone that broke into your house (even though the police have no record of your reporting a break-in), you will lose the case.

Re:Stupid RIAA (0)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236930)

RIAA= Lawyers. Judges= lawyers who got a promotion. Do you see a pattern here? "justice" is what you want, legal is what you get.

Hokku (-1, Troll)

Romwell (873455) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236442)

RIAA gets bashed on slashdot... News at 11. Frist p0st !

Re:Hokku (-1, Offtopic)

Romwell (873455) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236540)

Maybe not first post, but the first time I got modded Troll ! *proud*

Sue the daughter (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236448)

So when are they going to sue his daughter?

Re:Sue the daughter (1)

PurpleZebra (1201249) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237186)

If they sued the daughter, assuming she is underage, wouldn't the parent be held responsible?

Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. (5, Interesting)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236456)

"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?

Re:Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236780)

does this sort of thing extend to children?

Of course not, you fucking shit-head.

Re:Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237014)

Yes, I think that's true. You can't be expected to be a compellable and co-operative witness against yourself, your spouse, or your children.

IANAL.

Re:Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238100)

IANALBWLAO (IANAL + But Watch Law And Order, lol). But seriously, between a husband and wife, it's called Spousal Privilege. The spousal privilege is a combination of two elements: 1) the right not to be compelled to testify against one's spouse, and 2) the protection of marital confidences (link [lawandfiction.com] ). It should be noted that there are at least a few cases when spousal privilege does not apply, such as if the crime is committed against the spouse or children.

I've never heard of it applying to the parent-child relationship. I searched a bit and found an article about two New York trials that found they could not support such a privilege. I'm not sure why, but the first time I went to the link [findlaw.com] I was able to read the text, but now I have to log in to see. Regardless, I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to children.

5th amendment? (0)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236466)

"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."

I know things called "rules" are hard for you guys at the RIAA, but there's this one thing called the 5th amendment. I recommend you check it out. It's a good read.

Re:5th amendment? (4, Informative)

areReady (1186871) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236626)

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.

Re:5th amendment? (4, Informative)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236662)

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).

Re:5th amendment? (1)

querist (97166) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237298)

To quote MoFoQ "And that Congress declares the RIAA as racketeering bunch of a-holes....(under RICO)."

Riiiiiiiiight. In an election year?

(amusing note: the captcha is "saviors")

Re:5th amendment? (1)

Socguy (933973) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236762)

I believe it also applies to not incriminating ones' spouse, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that not incriminating your own child would fall under the 5th amendment. Although I agree that a lie is not covered, just silence.

Re:5th amendment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237102)

I thought it was only perjury if you lie under oath, lying to the police could probably be obstruction of justice though. But is there "obstruction of justice" in civil cases? Did the police actually investigate this?

Burden of proof... (5, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236476)

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.

Re:Burden of proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236622)

In criminal cases, you have innocent until proven guilty. In civil cases, it is often the case that the defendant must prove they are not guilty.

Re:Burden of proof... (4, Informative)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236766)

Uh, not quite. The standard of proof is lower. In a criminal case the standard is 'Beyond a Resonable Doubt' [wikipedia.org] . With civil, it is 'Preponderance of Evidence' [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:Burden of proof... (1, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236718)

"I was under the impression that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff." That's OK, lots of people don't know the difference between civil and criminal cases.

Re:Burden of proof... (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236964)

Civil law In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
Source [wikipedia.org]

Only they could get away with it. (5, Insightful)

grilled-cheese (889107) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236496)

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".

These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236506)

"I'm sorry sirs, you have the wrong file sharer. The one you want is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC. His name is Bush, George Bush. He's got plenty of money; don't worry about that!"

Sue my daughter... (2, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236550)

Please!

(yes, why didn't the defendant say that?)

Hmm... (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236588)

I don't know if their motion is all that interesting, really.... Isn't there some precedent for this sort of behavior in civil cases (defendant was actually shielding another party)? That's not, of course, to say that they should have filed the suit in the first place.

Pointless beating around the bush... (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236598)

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?

Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236682)

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

Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236716)

Perhaps, our distinguished editors...

You're new around here, aren't you?

Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22236798)

agreed 100%. This constant adolescent whining about how TEH EVIL MAFIAAA ARE TEH EVIL is quite pathetic. If I wanted to read thinly disguised pre-school level bullshit attempts to defend piracy I'd go to digg.

Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (1)

rholland356 (466635) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236812)

Amen to that, bruddah.

All God's children everywhere should go forth, each of us, to make our own music to share with the rest of the world. And let the world judge the value of that music, for if we are all of us spending our days making music to share freely, then greed and theft become no more than lyrical codas.

Make the music, bruddas and sistas. And toil in the fields as you sing, for the corporatist farmers have gone off to make music as well, and a tuneful soul is a hungry soul. And we shall all spend our days in the fields, working for food and singing our songs. And in the evening, we all go to the temple to record and upload our songs, to share with all.

The Age of Aquarius is upon us, then, in the form of musical communism.

Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237776)

"Copyright infringement is wrong, like stealing," and for others to claim: "No, it is not exactly the same as stealing, and therefore good."


You have the argument wrong. Actually you have it closer to right than most people, but still a grievous error. "Copyright infringement is like stealing" and others claim: "No, it is not stealing" and others claim "It is not stealing, and completely unrelated, it is good for these reasons". Let me explain.

  • Copyright infringement is stealing
  • No it isn't
  • Yes it is, you're taking something that isn't yours
  • Stealing is taking tangible objects
  • You don't have the right to take a copy, but you took one, without permission.
  • If I copied your car, without permission, would you care? Would you even notice?
  • l0l I'll takes what I wants, pwn3d j00 R144 DIAF n00b!


Someone who says copyright infringement isn't stealing isn't necessarily saying it's good. Copyright infringement is a separate class of activity from stealing, and is punished differently. The people on the "It's stealing" side assume that if you're saying it's not theft, you're implying that it's not wrong (legally or ethically), and they don't seem to be able to get over that part enough to see the rest of the argument.

Calling copyright infringement stealing muddies the waters, *especially* since the fines for C.I. are so much higher than stealing, and the threshold of evidence needed is so much lower. C.I. is not stealing, it's (legally) WORSE. And there's the problem, the argument happens simultaneously in legal definitions, ethics, economics, and probably other stuff, and no one will just focus and have a good debate.

Legally - C.I. is WORSE than stealing (see the harsher penalties as evidence)
Economically - from the individual's perspective, they get stuff for free, but it hurts the market - is this a good or bad thing? Should the market exist in the first place?
Ethically - it's a personal decision, people differ Clearly that last guy there really isn't into the legal or economic argument

something Interesting to check..... (2, Interesting)

DCTooTall (870500) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236648)

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.

Re:something Interesting to check..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237454)

They claim to represent the rightful copyright owners of the music, so in their view, how could they be infringing anything? It's theirs.

Re:something Interesting to check..... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237558)

Why would that be interesting? The artist would have no recourse, because they've signed their rights to the labels.

It'd be no more interesting than "it'd be interesting to see if cops ever broke the law".

Re:something Interesting to check..... (2, Insightful)

DCTooTall (870500) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237922)

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.

Re:something Interesting to check..... (1)

homesteader (585925) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237970)

First off, there are plenty of artists who haven't signed away ALL of their rights, though they may not be with major labels. Secondly, it would be interesting because if an RIAA lawyer actually mounted a successful defense against an independent artist, the same legal approach might be usable against the RIAA. Assuming we are talking about an artist that has retained/aquired the same copyright that the RIAA defends for the majors.

What would be REALLY interesting is if the RIAA as an ORGANIZATION could be found to be infringing the copyrighted works of an independent via p2p, and what kind of defense they would mount. Of course the independent would have to resist the temptation of a payout.

Like a father will actually turn in his daughter. (1)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236710)

These people are fucking insane. I would have done the same thing and not "tattled" on my daughter. Yeah, let's turn family member against family member. These people need to be taken out back "behind the woodshed" for a "talk".

Re:Like a father will actually turn in his daughte (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236764)

Yep, two goes out behind the woodshed, but only one comes back - guess who'd that be?

Hint: Daughter couldn't be without a Daddy, now could she?

The key to beating the RIAA... (1)

Zebraheaded (1229302) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236730)

Hire the lawfirm of Guinness and McGregor

I'm not obligated to help you (4, Interesting)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236756)

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.

Re:I'm not obligated to help you (5, Funny)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237222)

"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

it's the "I'm an asshole" defense by RIAA (2, Interesting)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236792)

"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.

Taxpayer's money (1)

EvilGrin5000 (951851) | more than 5 years ago | (#22236868)

Is anyone even counting how much waste of taxpayer's money is going to give the RIAA time in civil courts? How much money, funding, time and resources have they wasted in these frivolous charges? Is there a governing body that oversees the just use of public courts? Probably not but I mean, I'm not only angry at their stupid bull-headed thinking and their obvious strive to make money off of the misery of unsuspecting victims. Even the financial market has put a serious black dot on them saying that when a company stops inventing and starts suing to make money, it's time to let go and sell sell sell.

I mean seriously, why is the RIAA even allowed such blatant abuse of civil courts?

I am not a lawyer, but would a lawyer point to some answers about this abuse? We could all use the info. Maybe next time we write our congressmen, representatives or legislators, we can include more educated information and opinions about this particular topic.

My $0.02

Squeal or else! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22237018)

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? Whatever happened to concepts like "probable cause", "reasonable basis" or "good faith belief" before you sue someone? Not only should the RIAA be made to pay the defendant's attorney's fees when they've been shown to have sued the wrong person, they should also be paying for the taxpayer related court costs incurred by their frivilous lawsuit.

The RIAA Has Moved That Its Claims Be Dropped (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237660)

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.

So if he told them (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237674)

that his daughter was the one - then he still would have had to pay? Or would his daughter have had that on her when she started earning money? I think that in either case that guy was right to remain silent.

obligatory obi-wan (0, Redundant)

TheSpengo (1148351) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237770)

*waves hand* This is not the file sharer you are looking for. He can go about his business. Move along...

Lava? (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#22237916)

In the case of Lava v. Amurao...
Man... I wish MY last name was "Lava."

Knowingly Suing The Wrong Person... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#22238220)

Knowingly suing the wrong person - and the RIAA knows that, at best, they've only found the ISP account holder - should be the cause of severe sanctions against both the RIAA, and the judge who let's this case continue a moment longer than necessary. Either the RIAA shows evidence tying the person sued to the actual infringing user and computer at the time of filing, or they have no case, and no right to extort innocent broadband account holders. This close-enough-for-government-work, let-us-poke-around-long-enough-and-I'm-sure-we'll-uncover-something approach has to end!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?