RIAA retreats in Lava v Amurao
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Once again the RIAA has dropped a case "with prejudice", thistime after concluding it was the defendant’s daughter, rather than the defendant, that it should have sued in the first place.
In a White Plains, New York, case, Lava v Amurao, mindful that in similar scenarios it’s been held liable for the defendant’s attorneys’ fees (Capitol v Foster and Atlantic v Andersen), the RIAA this time went on the offensive over its attorneys fee exposure.
And it did so even though there was no attorneys’ fee motion pending, arguing it was the defendant’s fault, not the RIAA’s, 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.
Other motions filed:
By the defendant:
- To exclude MediaSentry testimony on ground of illegality;
- To take deposition of Matthew Oppenheim; and
- To compel discovery into the record companies expenses per download.
By plaintiffs:
- For discovery sanctions against Mr Amurao; and
- For summary judgment dismissing copyright misuse counterclaim.
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I’m afraid to say anything now, in case I get picked on again.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Well, but at least they know for sure who was the criminal.
No, really, the records companies can’t know who exactly is using the computer so they go with what bits of information they have.
This should be groundbreaking, though.
Not only the information about the ip and the account holder was correct, minus the perpetrator, of course, but they also made the “former” defendant admit that the crime did occur, and it was done by the family member, read “daughter”.
It is very overwhelming because it prooves that RIAA’s tactics are in general correct. Any reasonable judge who has at least a little bit of knowledge should fully consider the evidence that MediaSentry and alikes have on behalf of RIAA. Of course, there is always a chance for an error, but it is very occasional. In criminal cases, sometimes inncoent people are accused. But it does not mean that the entire court system has to be shut down because someone made a mistake.
Many of so called “RIAA victims” have smart lawyers who get them off on technicalities (the same as everywhere!). Usually the person accused or his family member is at fault.
I can give RIAA enough evidence to rightfully and successfully sue a given individual (a thief). I have enough technical expertise to do that. But RIAA will have to pay me good. I ain’t working for free, haha.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“RIAAâs tactics are in general correct.”
As correct as the Ben Laden Tactic is I guess!
Fine Our tactics to send these RIAA parasites to Gatanamo will be correct too!
And at least it will fill the camp with real terorrists for one time! Not moxstly with poor afgans farmers whas have nothing to do with nothing while most of the El Quada and Taliban terrorists actually ran away!
This time we are not going to let these kind of terrorists run away. Trust me!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
âRIAAâs tactics are in general correct.â
say that after they wrongfully sue you.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“…arguing it was the defendantâs fault, not the RIAAâs, that the record companies sued the wrong person, because the defendant didnât tell them that his daughter was the file sharer they were looking for.”
Capital vs. Foster – when it was discovered that it was the daughter, did the RIAA refocus its efforts away from Debbie Foster? No. The daughter was named as new defendant, and Debbie Foster was named liable for secondary copyright infringement because the internet account was in her name. But in this case, RIAA chastises Amurao for not setting himself up for the same mess. Oh, how I pray Amurao’s lawyers cite this and throw it as publicly as possible back into the RIAA’s collective face.
I can take my laptop, park in any residential neighborhood, pick any unsecured network, and download to my heart’s content. Heck, I ain’t the one getting sued. And if I were to admit to this to the poor sucker’s lawyers, would RIAA drop the case – precedence says no.
How can you defend that?
February 1st, 2008 at 1:29 am
Where to begin?
First, Media Sentry is *NOT* licensed in a state of the union as a private investigator. In most states, that is a crime by it self. So, Media Sentry and their management are knowing operating a criminal enterprise, I wonder if SafeNet fully comprehends its liability exposure? Can you say *NO* evidence!
Second, an IP address at best identifies a computer process, *NOT* a user. At worse an application relay point. If I were Tom Mizzone I would get me a personal defense attorney quick. Perjury is a crime and you can go to jail for that.
Third Digital Records and Evidence require special handling and custody handling. I’m not saying more because I have no desire to help the RIAA. Can you say chain of custody, licensed investigators, oh my!
If I were the RIAA, I would re-read the RICO statues because I think a number of attorneys are about to learn the hard way you can lose your license to practice law.
The problem for the RIAA is illegal joining of cases, and the fact that they know a computer process and *NOT* a human being and have there committed perjury in affidavits seeking expedited discovery. Sooner or later, this house of cards will come crashing down, hopefully taking a few attorneys with it.
I think it is about time to go public a an expert for the defendants, and put a stop to this fiasco by the RIAA.
I wonder which case I’ll pick first?
I wonder who proved public that IBM’s token ring implementation wasn’t ISO OSI compliant?
February 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think the focus on the legality of Media Sentry’s investigations is going down a moot path. Because the evidence they collect is available to anyone with a computer and p2p software, it can’t really be called an illegal search. However, the way that evidence is represented in court does leave much to be desired.
RIAA has been ordered by judge to cease and desist with Doe joining of cases, and it persists. Rather than face contempt charges, courts continue to allow it. RIAA contradicts itself from one case to the next, and courts allow it. RIAA continues to alledge they detected an individual, and the courts allow it. Cary Sherman himself contradicted RIAA’s own evidence in Jammie Thomas, and yet that virdict stands.
The RIAA is using a system to its advantage, and that system is allowing it. Their strategy is such that it’s extremely difficult to challenge, and extorting a defendant into submission is citable as a win in future cases.
They made their stance quite clear when the cease and desist was given to guitar tab sites. Their view is that culture is not something to share, it’s something to sell. You can appreciate it, but you must pay. And it’s done with a very communistic “join or die” approach.