Slashdot Log In
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Jan 30, 2008 02:02 PM
from the well-why-didn't-you-tell-us-you-were-innocent dept.
from the well-why-didn't-you-tell-us-you-were-innocent dept.
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."
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"
[+]
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:does the jedi mind trick work on the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
I'll leave the determination of the answer to the parent poster's question as an exercise for the reader.
Parent
Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Its time to fight fire with fire
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. I'm pirating as fast as I can!
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA-Stupid ISP (Score:5, Funny)
Then you're probably not on Comcast.
Parent
Yeah! Let's drive RIAA affiliates out of business! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
#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?
Parent
Oh, suuure, they'd have listened. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Burden of proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Parent
Only they could get away with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not obligated to help you (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not obligated to help you (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, thanks for covering for me
Parent
RIAA not stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they'll go away? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:*yawn* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:5th amendment? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:5th amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Parent
Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Squeal or else! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent