Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge David G. Larimer, presiding in Rochester, New York, has denied an RIAA application for default judgment on the ground that the RIAA's evidence was insufficient, in that it contained no details of actual downloads or distributions, and no sufficient evidence that defendant was in fact Kazaa user 'heavyjeffmc@KaZaA.' The decision (PDF) concluded that 'there are significant issues of fact regarding the identification of the defendant from his alleged "online media distribution system" username.' (In case you're unfamiliar with the term 'online media distribution system,' that's because it is a term the RIAA coined 4 years ago to describe p2p file sharing accounts in its lawsuits; the term is not known to have been used by anyone else anywhere else.) In August a similar RIAA default judgment motion was denied on the ground that the pleadings failed to allege sufficient factual details supporting a claim of copyright infringement, in a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez."

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[rking]

Decided by question of fact, not question of law. Instead of "not liable in principle" it's "not liable because they couldn't prove it".

You're turning the word "technicality" on its head. Not finding someone liable (yet) unless the case against them has been made is the very core of the system. It's the whole point of the proceedings. It's as far from being a technicality as anything could be.

Re:Semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Online media distribution system" isn't a proper noun, it's a description, and is a perfectly accurate and easily-understandable way to summarize what Kazaa is

No it isn't. Can anyone speak English anymore? Kazaa distributed the product, not the media. You could reasonably descibe Kazaa as an online distribution medium; that would be accurate.

Re:Now, that's in interesting way to handle it

[rking]

Denying a default judgment does not mean that the case goes away. It just means that the judge isn't prepared to rule on it on the basis of the facts currently in the record. The defendant can still lose later.

Defendant is still not out of the woods

[LinEagle]

If you read the pdf link to the decision [ilrweb.com], it is noted on page 4 at the bottom that there will still be a further hearing. It is here that the RIAA will get a chance to substantiate its claims.

However I will say it is good that the judge actually read the arguments and understood that the RIAA did not provide the evidence.

Re:Now, that's in interesting way to handle it

[Ra Zen]

RIAA rarely brings cases to court in states where the defendants actually live. Convenient for RIAA. For the defendants, not so much. Also, due to any number of reasons, defendants are rarely notified of the suit with any reasonable time frame in which to respond. Thus, many cases have defendants missing court dates and having no representation. It looks bad for them, but it may not be their fault. I'm not sure if this happened here, but it is certainly a possibility.

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[ZachPruckowski]

What on earth are you jabbering on about? In an adversarial system, it's the prosecution or litigant's job to "prove" the allegation. Where in any statute can I find a reference to conviction on "principle"?

He means that the judge found him not liable because of insufficient evidence, not because the judge thought that filesharing shouldn't result in lawsuits or that the label's case was tainted or something.

If the judge had said "non-commercial infringement is not something you can sue over" or if he had said "your tactics to collect this evidence were illegal", then the case would get thrown out, and other judges would be given ammo to do the same thing. In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.

Re:Now, that's in interesting way to handle it

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it tends to work that way in real life, but being an arrogant prick doesn't add weight to your arguments.

Re:Semantics

[st0rmshad0w]

Definition: media, An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored.

Their term is incorrect even as a description, as Kazaa does NOT distribute media, if it sent you CDs in the mail that'd be different.

I can find no definiton for the term media that defines it as data or content.

Re:Kazaa still up..

[Technician]

does anybody actually use Kazaa anymore?

I thought they were sued out of existance like Napster (The new Napster is Napster in name only and is not the old Napster)

A Google search shows they are not gone yet. They are still there. Them and Limewire seem to be the number 1 & 2 sources of RIAA targeting.

http://www.kazaa.com/us/index.htm [kazaa.com]

A few lawsuits are good for the P-P community. It shows problems with user privacy so vast improvements can be made.

I hope the RIAA will like the new versions. The biggest one they have problems with is the oldest. It's called the sneakernet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet [wikipedia.org]

Most attacks due to it's excellent privacy is carried out as a public relations campaign and sometimes through malware.
http://www.usbhacks.com/ [usbhacks.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Copy_That_Floppy [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cosky.com/?q=node/27 [cosky.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_slurping [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a crime! This is a civil case.

Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

At this point, the law as it stands practically makes it illegal to have digital music and internet connectivity on the same computer.

I respectfully disagree with you there. There is nothing whatsoever in US copyright law that justifies the RIAA's bizarre legal arguments. You just feel that way because the RIAA has been on this binge for 4 years, and the courts haven't thoroughly smacked them down yet.