RIAA caves in over Lindor case
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Having made Marie Lindor’s life utterly miserable by falsely accusing her of illegally distributing copyrighted music, the RIAA now wants a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, says her lawyer, Ray Beckerman.
“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,” said p2pnet in March, continuing >>>
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.
The motion RIAA motion also demands discovery sanctions against her, discovery sanctions against Beckerman, and a stay of all proceedings, he posts on Recording Industry vs The People.
“It never ceases to amaze me the things these people will attempt to say to a judge with a straight face,” he says, going on:
“This has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever seen from these attorneys, and I have seen many, many ludicrous things from these attorneys on a daily basis”.
.
.Stumble It!
blood in its eye – RIAA victim tells MediaSentry, put up or shut up, March 3, 2008
Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA wants to ‘throw in the towel’ in UMG v. Lindor, June 18, 2008
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.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
pfft, scumbags with their scumbag lawyers
June 18th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I don’t think that there is any point wasting time dealing with these parasites in court.
Just let spread the pest killer.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I hope she turns and sues the RIAA for all they have!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:14 am
After reading the latest “letter” from the RIAA, I have a question on admissable evidence in a court of law. As I understand the law, I am not a lawyer, if you serve a search warrent, you must list specificaly what you are searching for, and other items found that are not in plain site are not admissible in court. The current letter, dated June 17th, states that a resume found on the Lindor computer had a resume on it for someone else. Does this not PROVE that the RIAA investigators look at other files on the computer and opend them while searching for the music files? how is this legal?
“Junior Lindor’s resume, with his current Brooklyn address, was found on the computer in Defendant’s home and, once Junior Lindor was finally located and deposed, he testified that both the Defendant and Woddy Raymond knew that he was living in Brooklyn.”
Please someone explain this. So Confused…….
Shouldn’t the RIAA have sanctions for illegal search and seasure:
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791
This only applies to the government. It doesn’t apply in civil litigation.