backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Open Minded.. on Oct 4 at 1:20 PM


The RIAA's days of getting guilty verdicts rubber stamped is at an end.  (Source: images.jupiterimages.com)
The RIAA loses a precedent-setting case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, in Southern California.

A judge in Southern California made no friends in the RIAA when she handed down a precedent-setting verdict that cleared the defendant all charges in the case Interscope v. Rodriguez.

Since the early days of P2P file-sharing the RIAA has made a questionable name for itself as a legal bulldog, issuing thousands of lawsuits against individuals each year. 

Typically the RIAA accused these individuals of downloading and/or distributing copyrighted works.  These statements often were followed by little evidence and sometimes came against people that had no apparent access to a computer.

One such case occurred in 2005 when the RIAA took up a case against 83-year-old deceased great-grandmother in West Virginia.  The RIAA was unaware that the woman had passed away in December, 2004.  Ironically, her daughter testified that her mother did not ever own a computer, and had no access to one.

After the case gained national attention, the RIAA issued the foot-in-mouth reply, "Our evidence gathering and our subsequent legal actions all were initiated weeks and even months ago.  We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case."

Since then the RIAA has continued to take individuals to court, many of whom settled out of court privately, for thousands of dollars.

The Interscope v. Rodriguez was considered a typical RIAA case “boilerplate” complaint.  The RIAA accused the defendant, Yolanda Rodriguez, of downloading and distributing copyrighted works, but did not offer any specific evidence or proof of its claims.

As the defendant did not present himself in court, a default judgment ruling was held.  The presiding judge, Judge Brewster, shocked the RIAA by not only denying a default monetary judgment, but also completing dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.

Judge Brewster is on record as stating:
"Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant.
However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate this allegation is anything more than speculation.

The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant.

The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted."
This is a landmark ruling, as new defendants will now have some legal precedent and successful framework to challenge the RIAA in court.

The RIAA has made a name for itself by continually coming up with creative new ways of trying to make money of music listeners, via litigation and marketing gimmicks.  It has tried everything from lawsuits, to "ringles" its new ringtone-single campaign, to make up for falling record sales.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow
By HakonPCA on 9/14/2007 3:54:53 PM , Rating: 5
Wow...a CA judge actually made a judgement that used some common sense!!

Thank you!




RE: Wow
By ajfink on 9/14/2007 3:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
True, they don't have the greatest record when it comes to making common sense rulings, but they made a good one here. It makes sense, RIAA does little more than say "they distributed songs online" and expects people to pay up. This won't stop the lawsuits, though, just make RIAA have their act together when they walk into the courtroom rather than expecting default judgments.


RE: Wow
By marvdmartian on 9/14/2007 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 5
Well, I'd still expect them to come out with the same BS lawsuit threats in the future, because they know that most people on p2p are uninformed, and will cave in when threatened.
For those that won't, the RIAA will be forced to actually PROVE that person's guilt....which may not be as easy as you think. Granted, you might prove that the person is willing to share copyrighted works, by the simple fact that they have p2p software on their computer, but you'd get as far with that as you would with saying that anyone that owns a firearm is capable of robbing a store, then trying to sue (or arrest) them because the store got robbed. Intent or capability is not the same as the actual act of theft.
Pretty much, unless they can prove that Joe Schmoe was the exact person who allowed X number of bits of data from a copyrighted material to be downloaded from their computer to another person, then they're going to have a tough sell in any court with a lick of sense. While the burden of proof isn't quite as tough in civil court as it is in criminal court (take OJ Simpson for example), you still cannot win your case simply on the fact that the person was capable of sharing, and willing to do so, without some pretty compelling evidence that they actually did so.


RE: Wow
By A5un on 9/14/2007 4:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what's happening on a lot of college campuses (or campi? lol who knows). These poor college students get sued for allegedly illegally distributing/downloading crap, and often times they resort to private settlements in thousands of dollars. Almost seems to me RIAA's just ganging up on these ignorant college students who don't know any better.

Innocent till proven guilty. RIAA can trace their IP's all they want, but how they connect IP's to a person, that's another story. I don't think I'll be held responsible if my car is somehow involved in a crash and I wasn't in it.


RE: Wow
By Christopher1 on 9/14/2007 9:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
True. College's are usually on shared IP's and some of them are even on Wireless networks now. It is impossible to link something to one person on a wireless network unless you catch them with something or downloading something at the very SECOND they are doing it.


RE: Wow
By acejj26 on 9/14/2007 11:07:25 PM , Rating: 4
Innocent until proven guilty is only pertinent in criminal law. These cases are all tried in civil court.


RE: Wow
By Shoal07 on 9/17/2007 7:35:07 AM , Rating: 5
Not true, you’re always innocent until found guilty (or liable). What you’re looking for is the difference in evidence required to find a person guilty/liable. In criminal cases, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it’s a preponderance of the evidence. That’s why OJ got the smack down in civil court - there was a preponderance of evidence that showed he was liable.

The claim here is that there is no evidence at all specifically targeting the defendant.


RE: Wow
By SoCalBoomer on 9/20/2007 8:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
The burden of proof is different (reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence) but the principle of innocent until proven guilty is still applicable as it is considered a civil right, not a legal right, stemming from the 5th and 6th amendments (part of the Bill of Rights) and the 14th. These have been broadly (and rightly) interpreted to include the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and have consistently been applied to civil as well as legal rights.

It's considered a "fundamental right" - not a criminal area right.


RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2007 4:10:10 PM , Rating: 3
Well said. It's good to see that at least some California judges aren't idiots.


RE: Wow
By SunAngel on 9/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By HrilL on 9/14/2007 5:37:43 PM , Rating: 5
yeah and MAC address cloning is really hard? Get real. How would the ISP block the RIAA when the lady didn't even own a computer? No computer = no ISP...


RE: Wow
By othercents on 9/14/2007 5:38:35 PM , Rating: 3
You mean you actually use your real MAC address on the internet? I usually fake one by using the MAC address from the school library computers. It would be dumb to use your own.

Other


RE: Wow
By FNG on 9/14/2007 6:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
What's the difference? I think for many individuals the MAC address seen by an ISP is that of the ISP provided bridge or modem. The modem may have logs, but then you make the claim that your wireless router is unprotected...


RE: Wow
By SiliconAddict on 9/15/2007 12:44:40 AM , Rating: 4
Sun if you are going to smoke RIAA pole please go get a damn room. The general public of the internet really doesn't need to watch.


RE: Wow
By mindless1 on 9/15/2007 1:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, for the purposes of evidence that is no more damning than the ISP tying a particular IP # to an account owner for this same period of time. By the same token the ISP would have to tie the MAC address to the IP # to the account owner, so you are actually just adding yet another layer of complexity that obfuscates origin.

In other words, MAC address has no useful purpose it is an irrelevant detail that you supposed mattered somehow.


RE: Wow
By deeznuts on 9/14/2007 8:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
CA judicial system and courts do not make a lot of sense sometimes, but they usually are groundbreaking and consumer protection is their forte. Environment and consumer rights.


Why......
By A5un on 9/14/2007 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 4
This is a question that's always been bothering me:

How the heck can someone be liable for thousands of dollars' worth of damaged by downloading, say, 700 songs?

One song on iTune at $.99 each means that the actualy "worth" of these songs are valued at less than that. How else can these recording companies make their dough? So assuming a worth at $.50, that's just $350! Why is it I always hear people getting sued for thousands and thousands of dollars?

Sure the 700 songs can be shared, therefore distributed illegally, which also means lost profit. But if these companies are suing the people who downloaded any of these 700 songs, it seems to me there's some overlapping involved.




RE: Why......
By CKDragon on 9/14/2007 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not going to be able to give you the detailed legal answer that others would, but I think I can help. They're being sued for an amount that is supposed to represent damages.

You have to keep in mind that some of the money is meant as a punishment for the individual and deterrent for others. Imagine you steal $1000 worth of something from a store. If you're caught, you won't just be required to re-pay the $1000. There would be additional consequences such as community service, probation, jail time, etc. As far as I understand it, that's their reasoning behind the crazy dollar amount.


RE: Why......
By Christopher1 on 9/14/2007 9:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that the reasoning, but it's fallacious reasoning and the only thing it does is make people hate the legal system and hate the government and these companies.


RE: Why......
By Icepick on 9/14/2007 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's because those found guilty of copyright infringement can have be liable for up to $100,000 per infringement. That would be $100,000 per song in your example. When faced with maximum fines on that scale it begins to sound like a bargain to settle out of court for, say $5,000-$20,000.


RE: Why......
By Lazarus Dark on 9/17/2007 5:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that's rediculous. If I dl'd 100 songs and they wanted to charge me 100,000$ per, I'd never pay it in my life. I can scarcely afford to eat as it is, if they garnished my wages, I'd be on the street. May as well change my name and move to Canada. Even a 1000 dollar fine and I'd be on the street. That's over two months rent.


RE: Why......
By MonkeyPaw on 9/14/2007 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
It's not the value of the items stolen that determines the value of the penalty. If you simply made the penalty for stealing the same as the price of the goods, you'd have rampant stealing everywhere you go. For a law to be an effective deterrent, you have to make the potential punishment worse than the potential gain.


RE: Why......
By mindless1 on 9/15/2007 1:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
The answer is that they aren't actually liable under the legal system, the figure is arbitrary and deceitful, a misuse of our legal system to extort money from those who don't have pockets deep enough (or enough conviction) to fight it.

You're being random though, there is no justification on settling for some 700 song number, it could as easily be 20 songs or 30,000. I tend to think the former is closer than the latter, but I really don't know. At the very least, it should be a matter of demonstrated losses and proven # of songs shared. In the end, even if we presumed some figure like $1 a song, that would be $1 value to those who were willing to pay the $1, which are those who weren't trying to fileshare at all, were downloading it from a eMusic store instead so to claim loss from sharing with those not in a customer marketable position at all is a bit crazy but I digress.


RE: Why......
By theapparition on 9/17/2007 8:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the lawsuits are ridiculous. Where they come up with their monetary damages, (I believe) is from following:

To my knowledge, very few (if anyone) has been sued for downloading. Rather, it is more from uploading. So your on a torrent, downloading and sharing files, and then they find your IP from the upload.

So even the value of a $.99 song (let's just say $1) would be $700 for those 700 downloaded songs. However, their position is that you've uploaded that to a large number of others, and they are now losing money not only on your 1 illegal download, but the (assumed) thousands of others that have downloaded your song.

Can they prove that you have uploaded X number of times and should be held accountable? Can they prove that they actually suffered monetary loss? No they can't, which is why I applaud this ruling. People should not steal, period. But companies should only be allowed to file verifiable lawsuits, and frivilous ones should cost them.

Same old story, though. Tapes are going to kill record sales. No one will go to the movies anymore with VHS, digital downloads will kill sales, etc, etc. Their business has been booming throughout. But the industry has taken its first steps at radically changing (only in the last few years). The recording companies, (RIAA and MPAA) better get with the times or they will find themselves as usefull as a poopy-flavored lolly-pop. :P


Ladies and Gentleman...
By mal1 on 9/14/2007 4:37:51 PM , Rating: 4
This judge deserves a standing ovation.




RE: Ladies and Gentleman...
By Icepick on 9/14/2007 4:56:07 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Hopefully this is the beginning of a larger trend where the strongarm and mafia-like tactics of the RIAA will be blocked by the legal system. I've only purchased two CDs in the last 8 years largely due to my disgust with the RIAA and their bullying. I look for alternate means (legal, of course) of obtaining music whenever possible or just go without.


Glad
By Cobra Commander on 9/14/2007 3:56:32 PM , Rating: 4
Glory Hallelujah.

I wish the RIAA and its likeness would simply take the high road and not stoop to such bullying and gross exaggeration of loss.




Plaintiff did not show up in court?
By lennylim on 9/14/2007 6:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
So the RIAA goes ahead and sues thousands of people, and when some of these people show up in court, the RIAA could not be bothered to send a lawyer to attend the session?

Or am I totally misinterpreting this?




By sxr7171 on 9/15/2007 11:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
No you're not interpreting it wrong. It was written wrongly. The DEFENDANT did not show up in court. The PLAINTIFF's lawyers on the other hand did.


Not really a precedent
By Screwballl on 9/15/2007 12:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
This can be used as a basis for judgment by other cases across the nation but it is far from a precedent.
Other cases may try to plea "I request this case be dismissed based on the same standing of Interscope v. Rodriguez in California which was recently dismissed due to lack of evidence against the defendant. Without evidence, my client cannot be held responsible for unproven events which hold no merit or basis for a lawsuit."
If RIAA was knocking at my door I would be laughing to myself asking 1) what file sharing service was used? and 2) I require an exact list of every infraction for which this lawsuit is based. Since 99% of the cases RIAA only caught someone using a P2P program and not actually recording or logging any given infractions, a majority of future cases will end up the same way as this. Then of course there will be the retaliatory lawsuits for defamation of character in which people will be taking millions from RIAA.
I hope this is the beginning of the end for RIAA and other related companies.




RE: Not really a precedent
By tcsenter on 9/15/2007 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This can be used as a basis for judgment by other cases across the nation but it is far from a precedent. Other cases may try to plea "I request this case be dismissed based on the same standing of Interscope v. Rodriguez in California which was recently dismissed due to lack of evidence against the defendant.
The case was not dismissed. It is still alive and well on the court's docket. RIAA has already filed the amended complaint and the clock is ticking for the defendant to respond within 20 days of being served with the amended lawsuit.

The case is merely on hold, waiting for the defendant to respond. Since defendant didn't respond to the original lawsuit, there is little reason to believe he would this time. At which point, RIAA will get its default judgement, provided it has fixed those portions of its complaint the judge found lacking (and there is little reason to believe it has not).


By mWMA on 9/14/2007 4:14:47 PM , Rating: 3
If RIAA appeals (which is likely) and appeals court accepts their forged/mock/lair evidence as satisfactory then it will be sent back to lower court and most likely result in default judgment.

If appeals court however rule that evidence given is not satisfactory then you can headline it to somewhat precedent-setting. Until then.. hold the press.




I laugh at the RIAA
By colonelclaw on 9/17/2007 5:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
i feel no pity whatsoever for the RIAA

since i started buying music in 1979 (Are Friends Electric by Gary Numan on 7" vinal!) i have been repeatedly screwed over by the music industry's extortionate pricing. i remember that first record i bought cost me 99 pence, which was about 2 months pocket money, and translates to at least 10 us dollars in today's terms. i was screwed over from the start, and this went on for the best part of 25 years

i now have in my hands a bittorrent client, and it's payback time :)




RE: I laugh at the RIAA
By michal1980 on 9/17/2007 6:53:57 AM , Rating: 1
how were you screwed?

oh wait. You weren't. They put an item for sale at a price of ABC. And you freely paid it. There was no gun to your head, you had a choice.

Would you go to a store and steal a cd? Thats what you are doing on bit-torrent.

I'm not defending record prices. But I wont defend stealing, You people have twisted this so much that you feel justified in whatever you do. Grow up.


RIAA
By excrucio on 9/14/2007 10:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
RIAA suing people for 150K. Most of these people cannot even pay their mortgage!

How pathetic you have to be. Jesus Christ. Bunch of OMG illegal sharing freaks wanting to get rich quick.

Illegal sharing is indeed a crime, just like a 17 year old is driving intoxicated and crashes.

All we can do is ask them to do some community service, a day in jail what ever. Now for downloading MUSIC? 150K? and their life paying.

How can they even POSSIBLY track the correct person??!?!?! ISP today have Dynamic Ip's which the IP changes constantly, people steal other nodes MAC address. No wonder they mistakenly sue people. Also most people USE some type of illegal sharing, if its Bearshare, Limewire, Kazaa.

I swear, its ridiculous, pathetic way to make money on the poor.




Grammar
By TonyB on 9/15/2007 1:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
A judge in Southern California, made no friends in the RIAA, when she handed down a precedent-setting verdict that cleared the plantiff of all charges in the case Interscope v. Rodriguez.

corrected for you




Legal Strategies
By borismkv on 9/15/2007 2:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
This makes me laugh. The RIAA didn't show up in court. And they never, ever, ever will. Because it costs them more to spend a minute in court than it would make them in damages. So if you get bullied by the RIAA, ignore them until the court date, and it'll get thrown out no matter what. RIAA cannot obtain proper evidence without violating privacy laws, and they cannot even bring forth enough evidence to justify obtaining MORE evidence legally. Thank goodness for brave people who are willing to risk it and face down litigious bullies in a court of law.




Know thy law
By Nik00117 on 9/15/2007 1:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
I took a course in law just to get fimliar with it.

A few years later we were sued, parents wanted to cave and settle and end it now and then. I said f that.

So we went to court without a lawyer and won.

The RIAA is welcome to come knocking on my door anytime, I would enjoy stating how clearly they cannot prove I did anything illegal by any sort of legal means, therefore any damning evidence they hold agnaist me was obtained in a illegal fashion therefore is not admissable in court. Therefore there is no evidence aganist me, therefore I should be reimbursed BY THE RIAA.

The RIAA is one day going pick on the wrong person, and they are going to twist it and bang up the RIAA.

I gotta tell you, I think proving that the RIAA abused the legal system by filling fraudlent cases to gain money from individuals who do not know any better would be easier then them proving I dled a certain song.

I know a few friends who priate sutff, and quite frankly if the RIAA sued them I don't see why they would care, the RIAA could pound them up for 100,000 USD for each material priated they'd never pay.




By sceptus on 9/16/2007 4:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree this is a good ruling, because it prevents the RIAA from suing essentially an unlimited number of people for illegal downloading, and without reasonable cause.

But one thing doesn't make sense. People rejoice that the RIAA can no longer sue them, yet they still continue to commit the crime that they are supposedly guilty for!

So I think that when praising this ruling, one should take into consideration what precedent is being set. Should it be: now we can no longer be unjustly sued by the RIAA? Or should it be: now we can continue unhindered, pirating something that we should justly be paying for?




Hey Mick did you notice?
By TheGreek on 9/18/2007 1:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
None of MAsher's lemmings are here to comment. That's because the story was a (partial) win for an individual, the underdog, which Americans used to cheer for in the 60's.

And don't be an idiot MAsher-heads, if the guy did something illegal he should be punished with proof and due process, not the say-so of the RIAA.

You know according to MAsher none of his lemmings contribute to global warming, despite all their hot air.




first to stand up to the RIAA?
By Open Minded on 10/4/2007 1:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
WTF is this supposed to mean?
By sxr7171 on 9/15/2007 2:14:22 AM , Rating: 1
"The Interscope v. Rodriguez was considered a typical RIAA case “boilerplate” complaint. The RIAA accused the plantiff of downloading, distribuing and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, but did not offer any specific evidence or proof of its claims. It sought monetary damages from the plantiff.

As the plantiff did not present himself in court, a default judgement ruling was held. The presiding judge, Judge Brewster, shocked the RIAA by not only denying to make a default monetary judgement, but also completing dismissing the case for failure to state a claim."

DO NOT WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES ANYMORE BEFORE FIGURING OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLAINTIFF AND A DEFENDANT.

Where the heck do they get these writers from?




defendof, and/ord?
By skyyspam on 9/15/2007 12:38:23 PM , Rating: 1
Please spell check your articles, like a good journalist?




Just an FYI
By michal1980 on 9/16/2007 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 1
All you negative voting theives. I hope the RIAA comes after you. Just so you can choke on this article.

And remeber, Just because your mommy thinks your special, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Now go return to your pirated movie. Thinking you've stuck it to the man. While the rest of us go and do something productive.




Umm NO!
By michal1980 on 9/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Umm NO!
By masher2 (blog) on 9/14/2007 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 3
> "A lower court ruling DOES NOT SET precedent!!!"

Incorrect. A lower court ruling does not set a binding precedent for a higher court. But lower court rulings can and do generate advisory precedents.

Dismissals with prejudice can generate precedent as well.


RE: Umm NO!
By ElFenix on 9/14/2007 5:02:53 PM , Rating: 3
correct, and they are of very little value. citing prior trial court decisions should not be relied on as your only defense. not only do they not set binding precedent on higher courts (which never happens), they don't set binding precedent on other trial courts in their own states, not to mention other states. so, in effect, it's of very very little value (probably mostly in california and then only to the extent that this judge is respected by his peers), and the blog poster is a little overboard in his exuberance about the importance of the decision.

kudos to the judge for being a gatekeeper. i wonder if california provides the judge this authority or not? and if not, will it be appealed?


RE: Umm NO!
By borowki on 9/14/2007 6:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's in the code. It won't surprise me if the decision gets overturned.


RE: Umm NO!
By michal1980 on 9/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Umm NO!
By deeznuts on 9/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Umm NO!
By 3kliksphilip on 9/15/2007 2:25:11 PM , Rating: 1
Don't go near michal1980! He's infected with a virus which makes your post rating go down to -1.


RE: Umm NO!
By 3kliksphilip on 9/15/2007 7:38:45 PM , Rating: 1
oh GOD it's happened to me as well


RE: Umm NO!
By tcsenter on 9/14/2007 10:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
lol! There was no "ruling" of any kind. It was a judicial order, very different from a judicial "ruling" (in which there is a legal outcome). This kind of thing happens at least 100 times every day in the federal district court system. Stop the presses!

The judge denied RIAA's motion to certify default judgement due to insufficient evidence the defendant actually engaged in the alleged infringing activity. Contrary to what has been reported, Judge Brewster did not dismiss RIAA's compliant. He granted RIAA leave to amend the complaint.

This differs from dimissal in that RIAA's complaint is still alive and well on the court's docket. If the case had been dismissed, it would cease to exist.

An order granting leave to amend paves the way for immediate default judgement in favor of RIAA if two conditions are met:

- Defandant does not respond to the amended complaint within 20 days of service as ordered by the court
- Plaintiff has provided additional details supporting its claim to the judge's satisfaction

The judicial order is nothing more than a procedural speed-bump caused by an overworked legal assistant who skimped on the supporting documentation. It had absolutely nothing to say about any fundamental legal question that would remotely set precedent.

Now...when this very same Judge Rudi M. Brewster overturned a jury's $1.5 billion award against Microsoft in the Alcatel-Lucent MP3 suit, THAT was a "ruling" on the fundamental merits of Alcatel-Lucent's case, in Judge Brewster's finding that Microsoft conclusively proved it did not infringe on two patents in question.


RE: Umm NO!
By sxr7171 on 9/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Umm NO!
By borowki on 9/15/2007 8:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
That makes more sense. It did seem rather odd to me that the judge could make a ruling against the RIAA when nothing was filed in that regard.


RE: Umm NO!
By A5un on 9/14/2007 4:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think today if RIAA came knocking on my door (not that they would I think) with a law suit, all I gatta do is compare my situation to this guy's. If conditions are similar, I don't see how other judges can make a different decision. Won't I just cite what happend here, which constitutes basically lack of evidence?


RE: Umm NO!
By bhieb on 9/14/2007 5:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
From my very limited understanding, that is now what happened here. The guy did not even show up so instead of giving them a judgement, the case was dismissed. So if the RIAA came knocking, you could not show up and hope the judge throws it out, but if you showed up default judgement would not be an option anyway. Now you may be able to use this as an example to make sure they have proof, but at this point you are already in a trial and now the attorney fees will probably be higher than a settlement.


RE: Umm NO!
By borismkv on 9/15/2007 2:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Plantiff is the person who is making the charges. The Defendant was there, at least, according to the article. Don't know if that was worded accurately. But the RIAA didn't show up to court and the default judgment was given, which was a big "F U!" to RIAA.


RE: Umm NO!
By tcsenter on 9/15/2007 9:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If conditions are similar, I don't see how other judges can make a different decision. Won't I just cite what happend here, which constitutes basically lack of evidence?
No, because there was no "decision" or "ruling" here. Judge Brewster did what judges do 100x more often than issue decisions or rulings, he issued a judicial "order" in response to a motion. Wow!

And in other equally-meaningful news...judges sometimes fart under their robes. Stop the press!


RE: Umm NO!
By sxr7171 on 9/15/2007 10:54:17 AM , Rating: 1
No you are wrong. This is a landmark "decision" wherein the RIAA can never take anyone to court again. We are all free to pirate music with impunity now. This "decision" will now be looked upon by every court in the nation and pending cases will be dismissed. Everyone rejoice!

Then again, why believe anything from a writer who can't even get the difference between a plaintiff and a defendant straight?


By mentalchallenger on 9/15/2007 3:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
So, how much is the RIAA paying you, Michal? I hope it's enough to justify giving up all your dignity and credibility at your age.


By Proteusza on 9/17/2007 6:52:18 AM , Rating: 1
Given the choice, "stealing" music and movies is less of a crime than selling your soul for money, screwing over as many customers as you can, stifling competition, innovation and new talent, all in the name of profit.

I dont believe in God and judgment. But if I did, and I had to explain my sins in this life, I would far rather tell God that I illegally copied a few songs to supplement my collection than I extorted millions of people so that I could be more wealthy.


By skaaman on 9/20/2007 3:38:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Watch how the judge laughs at you and lectures you, after they ask the RIAA to show the judge some evidence and they do.


Well then that person would be an idiot since they have a right to see the evidence against them prior to court...



"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki