New RIAA p2p blunder
p2pnet.net News:- Paul H. Wilke, a 52-year-old Illinois man the Big Four Organized Music cartel is trying to nail for alleged copyright infringement, says he’s never used p2p file sharing programs, let alone illicitly distributed songs or made them available for distribution online.
Nor, he says, are any of the songs cited by the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) as being on his computer ‘illegally,’ in any way ‘illegal’. Rather, he says, they were ripped from CDs he’d bought and paid for.
But these aren’t the only mistakes made by the RIAA. The so-called ‘trade’ organization’s lawyers, Holme Roberts & Owen, also managed to get Wilke’s name wrong.
With the plaintiffs bringing hundreds upon hundreds of cases through the courts each month, they’re bound to mistakenly bring cases against innocent individuals with their drift net litigation tactics, says his lawyer, Daliah Saper. It’s through this litigation machine that the RIAA has wrongly brought a suit against Paul Wilke.
On February 24, 2006, he received a letter saying he’d been sued for copyright infringement by numerous record companies.
Baffled and confused by the charge, Wilke hired a professional systems expert to check his computer.
The professional confirmed that no such programs existed on his hard drive, Saper told p2pnet. Paul contacted the Settlement Information Line to clear up any misunderstandings. He explained to the settlement hotline representative that he only used iTunes to download songs and that he’s never used any type of file sharing program. The remaining songs on his computer have all been transferred from purchased CD’s which are still in his possession.
But instead of dropping the case, the ‘settlement’ officer, who isn’t an attorney, told Wilke she had no authority to negotiate and could only offer to settle for $3,750.
Paul’s subsequent attempts at contacting the actual attorneys for the RIAA were re-routed to the Settlement Hotline, Saper states. “Before he knew it, the RIAA named him in a suit filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
But, undeterred by such strong arm tactics, he decided to take the expensive and time consuming route of defending his innocence.
Saper asked Judge James Holderman to dismiss Elektra v Wilke in Chicago federal court, this morning (August 22) and, “Paul Wilke also stepped up.”
Holderman’s reaction to the motion was, “extremely favorable,” says Saper. “He bluntly asked the RIAA’s counsel what, if anything, they’d have to say in a responsive pleading.
The RIAA’s counsel said further investigation was necessary.
Holderman has set a date for Wilke’s deposition, but urged the parties to come to a resolution before September 19, the date the RIAA’s responsive pleadings are due, says Saper.
Definitely stay tuned.
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 am
I hope he tries to recover his attorney fees.
Rick
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:05 am
I hope he sues them back. There must be something he can get them for. Any lawyers got any ideas?
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:25 am
This sort of happens with an increasing regularity. While many can not afford “justice” to clear their names, which the **AA’s know and are taking advantage of, more and more as time goes by we are hearing of those that can afford to say the **AA’s are full of hockey and are willing to fight it as the number of lawsuits increase. Well it was bound to happen that at some point they would start losing it on those that can not afford it and hit those that can.
It is through the avenue of those saying they are wrong that word will get out to the courts that all is not as they state. That it is not a slam dunk, open closed case, and that many are wrongfully accused. I suspect that if they had to prove to the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” instead of civil courts likelyhood requirements that they would not have a leg to stand on with many of the cases pending and they know it.
Still hardly a word will be heard in mainstream media and the spin masters of the cartels will once again walk off spouting some sort of nonsense about victory, even when facts say otherwise.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. I await the day the cartels are begging for someone to please listen to what they have to offer rather than the high horse they now pretend to sit on.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
I’m sure that there must be a law that prohibits the spying on someone’s computer, for whatever reason.
Just as no one can search people’s luggge at the train station just because you are sure that one of the luggages or even a specific one may have something that was stolen from you, you are not allowed to search other’s computer to see what they have in it, unless the owner of the computer authorizes it. To do a search of the luggages you have to get the proper law enforcemetn organization to do it.
And guess what. If youl told the law enforcement organization that the search is for illegal copies of songs, they will not bother to d any search.
It is time that law enforcement be done by law enforcement organizations and not some wild vigilantes or bounty hunters.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
August 24th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Thousands have caved in and settled, guilty or not.
This guy didn’t, so props to him.
August 26th, 2006 at 1:12 am
if they got his name wrong… he should just ignore the lawsuit… its not like they are suing him.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/09/riaa-says-that-without-pretrial.html
October 14th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
And once again the RIAA steps on their own dick. How can they be so incompetent as to get his NAME wrong? Can you possibly trust a group like the RIAA that makes mistakes this egregious? Incredible.
Mike
http://quicktrivia.com
October 14th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
If I was Mr Wilke I’d countersue for time and damages to the tune of about a million dollars. This was basically a sloppy, groundless lawsuit with near-zero merit, and the RIAA should pay through the nose for it. It’s amazing it ever got to court in the first place. I mean, rally- using *screenshots* as “proof”? Puh-lease. They should be forced to compensate this guy big-time.
Kelly K. – Supervised Visitation – http://svdirectory.com