Slashdot Log In
RIAA Drops Case In Chicago
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:44 AM
from the keystone-lawyers dept.
from the keystone-lawyers dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA has dropped the Elektra v. Wilke case in Chicago. This is the case in which Mr. Wilke had moved for summary judgment, stating that: '1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under. 2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded]. He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CDs owned by Mr. Wilke. 3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.' The RIAA's initial response to the summary judgment motion, prior to dropping the case, had been to cross-move for discovery, indicating that it did not have enough evidence with which to defeat Mr. Wilke's summary judgment motion. P2pnet had termed the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Says It Doesn't Have Enough Evidence 208 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Wilke, the Chicago RIAA case in which defendant Paul Wilke has moved for summary judgment, the RIAA has responded to the summary judgment motion by filing a motion for 'expedited discovery', alleging that it needs expedited pretrial discovery because it does not have sufficient evidence to withstand Mr. Wilke's motion. The RIAA's lawyer said: 'Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion.' The motion and supporting affidavit are available online."
[+]
Slashback: IceWeasel, Online Gambling, GPU Folding, Evolution 214 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: The facts about Debian Iceweasel; A closer look at Folding@home's GPU client; David Brin's lament; Online gambling ban may violate international law; Human species may do whatnow?; and Another RIAA lawsuit dropped. Read on for details.
[+]
RIAA Victims Bring Class Action Against Kazaa 288 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Chicago, Illinois, a Kazaa customer has filed a class action against Kazaa, Lewan v. Sharman, U.S.Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill 06-cv-6736. The lead plaintiff, Catherine Lewan, was a Kazaa customer who was sued by the RIAA for her use of Kazaa, and paid a settlement to the RIAA, and she sues on behalf of others in her position. In her complaint(pdf) she alleges, among other things, that Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads' (Complaint, par. 30); it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37); and it surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)."
[+]
RIAA Backs Down Again in Chicago 126 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City. It has once again backed down in BMG v. Thao, after suing a misidentified defendant. Same thing occurred last October in Elektra v. Wilke. In the Thao case, the RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber (pdf) of the ISP (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time."
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.
Counter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Counter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Counter? (Score:5, Insightful)
But he didn't lose, the case was dropped, "amicably". Nobody won, nobody lost. But the guy is still out his time and legal expenses. What if they'd searched his house, confiscated his equipment, sent him to the point of bankruptcy with legal fees and then went, "Ah, hah-hah, we
Or worse, at that point, they say, "Well, the evidence is shaky. But we've got the time and money to draaaag this out.We're very persistent, you know. We believe you're guilty of *something*. Care for an out-of-court , undisclosed, settlement?"
How many cases does the RIAA have to screw up like this before the law realises that they're out firing random lawsuits at people on the internet?
Re:Motion to continue a case? (Score:4, Informative)
Change in attitude? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Change in attitude? (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen. And understand. The RIAA is out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the dogs (Score:5, Funny)
Standards? (Score:2, Insightful)
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a set
Re: (Score:2)
So..... going from that, there might have been *cough* some little bit of guilt involved.
I wish some truly innocent person would counter-sue af
Re: (Score:2)
Arg!
Your Honor... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Mr. Wilke wouldn't be in this situation... (Score:3, Funny)
Try this as a regular citizen (Score:3, Interesting)
He was wealthy and able to fight, it was worth it to them just to drop it. The PR of actually losing the case would be much worse.
Spartacus (Score:3, Funny)
{stands up} No, I am Paule Wilke
{sits back down}
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! WTF have you been smoking? I cannot make heads nor tails of what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're doing the ball-less class-action suit, STOP F'ING BUYING CDs AND MUSIC and take away their bottomless pit of money. Right now they're raking in the dough so they can afford to pay plenty
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure
Congresscritters (Score:3, Funny)
I wish the 4 or 5 people that still use that Limbaugh-favoured term would stop doing so.
To me, a 'critter' is a fuzzy little (possibly annoying) animal or pest. Are vultures, sharks, sloths and blood-sucking leeches also called 'critte
Re:Congresscritters (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Informative)
Whose ass did you pull that number out of?
I rip my CDs with EAC and compress with LAME or aoTuV vorbis because that's the only way I know I'm getting good quality. So much stuff on the net is ripped in igorance. I use EncSpot to check over anything I do download and most of the time it reports sync errors and crapass encoders like Xing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped int
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you back that up? I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your ass. Like you, I can only speak of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to meet someone who downloads music he alre
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Funny)
You misspelled money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
here's one (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several potential avenues to explore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?
RIAA vs. Osama Bin Laden Aliscool, tonight, on THE PEOPLE'S COURT.
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it more immoral than the vast theft that was perpetuated on the public with each extension of the term of copyright? All those works were created, published and
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:4, Interesting)
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Leave it to the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes me wonder how much money they're losing if they're paying their attorneys and only getting a few grand here and there.
RIAA is funded by the same record companies that claim to be los
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you were being ironic, in which case, it's all in good fun.
They don't care about losing money. (Score:4, Informative)
Many people see "grandmother sued for $1,000,000 for downloading music on the internet" and will be afraid to download music unless the RIAA gives its blessing. The same thing with thing with the MPAA and movies. Though they pay lots of money to their attorneys, their point is made.
The RIAA filed a dismissal on the eve of a bad ruling against them. I had Mattel do the same with a libel claim, when the judge asked what was libelous, Mattel dropped it. They do this to prevent a bad ruling against them, because they will be stuck with that bad ruling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how you do it in civil court (Score:5, Informative)
In the event of a lawsuit like this, that's how you'd go about it. Off the top of my head I'd challenge if the listing was undoctored (since screenshots are easy to fake), if it was of the right client (many P2P networks will misreport what you have on accident sometimes), if they verified the contents of the files, if they verified that they were coming from the stated IP address, if the IP to account mapping was accurate and unaltered, and if there was a way to prove that nobody else was using my network. It's just pointing out all the levels of problems. So even if the judge/jury buys everything else is legit, they believe it is likely someone else was using my network.
You'll find in some civil cases there can be hundreds of responses as to why the plaintiffs are full of shit. It's just how the game is played. You throw out any and everything that is wrong with their case, and see what you can get to stick and shoot it down.
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:4, Funny)