Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:02 PM
from the well-why-didn't-you-tell-us-you-were-innocent dept.
Government Media Music The Courts Businesses News
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees 192 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
[+] News: New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA 144 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has gotten slammed again, this time in Oregon, as the Magistrate Judge in Atlantic v. Andersen has ruled that Tanya Andersen's motion for attorneys fees should be granted. The Magistrate, in his 15-page decision, noted that, despite extensive pretrial discovery proceedings, 'when plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....' and concluded that 'Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case.' This is the same case in which (a) the RIAA insisted on interrogating Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old girl at a face-to-face deposition, (b) the defendant filed RICO counterclaims against the record companies, and (c) the defendant recently converted her RICO case into a class action"
Submission: RIAA drops another case by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
[+] News: Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State? 200 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."
[+] News: BusinessWeek Takes On the RIAA 241 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "BusinessWeek magazine has gone medieval on the RIAA, recounting in grisly detail the cruel ordeal to which the RIAA has subjected a completely innocent defendant, Tanya Andersen of Oregon. Nobody can read the story and come to any other conclusion than that the RIAA and its lawyers are total jerks. Of course we've been reading about Atlantic v. Andersen on p2pnet.net and on my blog, and discussing it here, but there's something extra special about a mainstream publication like Business Week really letting them have it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

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

    by Coraon (1080675) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:04PM (#22236430)
    *waves hand* "I'm not the file sharer your looking for..."

  • Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:05PM (#22236438) Journal
    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.
    • 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:13PM (#22236538) Journal
        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 (Score:5, Informative)

          by mikelu (120879) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:25PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nuzak (959558) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:26PM (#22236698) Journal
          How about we stop buying their shit?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Yetihehe (971185)
            They will hit pirates harder because they will se decline in their profits.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by garcia (6573)
            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 (Score:5, Funny)

            by KefabiMe (730997) <garth@jhonorCOUGAR.com minus cat> on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:55PM (#22237060) Journal

            How about we stop buying their shit?

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

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

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2008, @02:27PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sammy baby (14909) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:24PM (#22236666) Journal
        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?

        • #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

        • 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.
          • 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.

            Nope. Wrong.

            "[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a

    • 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

    • Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dont shoot me (1230034) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:42PM (#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 (Score:4, Funny)

        by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @02:20PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by laird (2705)
      Let's ignore how we feel about the RIAA, and look at this as a technical issue. There's illegal file copying going on, and the RIAA wants to sue people who are doing it. What can they determine?

      The RIAA knows that someone at a given IP address at a given time was making songs available to others for free, because they can query the computer at that address and get back a list of songs on that computer, and they can download the songs and listen to them. So they can prove that IP address X had copyrighted fi
  • So when are they going to sue his daughter?

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

    by KublaiKhan (522918) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:06PM (#22236456) Homepage Journal
    "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?
    • 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.

  • Burden of proof... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:08PM (#22236476) Homepage Journal
    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... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:31PM (#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.

      • 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. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grilled-cheese (889107) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:09PM (#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".

  • Sue my daughter... (Score:3, Funny)

    by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:13PM (#22236550)
    Please!

    (yes, why didn't the defendant say that?)
  • 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... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mi (197448) <mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com> on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:17PM (#22236598) Homepage

    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?

  • something Interesting to check..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DCTooTall (870500) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:22PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DCTooTall (870500)
        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 logi

  • I'm not obligated to help you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Migraineman (632203) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:30PM (#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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by joe 155 (937621) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @02:08PM (#22237222) Journal
      "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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by swschrad (312009) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:33PM (#22236792) Homepage Journal
    "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.

  • The RIAA Has Moved That Its Claims Be Dropped (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @02:39PM (#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.

  • RIAA not stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtechie (244489) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @03:31PM (#22238272)
    For those wondering why the RIAA dropped this case, it's largely because they wanted to avoid any case law on this [ilrweb.com] 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.

    • Re:5th amendment? (Score:4, Informative)

      by areReady (1186871) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:20PM (#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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by MoFoQ (584566) on Wednesday January 30 2008, @01:23PM (#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).
      • 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.