RIAA, MPAA: the same con
p2pnet.net News:- After six months of trying to nail California’s Tammie Marson for alleged copyright infringement, the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) finally had to abandon the case.
“As in all of the RIAA cases, the only basis the RIAA had for its claim against Mrs. Marson was that she paid for the internet access and owned the computer on which the shared files folder resided,” says Recording Industry vs The People, going on:
“Faced with evidence that numerous other people had access to the Internet connection and/or the computer and that any of those people could have engaged in the allegedly infringing conduct, the RIAA agreed to dismiss.”
Agreed? Like it had much of a choice.
RIVTP’s Ray Beckerman also points out that Marson’s legal team, headed up by Seyamack Kouretchian, is handling another p2p file sharing case, this time brought by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and featuring Shaw Hogan.
“Because (a) the Hogan case involves many of the same issues that arise in the RIAA cases, (b) the MPAA has been engaged in cartel-like behavior with the RIAA, and (c) Mr. Hogan (unliked most defendants in these cases) is a litigant who is in a position to fight back, thereby increasing the likelihood of a full and fair airing of the copyright law issues, we are initiating coverage of that case in our index of litigation documents, although it does not directly involve the RIAA),” he adds.
Hogan says one of the allegations the MPAA is making is, “that I’m more or less destroying the movie industry because I allegedly downloaded a movie that I own”.
Also See:
Recording Industry vs The People - RIAA Discontinued Case in California, Virgin v. Marson, July 27, 2006
featuring Shaw Hogan - Shawn Hogan vs the MPAA, July 26, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php





p2pnet - rss feed: 
July 31st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Surely RIAA members should pay for the legal expenses incurred by the victim of the frivolous “shared directory” acusation. Right?