Slashdot Log In
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Dec 07, 2006 07:56 PM
from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept.
from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Has to Disclose Attorneys Fees In Foster Case 193 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records by March 26, 2007, in Capitol v. Foster in Oklahoma. The 4- page decision and order, issued in connection with the determination of the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's attorneys fees, requires the RIAA to produce the attorneys' time sheets, billing statements, billing records, and costs and expense records. The Court reviewed authorities holding that an opponent's attorneys fees are a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees, quoting a United States Supreme Court case which held that 'a party cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by his opponent in response' (footnote 11 to City of Riverside v. Rivera)."
[+]
RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan 328 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."
[+]
First New Dismissal Motion Against RIAA Complaint 155 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Several weeks ago it was discovered that a California federal judge, in rejecting an RIAA application for default judgment, had dismissed the RIAA's standard complaint for failure to state a claim, calling it "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation" in Interscope v. Rodriguez. In the wake of that decision a New York woman being sued in Brooklyn federal court, Rae J Schwartz, has told the Court that she is making a motion to dismiss the complaint in her case, Elektra v. Schwartz. This is the first post-Interscope challenge to the RIAA's boilerplate, of which we are aware. This is the same case in which the RIAA had sent a letter to the Judge falsely indicating that AOL had 'confirmed that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed'. Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
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.
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: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:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. There was never any question as to the state of the RIAA's morals.
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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?
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)
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)
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
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:3, Insightful)
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: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)
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?
The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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>
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!)
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.
Re:Can we leave appeal to emotion at the door ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the other way arou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:uhoh (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
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:
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)
That is correct - they only have one customer left now.