RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not anywhere near knowing the law well (let alone U.S. law), but isn't there anything bad that can happen to RIAA for what they're doing? I'm speaking about something more than just losing a case. There were dozens of stories describing they're practices... I know that sueing someone every other Tuesday is your national tradition, but there have got to be some ways of scareing those bastards away.
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:5, Informative)
I do think that the rule of law is our crown jewel, and is the bedrock of our democracy, and that in our common law system the law evolves in part through judicial decisionmaking. Respect for law, to my mind, suggests that we should respect the courts, and not litter them with frivolous litigation as the RIAA has done.
I am hopeful that the judges will take action against these bullies.
Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster [riaalawsuits.us], where the judge has the opportunity to hit them with a big attorneys fee award, and Elektra v. Barker [riaalawsuits.us], where the judge is considering whether the RIAA even has a sufficient claim to warrant filing a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all the people I know only 2 had anything to do with courts. One was a dispute over who's the rightful owner of some land (it wasn't clear, cause some grandparents said "all of you have 1/6 of our land" to t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an American living in Switzerland, and I often have this discussion with people. The usual european consensus is American's are lawsuit crazy.
After seeing both sides of the fence, it's my opinion that America does have too many lawsuits, and could use some kind of mechanism or fine tuning to reduce the misjudgements, over-awarding, and frivolous lawsuits. On the other hand, Switzerland at least could stand to move a little more in America's direction in this regard. My impression is this is true o
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
eg: The RIAA have tried to sue people who have never owned a computer or an Internet account for file swapping. Firstly, this would appear to be trivially-resolvable by any competent arbitrator, it most definitely does not need to be demanding vast amounts of time from an already-overloaded court system. Secondly, it is the understanding of us non-lawyers that the worst the RIAA can get for wasting the time and money of the legal system is a rap on the knuckles for a frivolous lawsuit - the defendant is most unlikely to be reimbursed for time and costs involved - which directly implies that it is cheaper to sue first and ask questions later.
Because the rewards are perceived to be high (whether they are in practice or not) and the risks are perceived to be low (ditto), the courts appear to have become the first resort, not the last resort. No matter how unjustified such a perception may be in reality, it is nonetheless the perception that has arisen and that is seriously damaging to the credibility of the system as a whole.
Personally, I would like to see the courts have greater power to call bull - whether by the plaintiff or the defendant - and greater flexibility in the handling of what can only be called abuse of court. That should include the ability to impose fines or jail time on plaintiffs (or defendants) even outside of the frivolous lawsuit mechanism or the final verdict. There may also be problems with the public defender system, as they have developed rather a bad reputation over the years. If the courts need to supervise such people, then they should be given the power to do so.
Does this impinge on a person's right to a trial? No. I'm not saying anything about denying a person a right to a trial, but rather that such a right does NOT imply a right to a trial first, OR a right to use the mere act of having a trial as a means of inflicting punishment on a person if that person is innocent, and certainly does not imply a right to use the courts for entertainment or get-rich-quick purposes.
(That second one is tough. Time is money. Even if all other expenses are either taken care of or reimbursed afterwards, if a person is in court and is not on the court's payroll, then they are not at work. For low-income individuals or individuals who don't have much of a buffer for whatever reason, this can make it impossible for that person to argue their case meaningfully or - in some cases - at all. I don't know how you can easily close that loophole, but this is essentially a denial-of-service attack, and the courts should never tolerate being used as a weapon. They are there to judge on matters of law, they are not there as a cheap alternative to hiring a hitman.)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Our democracy has been a beacon of light in many respects to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, while we may have led the way, we are presently ourself lagging in many respects (Compare, e.g. 2004 elections in Ohio and the Ukraine).
Our right to a jury trial is one of the most expensive and inefficient things we have; but it is also perhaps the most beautiful thing we have.
A few good rulings from some of these judges, and we'll all feel better again.
Just because one monstrous litigant is abusing the court system right now doesn't mean that the relatively easy access to the courts which our country provides should be scrapped.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:4, Interesting)
The other thing I noticed is the connection times are all over the place, most people are more habitual, so my Hockey-meter is reading high here and saying the account is hacked! My wife knows what times her internet buddies come on and go off line. Maybe you should ask AOL if they allow two logins on the same account and if they don't if keep track of failed login attempts.
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:4, Funny)
Are you kidding? We'll correct you even if you're right!
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I love it. I'm an egalitarian kind of guy, who comes from a family where there was nothing we enjoyed more than a good argument. So I find it amusing when a Slashdotter tries to tell me I'm wrong when I've been in this field for more than 32 years, and the person telling me has never even opened a law book. And the funny thing is, I wouldn't mind it in the least if he or she were actually right, and could prove me wrong, or teach me something, or could actually back up his or her opinion with authority or information....
But I'll go back to what I said [slashdot.org] after my September Slashdot interview [slashdot.org], and the rough-and-tumble "Q&A" that ensued, where I was viciously excoriated for (a) telling people that there was not yet a definitive answer to their question, (b) telling them that the law was contrary to what they thought it was, and (c) being 'short' with user ID's I suspected of use by RIAA trolls:
Perjury? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what we have here is 4 possibilities:
1) the RIAA committed perjury and will probably get away with no punishment
2) the RIAA lied to the court (not under oath) and will probably never
Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you see what the submitter is trying to say? She has a dreadful disease, therefore she can't possibly be guilty! Get with the program, dude!
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this will not happen.
-nB
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it sort of does. When you have MS, you can have "relapses" or "attacks" that increase the severity of your disability. These can be triggered by disease (colds, influenza, etc), or stressful events.
Needless to say, having to go through the ordeal of a trial may cause her disease to get worse. So it sort of does have an inhumane quality if she really did pirate music. Even so: couple thousand dollars, or potentially make the person you're suing degenerate further into a permanent and debilitating disease... sort of calls their morals into question, eh?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. There was never any question as to the state of the RIAA's morals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes this could definitely fly. The courts routinely consider the health of people before submitting them to a trial and/or prison. Even people in prison are very commonly released when in very poor health.
Missing comma (Score:3, Insightful)
(Here goes my karma, but...)
C'mon. What we're dealing with here is (deliberately?) bad English, where a left-out comma changes the meaning of a sente
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
if this not that
this and that
she now understands.
neuron's start popping when I go or, xor, xnor, and to some extent nand.
The problem is that in "plain 'ol english" the word or is often interpreted as xor. Really a parser error. Anyone got the wife.parser.1.1b patch?
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's no rollback option - I'm just stuck waiting for a 2.0 release. My support contract for 1.x doesn't cover this upgrade, so it's going to be hugely expensive. If you've got a functional 1.0, stick with it - just work around the parser bugs.
-Graham
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it's cake or death... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe that Eddie Izzard [wikiquote.org] asked it best, "Cake or Death"?
Is it any worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why the RIAA gets a pass on their outrageous claims of looking out for musicians...that's a complete fabrication since the RIAA does not work for recording artists, they work for recording distribution companies. But a lady with MS is pounded on?
But I do expect that corporations and officers of the court to tell the truth in a statement to the judge. The lady didn't lie when she had MS, but the RIAA lied when it said it had a special letter from AOL. And your concern is for the fact that the lady brings up MS? Maybe you want to tear into Michael J Fox, too?
I mean, separate the BS from the facts. Here they are as I read them:
RIAA: Hey lady, you committed copyright infringment
Lady: No I didn't, I don't even hook up to the internet the way you claim. Your honor, please throw this out
RIAA: Your honor, we have the actual proof from AOL
Judge: In that case, no.
Lady: Let me see the letter.
RIAA: Uh... here?
Lady: It doesn't say anything about me. In fact, it keeps mentioning something about a Wookie on Endor. What does that mean?
Ignore the MS part. This is what we have. If the judge threw the lawyer in jail for a week and sanctioned him, along with a few RIAA execs every time they lied, I suspect this kind of behavior would stop in about 20 seconds.
It's not irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.
On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.
-GiH
Not a Lawyer (yet).
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Attribution is no excuse.
The fact is, you did steal that argument.
Think of all the karma-starved slashdot posters - how are slashdot posters going to feed their families if they can't be compensated with the karma they deserve for the work they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you agree or disagree, I think the common theme with these stories is that the RIAA will stop at nothing to enforce their will. The last two stories I remember seeing were 1). about how the RIAA was prosecuting the family of the recently deceased, and 2). About how that the president of either the RIAA or MPAA looked the other way
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What can I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably with the judge ruling in favor of RIAA since they most likely have the government in their pocket anyways. =(
Re:What can I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
1) a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access a
lying in court? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a reason they don't hold lawyers accountable for stuff like this under penalties similar to perjury? If not, why the hell not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a lie. (Score:2)
What did they state?
confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Break that statment into it's component parts: AOL has provided a letter stating that the defendant owned an interenet account || through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Unpacking that statment lead
Original quote with sloppy sentence construction (Score:5, Interesting)
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact."
Lawyers love to use long sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The above actually contains several "facts" lumped together.
1) "Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account "
2) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
3) "the internet access account through which hundreds of
Number 1) is substantiated by the AOL letter, assuming that one accepts that having an IP assigned for a set time period (i.e. a few hours) to an account holder is equivalent to owning the internet access account in question. I doubt that number 2 can be proved, unless the screenshot giving the IP address actually showed the files being downloaded. The defendent could just as easily have uploaded them to her computer from CDs. Number 3 is a pretty straight-forward claim; however, it is not substantiated by AOL's letter.
Of course, the way the sentence is structured, all three claims are lumped together so that the sentence can be construed to mean that either the AOL letter confirms just the account ownership or that it confirms ownership AND downloading AND distributing. Such a sentence structure lets them give the wrong impression to the judge without saying anything that can be proven to be false (at worst, it can shown to be ambiguous). This gives an easy win if the Judge misunderstands and still allows them to claim that they didn't lie if they are caught-only that the sentence was misunderstood.
To top it off, the second sentence quoted above is a claim by the RIAA which basically says the defendant hasn't already said something contradicting the claim in the previous sentence (notice they say claim, not claims). This is bogus because they could claim that the lady committed murder and hasn't disputed it (which would technically be true until the defense hears the claim and can say how absurd it is!) Of course the lady's attorney disputed the misunderstood claim pretty much as soon as they got a hold of the AOL letter (that is what the article is about).
I suppose if the judge gets pissed, he can chew out the plaintiffs for sloppy writing and maybe even censure them for making misrepresentations, but not perjury.
Kinda funny though, how the article doesn't mention that the lady has a teenage daughter with friends who used the computer
(see counterclaim 27 at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=ele
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Which lawyer, though? The RIAA lawyer who left out a comma, or the defendant's lawyer who plays stupid and deliberately interprets the sentence as if RIAA claims that AOL verified the download, despite it being quite clear that all it is is a missing comma?
I sure wouldn't want the latter lawyer to ever represent me.
Yes, RIAAs lawyer should be slapped for being clumsy, but
Re: (Score:2)
uhoh (Score:2)
Re:uhoh (Score:4, Informative)
Grab gun... shoot foot. (Score:2)
Ms Schwartz needs... (Score:5, Funny)
Ms. Schwartz needs a stern talking to [wired.com].
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the RIAA has probable cause to continue litigation because AOL did in fact correlate an IP that downloaded the music to the defendant. It doesn't prove anything but the RIAA still should have the right to continue with the lititgation, as much as it pains me to say it.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the problem here. Maybe I need someone to clear it up or just put on the 'Evil RIAA' blinders that I guess I'm supposed to wear when reading slashdot.
Mischaracterization (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's do this:
"RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account[,] through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' "
The simple addition of a comma changes the meaning. The letter confirms the defendant owned an access account, and the RIAA claims they can prove t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example,
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
All the AOL letter says is "To the best of our knowledge, here are the people who were using these IP addresses at these times." You are correct in that it's pretty good evidence that she has an AOL account.
The problem is, the RIAA said that the letter confirmed that "defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." The letter alone does no such thing. When a defendant's motion is denied based on materially false claims made by the plaintiff, I would certainly hope that the decision would be reviewed. If there is sufficient evidence that actually links the IP address to illegal activity occurring at that time, then the decision will stand.
Not that I want to defend the RIAA but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that something "confirms" something is not the same as saying that it has a specific statement. If they have a witness who can testify as to how the internet works and that packets were received from that IP address at that time, then guess what?
You guessed it, the letter would then "confirm that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed."
Jeez, you'd think we were biased against the RIAA or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The letter says she was the account using that IP address at that second.
Where do you get the idea that someone else had the same IP address at that time?
That's not what the letter says, and that's not how the internet works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "network address translation". Every home-networking router out there supports it. Even if they didn't, what AOL is saying in that letter is that a specific user account had those IP addresses leased at a particular time. That does not mean that a specific person was using that account. Usually the router or network connection's configured with the appropriate account information, and anyone using the computer will use that connection. The RIAA's claim isn't that the user account did the downloa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. But you're just throwing out a possibility. No one has said that the Plaintiff (an AOL user) was using NAT. There could be all kinds of defenses that she might have. But you don't get your case thrown out by saying that a hypothetical person MIGHT have a defense. You have to actually put up the defense first. That's what trials are for.
what AOL is saying in that letter is that a specific user account had those IP addresses leased at a particular t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they do though. As far as I know this is a pretty established issue in civil law already. As the owner of the account, and the sole control of access to it, she can be held liable for anything done with it. If you loan someone your car and they are involved in an accident you can be sued for damages even if
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but many of the comments here are people saying "Oooooh teh RIAA i2 lyears!"
Which according to the summary they aren't necessarily.
Should the judge require them to produce an affidavit to go with that letter? Yes. But it doesn't mean they lied about anything.
Re:Not that I want to defend the RIAA but... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. They don't have anything together before filing their case.
2. They lie all the time to strengthen their case.
Scary (Score:4, Interesting)
Incorrect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA says, "Muuahhahaha!" (Score:4, Interesting)
Like a dog that has been beat for no good reason, less tech savvy computer users will simply follow the entertainment conglomerates bizarre rules out of fear and never consider that the Doctrine of First Sale still applies to their entertainment media regardless if it's in a downloadable package or not.
I've been thinking I should start a simple parent's guide to the Doctrine of First Sale so smart parents aren't teaching their kids stupid RIAA tricks. Yes? No? Is there one already out there?
Re:First Sale Doctrine! (Score:2)
You can do lots of things with it that Apple/Microsoft/... don't want to acknowledge and are very motivated to eliminate.
1. First-sale Doctrine
The courts said, "We held that the exclusive statutory right to vend applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work..." Treats the music like software. You own it despite what the mega-corps would have you believe. http://cr.yp. [cr.yp.to]
The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between lying and presenting your client's side of things. If my client tells me his story, and I don't have concrete proof the contrary, then presenting that sto
Re: (Score:2)
That's because doctors bury their screwups six feet under ground.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wrong, lawyers are salespeople. (Score:2)
As soon as a lawyer accepts a fee or agrees to accept a payment from a client he/she ceases to be a officer of the court and becomes a mear peddler of their clients version of the truth.
The only way to have them return to being true 'officers of the court' is to have them paid directly by the state. Sort of like doctors in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increas
"Copyrighted material" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone else fed up with this phrase? Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted. Everything on my website is copyrighted. The Xen kernel I just download is copyrighted. The ISOs of FC6 I just downloaded consist of thousands of copyrighted programs.
My webhost, for example, displays a warning every time I ssh in that says it's a violation of the terms of service to store "copyrighted materials" on the server. Like a smartass I emailed them a few times and asked if that meant I would have to release my songs in the public domain and why they violate that by storing/using copyrighted tools (the Linux system, Apache, etc), but didn't get any replies.
This almost pisses me off as much as calling copyright infringement "piracy".
</rant>
Payments (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, AOL only gave a list of names associated with IP addresses, so how does that translate to "This user downloaded music with these IP addresses at these dates"? Some justice.
She is using AOL! (Score:2, Funny)
Oops (Score:2)
It's too bad the lawyers for the defendant called the ISP "American Online [ilrweb.com]" on page 2. I'm sure they're technical savvy guys, but really.... "American Online" ?
Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)
That is correct - they only have one customer left now.
What the letter means (Score:3, Funny)
happy to see that someone else actually appreciates the Joni Mitchell collection they've complied
"172.143.208.80" on "2005-11-26" at "01:48:14 EST" is:
wondering if MSgurl2459 is really as edgey as her taste in 3-6 Mafia seems to be. Wonders if MS stands for Microsoft (ooh a cute nerd chick!)
How about something new? (Score:2, Funny)
1. If consumers like you, they will buy more of your product.
2. If you stop suing consumers, they will hate you less.
3. If you create something new, consumers will be more inclined to buy your products.
4. If you create something that's not easy to steal, people won't steal it so much.
Here's something new that I (a consumer) would LOVE to buy. The tools for this idea are already widely available and used by almost everyone.
Take a Wii with that new style nunchuck co
Bologna (Score:3, Insightful)
Defendant's October 28, 2006 letter also provides no basis for a motion for summary judgment. Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent.
AOL confirmed that the Defendant was the owner of the account. The rest of the sentence describes the account and is not a statement that AOL confirmed what the account was being used for.
This should be fairly obvious to most people who can read English.
Accountability (Score:2)
I wonder? (Score:2)
Re:Can we leave appeal to emotion at the door ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the other way around. The more terrible they seem the more ground they gain in the PR realm (actually, fear campaign) thereby making it less likely that they will ever protect their IP in anything resembling a reasonable manner. This isn't about justice, it's not about prot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly right. Why doesn't the press ever point out that the RIAA does not represent the artist? It represents the people who distribute music, i.e. the middleman.
BMI & ASCAP actually represents songwriters and composers (i.e. artists), and while I don't agree completely with their full agenda, so far they have managed to not sue music fans.
Perhaps the RIAA is suing fans because they've already sucked the artist dry? Who knows.
It *IS* relevant, but not to whether she's guilty. (Score:2)
In this case, having MS is relevant because the stress from the lawsuit can worsen her disease. You're right that it's not relevant to whether or not she infringed upon their copyright, but it is relevant to how heartless they are in prosecuting the cases of someone who can't afford to defend herself without these pro bono (free as in beer) lawyers who are volun
Re:Wierd ip (Score:5, Insightful)
I.e., RIAA gave AOL a list of IP addresses (they may also have given them a list of times, but I suspect not). AOL responded with a time that those addresses were in use.
So, RIAA *said* that AOL had confirmed that she was a file sharer. What AOL *actually* said was only that she used that IP address, once, at a certain time.
AOL may be able to correlate that to their own records, saying that a certain IP address was downloading material at a certain time. Or not.
(OT) (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)