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:
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

By michal1980 on 9/15/2007 10:56:04 AM , Rating: -1
Thanks for all the negatice votes. Yes you guys are all so freaking smart. Go show up to court and tell them a judge in califorina dismissed case because the RIAA showed no evidence.

Watch how the judge laughs at you and lectures you, after they ask the RIAA to show the judge some evidence and they do.

And you'll pull out this Dailytech article and say oh look the Dailytech guy said this was percendt.

I know my post score here is not based on anything more then a few jag off's that dont like what I have to say?

why? because the truth probably hurts them more then anything.

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
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...

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki