Burden of Proof and the RIAA
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- If all attorneys were like those representing RIAA victims instead working as hired guns for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA, the legal profession would have a great rep.
But …….
However, it isn’t all bad. A new breed of lawyer is being born from the loathing directed at the Big 4 as they savage their own customers, using degenerate ‘trade’ organisations such as the RIAA as their weapons.
Elizabeth Farina (right), from the Pittsburgh law firm of Swensen Perer & Kontos, is defending Jerome Williams, a student at Carnegie Mellon who’s being mercilessly harassed by the Big 4 via their RIAA.
“I met Jerome and realized that if the RIAA accusations went uncontested he’d likely face a crushing default judgment,” she told p2pnet.
“My heart went out to him, and I wanted to do what I could to help him assert his rights and navigate these serious accusations.”
Elizabeth is fighting to have copyright infringement allegations lodged by UMG Recordings, Elektra Entertainment Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment against Williams dismissed.
It’s the same old same old; that Jerome downloaded songs – eight, in this instance – the implication being in the process, he deprived the Big 4 of sales they’d otherwise have enjoyed.
“Jerome’s case has particular appeal to me on a personal level because he’s such an intelligent young man with so much promise who’s now facing serious accusations that threaten to permanently derail his finances and career,” says Elizabeth, going on, “Many students accumulate massive student debt and face a hostile, often underpaying, job market upon graduation from college.”"
She says because she usually represents plaintiffs in litigation, the concept of “burden of proof” is extremely important to her.
“I was disturbed to see how often this concept is cast aside in RIAA cases,” she said, adding »»»
With these record industry cases, the RIAA plaintiffs simply have not been held to the task of proving the elements of their claims like the law requires.
When I represent an injured individual in a medical malpractice or auto accident claim, it is my responsibility as plaintiff’s counsel to put forward adequate evidence to prove my client’s case.
Just because the record industry plaintiffs are mammoth corporations with massive financial resources does not justify them shirking their burden of proof under the law, particularly when their claims can have such dire repercussions on often powerless individuals.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
UPDATE – On Recording Industry vs The People, under The last man sued? In Atlantic Recording v. Williams, one of the cases filed by RIAA on December 15th, defendant fights back, Ray Beckerman notes:
“You may recall that, after the RIAA announced on December 18th that it was stopping its lawsuit campaign, and hadn’t filed any new lawsuits for months, we pointed out that this was a falsehood, and identified dozens of cases filed within a week or so of the announcement, some as late as December 15th.
“We have now learned that one of the people sued on December 15th has retained counsel and made a motion to dismiss the complaint, in a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, case Atlantic Recording v Williams.”
Definitely stay tuned.
January , 2009
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.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
you should read her motion to dismiss, it should be boilerplate for every defendant accused by the RIAA, it is a beautiful piece of legalese.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/atlantic_williams_090108MotDismissMemoLaw.pdf
January 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
An account holder is not necessarily the downloaded. Both the RIAA and Directv state in there lawsuits that the named person did something which harmed them. The problem is by the purchase of a legal device or some unknown person using a network is not proof of harm. So while the lawsuit always states the named person harmed them, it lacks any proof. Both Directv and the RIAA know this but file anyway knowing what they claim is not true. It is fraud because they then profit from this filing against an innocent person. It is unlawful for someone to sue another on the basis of a complaint one knows to be false and then from from such a false filing. The justice system is permitting these crimes as they will not enforce the fraud laws. As a consequence, those innocent people sued need to employ Jury Nullification. The next time they are a juror, ignore justice like justice ignored them. While repulsive, it is far worse for justice to ignore a crime victim then it is for a crime victim to ignore justice.