RIAA victim tells MediaSentry, put up or shut up
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- When several years ago Marie Lindor (right) found the RIAA camped on her metaphorical doorstep, blood in its eye, she could have had no idea what was to come.
A home health aide from Brooklyn, New York, she quite literally barely knew how to even switch a computer on.
She didn’t know what the RIAA meant, either. But that changed, and quickly, because there were Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), publicly accusing her of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.
Nothing could have been more ridiculous. Except, perhaps, similar accusations levelled at Rae-Jay Schwartz, bound to her wheelchair by the deadly disease of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis.
Or Larry Scantlebury, an ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot who died of a brain aneurysm before the RIAA could really get down to blackening him and his name.
Or disabled mother Tanya Andersen and her 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, both harried relentlessly from pillar to post by the RIAA.
Or Debbie Foster. Or Patti Santangelo. Or any of the other approximately 30,000 innocent people falsely and wrongly accused of the non-existent crime of file sharing.
Tens of millions of Americans share music with each other online every minute of every an hour of every day. The RIAA and the Big 4 angrily declare that shouldn’t be happening. When someone shares with someone else, it costs one or other or all of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG sales, they claim, calling people who do this criminals and thieves.
File sharers should be paying an extortionate $1 at the least for each corporate music industry file, worth only worth a few cents, they say.
Instead, ninety nine percent of online music lovers are completely ignoring the likes of iTunes and other corporate download pages supplied by the Big 4, instead getting their fixes from the independent sites or services, or simply downloading their music for free from the P2P networks.
And Lindor is one of the people who’s facilitating —- helping to make this happen, says the RIAA, using spurious MediaSentry evidence as ‘evidence’.
‘Railroad innocent men, women, children’
Central to the RIAA’s case against many of the RIAA victims, including Lindor, who’s now 57, is MediaSentry, a so-called ‘expert’ investigative company used by the Big 4 and their RIAA to dredge up supposed evidence against alleged file sharers.
The Massachusetts state police recently banned MediaSentry, and its evidence has been called into question repeatedly, and yet the RIAA is still touting it and using its dubious, to be charitable, conclusions to help railroad innocent men, women, children and students across America.
Now Lindor’s lawyer, Ray Beckerman, is trying to force the company to produced .txt printouts he needs as part of the material which will finally, and indisputably, show MediaSentry up, owned by SafeNet, for what it is.
“MediaSentry must disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the other side,” says Beckerman on his Slashdot Journal.
But SafeNet, MediaSentry and the RIAA say No —- the information is “proprietary” and “confidential”.
Because the very last thing they want is for the MediaSentry material to be held up for expert and critical examination in the full light of day.
Here’s what Beckerman is demanding on Recording Industry vs The People >>>
All documents containing, evidencing or otherwise concerning (a) methods and procedures to be used and protocols to be followed for investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint, including, but not limited to validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates and work flow methods, (b) procedures, if any, followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the misidentification of IP addresses caused by IP address spoofing, (c) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the effect and consequences of virus and malware infections, and/or (d) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for ensuring the validity and integrity of information returned by superpeers.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, explaining, referring to or otherwise concerning the setting, synchronization, and maintenance of clock time on the computers and servers that MediaSentry used in the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, or otherwise concerning the amount of time that MediaSentry and its employees and agents were engaged in investigating, detecting and reporting the activity alleged in the complaint.
Complete digital copies of all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the measurement infrastructure and the P2P network in connection with the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint, including all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the Kazaa bootstrap superpeer and Kazaa session superpeer.
All documents sufficient to identify the software(s), hardware systems and other tools and devices that were used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copy of the source code of the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Manuals for the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copies of all electronic files, including metadata, downloaded or accessed by MediaSentry relating to The Account.
Digital copies of the Kazaa or other peer to peer software program installed on the computers or servers that MediaSentry used in connection with its investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit A. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit A hereto, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit A was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit B. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, the document annexed hereto as Exhibit B, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (E) A printout of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed, which sets forth all of the data in said file, including text that was cut off on the right margin of Exhibit B. (F) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (i) ‘Rule Name: Hubcap’ as referred to on the second line of page 1 of Exhibit B, (ii) “agent ID 194″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B, and/or (iii) ‘Scanner Name: DAYSC17″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B. (G) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files allegedly downloaded on 8/7/2004 from 6:41:26 AM to 7:08:33 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B. (H) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files for which downloads were logged on 8/7/2004 from 7:09:40 AM to 7:09:43 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (C) the natural person or persons who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit C and the digital version of same.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit C. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the .txt file in Exhibit C came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning the person or persons who named the .txt file, from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit C was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (F) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed.
Digital copies of the file(s) from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit D was printed.
All other screenshots, user activity logs, and reports ever generated by MediaSentry in connection with The Account.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit E, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit E, and (C) the natural person or persons who generated exhibit E, or caused it to be generated.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit E. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) how the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (ii) the natural person or persons who named the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (iii) how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the natural person at MediaSentry who on August 7, 2004 at 6:15 a.m. ‘detected an individual who was engaged in the distribution of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings using the screen name jrlindor@kazaa and Internet Protocol (”IP”) address 141.155.57.198,’as alleged on page 5 of Exhibit F. In the event no such documents are produced indicate whether it is because the documents are unavailable, or whether it is because there was no ‘detection of an individual’.
All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the date, time and location that downloaded files with respect to The Account were listened to.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify the accuracy of Verizon’s subpoena response, and all documents relating to the accuracy and/or synchronization of server clocks and logging instruments at Verizon, and the actual DHCP logs for that day.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify that any person was using an ‘online media distribution system’ through defendant’s internet access account after August 7, 2004.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader’s survey. It only takes a minute - literally. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks … ]
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.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
tjis old lady is a file sharing criminal? ROTFLMAO
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
string her up! make her pay! give us money!!!!
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
IT’S OOOVVEEER NIINNNEEE THOUUUSANNNNNNND!!!!!!! 0_0
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Paper. It’s the RIAA’s weakness.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:30 am
i think its wrong for the RIAA to go after her, but lets be honest. it was a child using her computer, and she knows it. parents need to monitor what their children do on computers!
she probably sat down with any kids who used that computer and asked them what they were doing, etc.
i think in all the other cases where moms were charged, it was because of their children as well. so yes, shes innocent. but that sharing DID happen from her computer. just because she doesnt know about it doesnt mean the RIAA is wrong.
i dislike the RIAA as much as everyone (but am a supporter of itunes as i have never had any issues with their DRM’ed content because i only listen on my ipod or make cd’s for my car) but i can see what they are getting at. the lady was in charge of the PC and internet account, and therefore is liable for these charges. i think that parents should learn about these kinds of things, or sit with their kids while they use the computer. hell, my parents got a letter from the cable company (comcast, yuck) telling them to cease p2p activity on their account and it was because of my brother. she told him to comb his beard, he doesnt do it as much (or as openly), and now things are fine. THAT is how a parent should take care of it. talk to your kids about it rather than deny it up and down.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:31 am
EDIT:
she probably needs to sit down with any kids who used that computer and ask them what they were doing, etc.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The real issue is that the RIAA and media sentry are fraudster. Their so call proof are BS and sometime totally fabricated. They make up doctored documents like in the Santangello cases where they show up with a so call infringement listing where they copy and past hundred of time the same user name that they found only 5 times to try to make the infringement look big and fool the judge. They are dishonest and criminal!
The botom line is that they can not prove who is sharing what even with non-private p2p application. This is because one computer is not one person. One IP address is not one computer nor is it a suscriber. There is many ways to fake IP addresses. Software that do that are available for free. Also IP address are dynanmic and can change sometime very often particularly if the modem is turn off often. Many people turn off their modem at night. In the morning they have a new IP address and the log does not go that deep. Iti is not surpirsing that they catch so many people that don’t even have the right computer or application running and sometime does not even have a computer!
The pretention by these RIAA parasites that you can identify people on internet by their IP address is a big lie that only technologicaly challenged or worst corrupted judges will accept as evidence.
If you don’t believe that these RIAA/MPAA corporate parasite are evil look at what they are trying to do with Shareaza:
They created a BS company that extorted the Shareaza domain name using th etreat of lawsuit and now they are trying to robe the TM “Shareaza” in violation of the DMCA they imposed on us by corrupting the US governement.
These pigs do not care about the public, they do not care about our countries and they certainly do not car about our laws!
Let’s finish them now!
EXPEND THE BOYCOTT FURTHER! We are not done folks! They are dying but they are not dead yet.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
mako sizzle: I’ll be sure that the local DA files charges of vehicular homicide against you should your kids go out with your car and run someone over on purpose to kill them.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
mako sizzle: Gear up, because you just admitted to theft… well, according to RIAA definitions you did. According to them, you’ll need to buy two copies of every song, one for your ipod, and one for your car. They’ve specifically mentioned that you can’t make your own mix CDs, too. You’ll also need to make sure when you play those songs in your car that you keep the volume down because they’ve claimed that if other people can hear it, then you’re “broadcasting” and need to pay licensing fees for that, too.
Anyways, this article is about a different issue: Has RIAA and MediaSentry been defrauding the court? The question at the moment isn’t if P2P is legal or not, but are they allowed to claim evidence and then refuse to show how they came to those evidence and conclusions? We’ve seen people walk out of court because they proved the evidence was inadmissible or biased or tampered. Why can’t the lawyer attempt to do that here?
Also, just because you’re okay with DRM doesn’t mean that it’s morally right.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
IMO, being “OK with DRM” makes you an idiot.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Is mako sizzle an riaa troll?
March 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
ummm…mako
she 57.
I seriuosly doubt she has kids in her house on a regular enough basis to attract MS or the RIAA’s attention.
Just wanted to point that out.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Every defendant has the right to review the charges and evidence being used to prosecute them. This is our constitutional right. I don’t remember Bush or any any of the idiots in Congress taking that right from us with all the others that they have suspended in the last few years. The judge in this case should be disbarred if he doesn’t order the RIAA to turn over the evidence being asked for. In addition he might want to ask the RIAA to provide an accounting of the distribution of the funds to the artists to insure that they are being paid. Let’s all hope that the folks out there making the music we listen to get smart and dump the RIAA and the labels and follow in the footsteps of Trent and the gang. I have no problem with paying for my music. I also like to turn my friends on to new singers and bands that they may not have heard of. I’ve been doing this since I was in junior high school nearly 35 years ago. These same folks go out and buy their own copy of the CD I shared with them and I go out and buy the stuff they share with me. Try before you buy has been a staple in the software industry since that first floppy disk at the flea market in 1985. The music industry is just too far behind the times and needs to recognize that we’re always going to be smarter than they are unless they really start paying attention.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:43 am
what a fucking joke! hhahaha
March 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am
this is quoting from another of Jon’s articles, linked from the “Marie Lindor” link at the beginning of the article.
QUOTE:
Mrs Lindor is a 57-year-old New York health worker who quite literally doesn’t know one end of a computer from the other.
She was, and is, innocent of all allegations and the RIAA bosses have known that since the day they launched their anti-P2P, anti-file sharing lawsuit against her.
But it’s the RIAA’s practice to first go after parents, even though they know there’s no merit to their charges.
Soften them up before the corporate legal teams turn on their real targets who are, in 99 cases out of 100, the younger family members, such as Woody Raymond, Mrs Lindor’s son.
UNQUOTE
Jon pointed it out that they were really getting at her son who did the downloading. Her son is probably too young to be charged, so she takes the punishment for it. This is practiced in other ways than just here.
If you are in an antique store and your 5yr old knocks over an expensive vase, YOU need to pay for it. The child obviously cant, and I highly doubt that the store owner will shrug it off. Same deal here. The RIAA is the store owner, the music is the vase. Anyone disagree?
and you guys dont bother to read posts. you see an opposing view and immediately say “RIAA TROLL”. i didnt say that i was ok with DRM, i said that i have never had any issues with iTunes and the protections they have on their music.
to the guy comparing it to homicide, i think that is a really unfair comparison. but honestly if a parent wasnt watching their 7 year old kid, and that kid took the car and killed someone, i think the parent would be at fault, yes.
as oldschoolpunk says, i have no problem paying for my digital music. i could care less about FLAC or higher than 128-320kbps mp3’s. and i think that what NIN did was a very smart move, and both gives them good publicity as well as more money for their sales.
most of the posters here are very closed minded. if someone doesnt see their way, they are branded as the enemy, or RIAA troll. is there anyone who thinks for themselves and doesnt have the anti RIAA mob mentality who cares to comment?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
mako sizzle
if you read a bit further, no one proved her son did anything. they was no evidence found to prove the alleged act on the computer, nor did they find any files they were searching for on the computer. No one should be held responsible for another person’s actions.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
bad analogy, mako. The vase was broken but the music was NOT.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Mako SIzzle, you have got to be kidding. You do not honestly believe that the RIAA gathered there so called evidence in a manner that would hold up to scrutiny do you?? If they did, they would have absolutely no issues with allowing that same evidence to be scrutinized for accuracy. The reason that they will fight this to the end is because they are liars and cheats. They do not work for the artists. They work only to line their own pockets. You are called a RIAA Troll, because you are defending the indefensible. In your view of holding others responsible for the actions of criminals, If I steal your credit card and use it to buy a gun to kill someone, then it is ultimately you that is responsible for my actions because you should have known that a criminal like me was in fact going to steal your credit card and you did not keep it locked up properly. Sounds really stupid doesn’t it?? Just like your entire post. Get a grip man. Your support of I-tunes and the other so called legit music outlets makes you a criminal because they have been found guilty of price fixing. And you yourself are an admitted criminal. You really ought to turn yourself in now so that you do not continue to commit these heinous crimes.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
i cant find it anywhere, but i thought that somewhere it showed the username they charged her with using, and it had her last name and the first initial of her son. i cant remember if it was for this case or another though.
and good point tommy, but in the RIAA’s messed up mind, they feel that any shared file is a lost sale. this i do not agree with, as i have downloaded stuff (music, movies and games) that honestly, if it wasnt free, i wouldnt go out and purchase. they try to have their cake and eat it too. they want “lost sales” to stop, and they also want to collect on “potential lost sales”. this of course will never happen. so they resort to means like charging parents, ISP account holders, and even IP addresses. general scare tactics, etc.
all im saying is that in the event that its clearly the account holders son or daughter doing the downloading (perhaps not in this case, but i know there was A case where the username was listed and it made sense that it was a child of the person charged), that the parent needs to show some responsibility and say “yeah, that was my son/daughter, i didnt know what they were doing on the computer”. this whole denying everything approach will not work in that instance. a jury can easily see if your last name is Lindor and your sons name is Woody, and the username who downloaded files was “wlindor” that it was most likely your son who did the downloading.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
awesome logic BTP. go march off a cliff with other lemmings because you are simply a brainwashed anti RIAA fool incapable of coming up with your own thoughts.
never once did i defend the RIAA. i am saying that parents need to be more aware of what goes on with their computers, and what their children do with them. again, i stated that it may not have been this case, but there was one where the username was clearly a son/daughter of the accused. in that instance, it is the child who did it. its obvious. no amount of denying/making excuses (my network was compromised, IP’s dont mean a thing, etc.) will change that fact.
come to think of it, i believe it was the case where the lady came from Hurricane Katrina, or had something to do with Katrina. someone refresh me.
and come on man. your analogy is even more ridiculous than the car one earlier. can you answer this question?
if your son/daughter was sharing files and you got a letter from the RIAA charging you, would you tell them “it wasnt me, it was my child.” ?
if your son/daughter admitted “yeah mom/dad, i was sharing files and i got caught…. what do i do now?” would you deny these charges to the RIAA, or be honest and tell them “yeah it was my child.” ?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Here is the problem I see here. The better analogy is one of shoplifting.
In these cases, more and more we are seeing the use of video tapes to show the perp in action or witnesses who can provide evidence.
In the computer world, lets call it as it is. If you are going to go after someone legally, you SHOULD want to be sure that you have the preponderance of evidence on your side and that you have it all in line.
Logs, packet captures, screen shots, etc are not that hard to collect and store AND ARCHIVE for use in court. AND IT SHOULD BE.
When the case is then presented (since the client is going to fight it), the evidence is then made available.
Why all the cloak and dagger? There are a lot assumptions made on both sides but the bottom line is that the RIAA has just said “SHE (or her kid) DID IT!” and not showing the evidence you should rightly see.
Police have a chain of custody and all that when cases go to court to show that the evidence hasn’t been tampered with so I see no real difference here.
What I do see is this:
In the past the RIAA has gotten away with strong arming people and now that more and more people become educated about their tactics and ways to make them “put up” they are not getting people who just give them “free money” to make the issue go away. Now, they are having to actually prove their case. What is so wrong about that?
Imagine leaving a store and then being stopped outside and being accused of stealing. They search you and find nothing but say “You threw it away when you saw us coming” and then you are arrested books and locked up. When it comes trial time they simply say “We saw him do it” and thats that and off you go to lock up. No tapes. Nothing more than them saying so.
At least in cases like this, there SHOULD BE evidence that can be gone over by “experts” to aleast see if it looks legit or has been tampered with.
Mako: you continue to insist its her child. And it could be. BUT… if it is, then the RIAA should have no complaints about showing logs and sharing with the courts and lawyers as to the evidence is collected.
It is supposed to be a JUSTICE system after all.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
it will be interesting if they actually come up with documents and logs showing how they found out it was Ms. Lindor supposedly. i would like to see the means that they go about when accusing people. but them saying “its private/confidential/whatever” is BS and at the least they should show the proof that they have, whether its a simple IP address or username or whatever.
its odd that for this case they dont give that, and yet for others they have provided user names and IP addresses and stuff.
very interesting outlook with the shoplifting Hawk. i would actually like to see that scenario played out in a court. i would hope that the individual accused would be let off, but courts have ways of surprising all of us. this case will probably set precedent as to whether or not the RIAA/MS need to show their proof.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Working in the job I do, I hope it is more than JUST an IP address. I would demand logs showing that the IP address that was assigned to my computer at the time/date that the transfer occurred was actually transferring the files in question.
When I worked for a major ISP (dial up was the thing but high speed was just coming out), we could tell which account used which IP address from the start to the finish of the call. It really should be no different with high speed (cable or dsl) as long as the ISP logs that (and they should for the tracking of abuse issues alone).
Now, with peer to peer clients, all they would need to do is run the client on their end and perform packet captures between Their_IP_Address and the Target_IP_Address and then filtering only on the ports used for the transfer. (Encryption can come into play but even with that, it depends on where the “capture” tool ties into THEIR system (or perhaps the client itself?).
Even with encryption, If they can plug into a point (on their computer – this is an important point not to be confused with performing a network capture of encrypted data) to where the data sent/received is no longer encrypted, it is then simply a matter of matching the capture with the file transferred. (much like your browser decrypted traffic sent to it via an encrypted connection)
While they (RIAA & MediaSentry) may have their own “process” of doing it, the WAYS to do it are fairly public knowledge as long as you know what you are looking for.
A process can be proprietary and you can hide behind that. HOWEVER, they should not be surprised if the case goes against them and more and more people go defenses down that line. At some point they will have to reveal their cards/ways, stop, or find new ways to try their tactics.
The other problem here too is getting judges who understand enough of this to rule intelligently on cases (or at least have access to really good technical people on the matter).
“…but courts have ways of surprising all of us.”
Sometimes they never cease to amaze me.
YES they do
March 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“she probably needs to sit down with any kids who used that computer and ask them what they were doing, etc.”
I sat down with my kid and ask him what he was doing with his hight power rifle, his M16 and is rocket launcher after reading stuff about the RIAA. He told me that he was just playing with his freinds. I believe him but since then I don’t know where he is nor do I know where his friends are, I wonder. Do you think I should worry? LOL
September 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
It appears that some are confusing criminal prosecution with civil action. The reason RIAA uses civil actions is that they only have to show that harm or the intent of harm was caused them, far less a standard than reasonable doubt criminal activity occurred. Thus “demonstrating” that only one recording was “pirated” by a defendant is sufficient to win judgment. The mistake most “victims” make is to allow intimidation to surrender their rights to a fair hearing. Never, ever, admit to anything, especially outside the courtroom. Having dealt with civil procedure in several states – and I am not a lawyer – I know specific rules must be followed. RIAA cases I have reviewed cause me to question the validity of RIAA claims, from an evidentary standpoint. A defendant has the right to know all the evidence being used, and how it was obtained, before trial. These cases are not about RIAA’s right to sue, fairness, or justice. It’s about following the rules of evidence, procedure and victims surrendering their rights. A plaintiff must prove their case so make RIAA do just that. A preponderance of evidence wins for either party. Making RIAA prove how they obtained theirs is the first best step to having it quashed or the case dismissed outright, with extreme prejudice if rights were violated. Understand that jury trial is not necessarily an automatic right in civil proceedings, but demand one anyway. BTW I’ve won five of six civil cases pro se from both tables. I do not recommend going without a lawyer. Civil cases are a game and the other lawyer knows how to play the rules. In retrospect, I was lucky.