Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Backs Down Again in Chicago

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu May 03, 2007 05:30 PM
from the can't-win-them-all dept.
Government The Courts Media Music News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City. It has once again backed down in BMG v. Thao, after suing a misidentified defendant. Same thing occurred last October in Elektra v. Wilke. In the Thao case, the RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber (pdf) of the ISP (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Entertainment: RIAA Drops Case In Chicago 229 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA has dropped the Elektra v. Wilke case in Chicago. This is the case in which Mr. Wilke had moved for summary judgment, stating that: '1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under. 2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded]. He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CDs owned by Mr. Wilke. 3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.' The RIAA's initial response to the summary judgment motion, prior to dropping the case, had been to cross-move for discovery, indicating that it did not have enough evidence with which to defeat Mr. Wilke's summary judgment motion. P2pnet had termed the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

RIAA Backs Down Again in Chicago 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • That's not backing down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:32PM (#18980651)
    Realizing you are suing the wrong person is not 'backing down'.

    • Re:That's not backing down (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mathletics (1033070) on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:37PM (#18980715)
      Considering that the RIAA willingly sues innocent people, this is still 'backing down.'

    • Re:That's not backing down (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday May 03 2007, @10:10PM (#18983353) Journal
      While I might agree with you in general, this is a special case. The RIAA has a slew of lawyers who are prosecuting these cases all over the country, even providing help to other countries. There is no longer any excuse for taking a case of this nature to court without any proof whatsoever of wrong doing on the defendants part.

      This amounts to malicious litigation, and should be treated as such by the courts, not just public opinion. If this was the first case by the RIAA to go to court, okay, oops might be excusable. That's not the case, and 'oops' is not acceptable. Did the RIAA offer any recompense to the man they put through that shit?

      Analogy: Your neighbor has a pit bull. You don't really know your neighbor but there is no problems between you until one day the pit bull gets loose, chases you down the street and up a tree. While trying to attack you the pit bull only manages to make a small rip in one of your pant legs. The neighbor gets hold of the dog, says sorry, and goes away quickly. Meanwhile, you fall out of the tree and break your arm and have to go to the hospital and pay for the treatments.

      Now, the dog didn't bite you, and the owner said sorry, but would you still sue the neighbor?

        • Re:That's not backing down (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lonewolf666 (259450) on Friday May 04 2007, @03:33AM (#18985167)
          Pitbull = RIAA Lawyer
          You = Defendant in court mistakenly accused by the RIAA

          So the better analogy would be that the pitbull of your neighbor goes after you because he confuses you with someone who has attacked his owner (attack the owner = copyright violation).
          The neighbor knows better but still does not bother to apologize or offer to pay your hospital bill. Now the question was, do you sue the neighbor for the damages you suffered?

  • Glad to see it (Score:5, Informative)

    by jcgf (688310) on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:33PM (#18980665)
    I love seeing these cases where RIAA has been shown to be a bit skimpy on their evidence. Hopefully it will make more people fight back.

    • Re:Glad to see it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pilgrim23 (716938) on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:42PM (#18980833)
      In most cases, if you read the briefs, the lawyers are clueless about the evidence presented, in almost ANY field, not just in tech. The verbage indicates ignorance in many many areas. In most cases though, the lawyer is more up to speed then is the judge. Think that one through and you will understand the ture pickle we are in...

      • Re:Glad to see it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:56PM (#18981021)
        Exactly. My wife's best friend clerks for a federal judge and as part of her job writes decisions. It shocked the hell out of her to see that her work was not just used as a distilled reference for the judge's own decision but were read word-for-word and unedited in court the same day she wrote them without any review. It is frightening that a 20-something from a tier-3 law school is literally interpreting law with no oversight. So far she has decided computer, pharmaceutical and telecommunications cases with no experience in any of these fields. And according to this clerk it is common and accepted.
        • Seems like a serious enough problem that you'd want to expose the judge in question and get himher removed from power.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            This is quite common practice, and acceptable. It is quite unlikely that the judge did not read over the decision before hand. Judges often simply agree with a proposed order's reasoning. That's what law clerks are for. It's the same thing at the US Supreme Court.... clerks write many of the opinions for their justice.

            Often in state court, the PARTIES write the decisions for the judges and submit them as "proposed" orders and the judge just scratches through the word "proposed" and signs it. I've writt
        • Imagine how the losing side in a case would feel
          if they found out.

        • Re:Glad to see it (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 03 2007, @08:17PM (#18982561) Homepage
          Duh. Have any of you ever Met a Judge?

          You do not become a Judge by being the smartest or wisest person of the land.

          You become a Judge by having lots of money, knowing lots of people and making people know you.

          Either elected or appointed, your skills, integrity, or knowledge means nothing. Who you know and who knows you is EVERYTHING.

          I have installed Theaters for Judges, Many are incredibly dense and after talking to them Frighteningly inept.

          They are 100% identical to a mayor, congresscritter, or president. There is NOTHING special about a judge other than who they know.

  • yes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wizardforce (1005805)

    It's really far past the time for the RIAA to start paying for all their mistakes.
    no, it is time the companies that support the RIAA pay for what they're doing. the quickest way to do that is to outright ignore their garbage- even refusing to pirate their garbage [free publicity right?] stop indirectly supporting these idiots- listen to alternatives!
    • Send the copyright holders a letter explaining why you have stopped. Otherwise you are another pirating music instead og buying it.

      I understand eMailing Steve Jobs gets things done faster.
      Bo only if you give the secret code 09.. ah nevermind.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      HOT GRITS!
      *runs away

    • Let's name actual companies: Sony etc., not "RIAA" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KWTm (808824) on Thursday May 03 2007, @06:24PM (#18981389) Journal
      As others have noted, the RIAA has been successful promoting themselves as a concept in people's minds so that we direct our ire toward this nebulous phantom group, rather than the actual companies. If you look at their list of members [riaa.com], you'll find that there appear to be many many --until you see shenanigans with member names like "Universal(1)" and "Universal(2)". Like, wow, there are so many members of RIAA that Universal is on there twice! And Sony ... well, there's Sony Direct, Sony Labels, Sony Music Special ... gimme a break.

      Wikipedia has a comment about this:

      The RIAA's website contains a list of members, which has been disputed in the past, as Matador Records, Fat Wreck Chords[4] Lookout Records, Epitaph Records and Bloodshot Records (who are not members) have been listed there.[5] Some may have been automatically included in the list as they were using RIAA members as distributing labels.
      --from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA [wikipedia.org]

      Let's name the actual companies involved: Sony, Universal, Capitol, KGB Records, Synapse Films... We might even make up a new acronym for the coalition.
    • As if those independent pirate-friendly artists could ever concoct music as brilliant as K-Fed's "Playing with Fire"

  • Ah the memories... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanderingMind (884641) * on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:40PM (#18980785) Homepage Journal
    I remember back when the RIAA lawsuits first began. While they didn't stop a lot of people from file sharing, it did disquiet a lot of people. The idea of the RIAA sniffing the P2P networks and logging everything you did was frightening, and people imagined itemized lists of dates and times their downloads were completed.

    Now the only disquieting thing is that the RIAA seems inclined to sue anyone and anybody, regardless of whether they have anything to do with it or not. The more cases they pursue, the more obvious it is that their ability to locate and pursue anyone is pathetic. Feelings of Big Brother subside, and now we can rest easy knowing that if the RIAA does sue you, it's because they think you're someone you're not.

  • Monkeys throwing poo (Score:3, Funny)

    by adam.dorsey (957024) on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:41PM (#18980803)
    The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City.

    Well, there's only so mush shit you can throw at a wall before it stops sticking.
  • RIAA they knows *nothing* 'bout The Blues.

    They don't got it in their pocket or their shoes

    Chicago you know has Always had The Blues.

    I guess this time was RIAA's turn to lose.

    --

    Any good blues chord progression should do it, repeat to fit in 12 bars. Prounounce the acronym as a word. Play it until you run out of alcohol or your brains fall out your ears, or both.

  • This makes no difference at all... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kcbrown (7426) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:46PM (#18980871)

    ...unless the defendant turns around and sues the RIAA to recover court costs, attorney's fees, the value of the time he lost defending himself, and a hefty sum on top of that to make them think real hard about doing something like that again.

    The only way the RIAA is going to stop harassing people through the courts is when it costs them so much that they can't sustain it anymore. That won't happen simply by suing for court costs and attorney's fees -- the RIAA (through its members) is much too wealthy for that.

  • The law suit was dismissed without prejudice which means they can sue him again... and he wasn't offered costs! His lawyer should have asked for costs and should also ask the case be struck with prejudice.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by budgenator (254554)
      I'm sure the RIAA was much more likely to end it quickly if they had a NDA on how much their victim was compensated and was allowed to let it look like a draw rather than a humiliating defeat.

  • Misidentification is a bit troubling. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by urikkiru (801560) on Thursday May 03 2007, @06:16PM (#18981299) Journal
    This mis-identified defendant issue is a bit worrying. I mean, let's say you're tracking information on a p2p network. Now, you write your own client, and sit there tracking what IP address sends you data from downloading a specific file(that is supposedly copyrighted). At that point, you have the data block(s), and can compare them against the final downloaded file, which you can verify with it's file hash. And you have the IP, and the date/time you got it from them.(Let's assume this is a p2p protocol where the client you get the data from is definitely the one that actually has the data purposely shared, and not one like say Freenet, where it's passed often by other clients)

    Then you go to the ISP, and query who had that IP address at that time. For bonus points, you ask if they have any traffic logs that will verify the IP address was participating on the appropriate ports for that p2p network.

    All that data seems enough to validly go to court. You still have to link a person successfully to the ip address, but the base level identification is enough to have a valid name to at least start with.

    So the overwhelming question for me, is how they can get it so wrong? If this is the wrong person, and they are not even a subscriber to a comcast cable modem, how is their name in the RIAA's possession? I'm throwing out the wacky idea that they are suing via random selection in the phone book :P(which would garner them insanely bad press, and make judges in courtrooms very, very angry with them)

    Obviously you have to treat each case on it's own merits, and making assumptions about guilt/innocence is a dangerous thing indeed. Also, we are not counting the times when an adult is the target in court, but it turns out it's the child of the adult who is the infringing person. But still, these *completely* erroneous identifications are very worrying. Just who are the RIAA getting their information from?

  • Cable modems do not share files (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamacat (583406) on Thursday May 03 2007, @07:06PM (#18981889)
    People share files.

    RIAA should be required to show evidence that a particular person rather than just a particular peace of hardware was involved in file sharing to start a lawsuit. If you have kids visiting your house, it's possible and likely that one of them will do a quick download. And, given that there is no requirement to even secure GUNS kept at home, I don't see how we can require people to keep their gaming box under lock and key. Difficult, I know. But we want one to build a good case to abridge someone's freedom by dragging them to court.

  • So they have an IP address... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cdrguru (88047) on Thursday May 03 2007, @08:42PM (#18982771) Homepage
    That gets them to a house. A house with an account holder in it, probably. It in no way identifies the person performing the copyright infringment.

    Come on, if the account holder isn't responsible then nobody is at all, ever. The Internet remains anonymous and without consequences for everyone.

    Ever try to get someone to stop brute-force cracking attempts on a system? The ISP doesn't care, or at best will just warn them so they push their attempts through a proxy. Law enforcement doesn't care until there are significant damages. So any attempts to get a script kiddy to stop results in no action until they are in some serious and deep stinky stuff. Assuming they are dumb (and almost always are) and brag about it. Because once again, the Internet is anonymous and without consequences - unless you are stupid.

    The answer to all of this seems to be "Wasn't me. Must have been someone else using the Internet connection. Come on, prove otherwise!"
    • In a civil suit it's 'a preponderance of evidence' (51%) not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Now, the issue is still, if there is a likelyhood that the account is wrong, and there are multiple people in the house, how do you ever get to 51% that a specific individual is responsible for anything?

  • Not warranty registration (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday May 03 2007, @08:49PM (#18982827)

    However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber [CC] (pdf) of the ISP [CC] (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time.

    When I first read the summary I thought they had tracked Mr. Thao down because he had registered his cable modem with the manufacturer (the warranty card) and they had gotten the ownership information from the manufacturer (it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me). But I guess he had an ISP-supplied device (a DSL router he wasn't buying outright) and since he was the person in possession of the router at the time the RIAA went looking for the owner, he was the one they sued, even though another customer had the router at the time of the infringement. I wonder if the RIAA can find out who that was. Do records of equipment leasing fall under the list of stuff ISP's are supposed to be keeping for a longer period of time now?

  • Who gives them the evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by houghi (78078) on Friday May 04 2007, @12:57AM (#18984377) Homepage
    In Belgium the way to go would be to sue an unknown person. It is then up to the court to demand evidence from the provider. No evidence or identity may be given to the suer, their lawer or anybody else. Only to the court by court order.

    What has happend is that the Belgian *AA wanted to file many, many, many lawsuits. The courts said something like: go f*ck a duck. We are not going to harrass people who did just share. Please come back when you have people who are making money over it. Those are the people we will put money and efford in, but we are not going to sue the whole country.

    Sounds reasonable to me and yes, they do that with other things as well.

  • Targetting only the weak? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geoff lane (93738) on Friday May 04 2007, @01:44AM (#18984605)
    Is it an accident that the RIAA seems only to go after ordinary people in these cases? Given the thousands of cases you would expect the occasional politician, lawyer, rich businessman to be accused.

    Yet people who can barely afford the settlement costs seem to be the most common.

    • Re:I hope ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:40PM (#18980771) Homepage Journal
      How is it the *AA's mistake?

      From what the summary says, they were given incorrect information. Information they should have been albe to trust and act upon. So really its the ISP's fault for fingering the wrong guy. ( and they should be liable for damages/cost of defence )

      Sure, i hate the the 'industry' as much as the next guy, but this isnt exactally a victory here.
      • It is another "The IP number doesn't identify the person" clue stick upside the head.

      • Re:I hope ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:56PM (#18981027) Homepage Journal
        The point is that the RIAA is acting like an enforcement agency instead of a civil litigant. They've used uniformed "swat teams", they do their own para-police investigations. If they're going to collect their own evidence, then they're going to have to abide by the rules, and if they storm into somebody's life they better get it right.

        Yes, the RIAA "made a mistake" and should be held accountable.
      • They should have verified it. They should then have to get that money from the ISP and hopefully that will discourage ISPs from falling in so easily, knowing that a simple mistake can cost them money, even if they aren't compensated for looking up the guys IP in the first place. (or is the ISP compensated in someway?) Then the ISPs will demand more rights and lobbying and it will turn around and help strengthen the whole system from radical abuses.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by nurb432 (527695)
          And verify it how? WIth the ISPs records? Thats the only way you can validate it. with records from the same people that gave it to you ( and botched ) it in the first place.

          Im sorry, if the ISP gave them bad information, its their ISP's fault in this case.

          And yes, i agree it does help show that just having an IP and a date isnt a good case to stand on, but its not their fault when they asked for data from the ISP involved.

          • Re: Not the ISP's job (Score:5, Interesting)

            by evought (709897) <evought@@@pobox...com> on Thursday May 03 2007, @07:29PM (#18982093) Homepage Journal
            On the ISP side, it is not their job to have forensic quality logs that can stand up as evidence in court. ISPs keep logs for their own internal purposes. So, to some extent, the data which ISPs are being required to provide via subpoena is being misused. I do not see any reason that the ISPs should have to keep data of sufficient quality to satisfy third party needs, particularly without being compensated for it. Having had to implement tamper and fraud and time change and dropped record and system failure and etc. resistant logging for a client, I can tell you it adds an order of magnitude of expense. This expense is of no benefit to the ISP.

            When I was in the position of handling abuse reports in the past, I would not respond with user details unless absolutely forced to. Instead, the policy was that if someone reported a possible abuse of the TOS and provided their own logs sufficient to investigate, I would then perform an internal investigation, which might include beginning additional logging on the account if it seemed warranted. If a TOS violation was supportable, I would then notify the user and let them respond. In this case, the user would have said "WTF: I wasn't your customer at the time!" and I would have said: "OS! Computer error, my bad!" (if I had screwed up that badly in the first place). If they could not deny the TOS violation, I would terminate the account. If the TOS violation also involved possible illegal acts, I would then turn over my logs and notes to the appropriate authorities directly, with any necessary caveats; the authorities could do whatever they needed to do with the information. I would *not* turn over confidential information to the original reporter, whose identity and authority I could probably not validate anyway. They can get the information from the authorities if they are authorized to do so. Bottom line is, though, provide the data as is, say how it is gathered, and take no responsibility beyond that.

            Basically someone reporting a violation would have two choices: go through the hoops and get action quickly, or get a supoena/court order and get action slowly. People went through the hoops. Luckily I did not have to deal with this long or often.
      • They bought the law suit forward, if they loose or decide not to pursue further, they should pay the costs incurred by the defendant. It's not the defendants fault that the RIAA didn't make sure their position was watertight before moving forward. Of course the RIAA should then have the right to sue the people who did the shoddy investigative work, assuming they did not deliver on the contract.

    • Re:Backing Down? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) <lajollahomeless@hotmail.com> on Thursday May 03 2007, @05:41PM (#18980807) Journal

      More like 'oops, wrong person'. Not their fault they were given the wrong information.
      Ooops. Sorry about sending you to Guatanamo. We had the wrong info. No blood, no foul, right? No hard feelings? Just sign this release form.

      Oh? Did you have a promising career all planned out just before this little mishap? Sorry about that. No blood, no foul, right? We're sure your home country will have some nice relief services for people who are down on their luck.

      Have a nice day!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Farmer Tim (530755)
        Ooops. Sorry about sending you to Guatanamo. We had the wrong info. No blood, no foul, right? No hard feelings? Just sign this release form.

        Congratulations, you just described reality.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib [wikipedia.org]

        The difference is that the RIAA's targets actually get a day in court, and the RIAA aren't allowed to extract confessions using tortu^H^H^H^H^H "psychological pressure". Why are you expecting American companies to behave any better than the American government, when one controls the ot
      • Oh come on - we're talking about terrorists and pirates here! Something must be done. If you want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few eggs you know.

        Ahh idealism - it's so last century.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by powerspike (729889)
      but it's their job to vaidate it.
    • Yeah, lets see a newspaper pull that off. "But your honor one of our sources reported that Celebrity T was doing R bad thing at the time therefore we didn't slander them."

      Guess what, if you sue someone it's now your problem. If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Trial is supposed to be the last thing in a long line of to do's, one of which is verifying that you've got the right person. The RIAA doesn't do that long list, which is horribly wrong but not quite illegal, and more and more often it's coming back to haunt them.

      • If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence.

        Ever heard of discovery? Here's how they do it in Utah, USA [utcourts.gov], on the first page of a Google search for
        discovery in criminal cases. Gathering supporting facts for a trial after prosecution is not only routine, it's actually part of normal flow o

    • ...and forever punish those who would dare have anything to do with this company regardless of whatever contrition it has expressed for the crimes of it's ancestors, because we all know that reform, even by future generations, is impossible.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.