Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient 169
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."
Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:5, Insightful)
But at least it shows you why choosing a judge in such cases is a much better option for the defendant than a trial by jury [slashdot.org] - technicalities count, precisely for the reason that judges have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, while juries prefer to take the big-bang approach.
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that's in interesting way to handle it (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the actual ruling (and I know none of you will), it turns out that the defendant has been served, but has never bothered to respond or show up. The RIAA have then gone for a default judgement, but this apparently makes the judge responsible for carefully checking their allegations. Normally that would be the defence's job. So the defendant has in effect managed to get himself a free legal defence, of the very highest quality: the judge himself.
It's a risky strategy, but at least he isn't getting reamed by some guy who makes $300 an hour for playing a lawyer on Slashdot.
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
media != file
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be proceeding a. on the assumption that the defendant actually did infringe on the copyrights, which we don't know, and b. as if the judge had actually ruled the defendant not liable, which hasn't happened.
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the second question - has he done something Illegal - goes to the root of what the article is about. Since this is a question of law ruling - not a ruling on the facts - the judge is addressing EXACTLY that point. The Judge's answer was that there would need to be SOME proof this guy actually shared a file. Not someone using his account or his connection - but him. You need to show a tanglible link - some evidence that the defendant cannot counter with evidence to the contrary - that supports your position.
Now.. I hear you saying - but that's what I mean by "my gut" - the judge can't just look at the account name - see a guy named jeff - and say "you're guilty." The reason that is the case is that this is NOT the final disposition of the trial. This was RIAA requesting that the trial be ended now in their favor. A judgement before the jury reaches a conclusion on the evidence. In federal court there must be *no* relevant questions of fact left to be decided to support their ruling. This just forces RIAA to go through more of the trial - possibly even allowing a jury to hear the evidence and rule on their gutt. (Imagine, implementing the system our founder's evisioned!?)
And yes, your "feeling in your gutt" would be applicable if you were a juror and had listend to all the evidence - because it's a civil case, and the purden of proof is preponderance of the evidence.
-GiH
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:4, Insightful)
Who knows. Who cares? Maybe he shared his entire MP3 collection but you see, that isn't the issue. This is about the methods the RIAA uses to determine if a particular individual is guilty of copyright infringement. That's been the sticking point all along, and the reason so many knowledgeable Slashdotters are against those people. Does modern copyright need major reform? Yes. Does that change the fact that it's the current law of the land? Nope. Nobody really argues that around here. Most of us do, it appears, believe that people should be judged guilty based upon actual evidence, not gut feelings, and not some attack lawyer's manufactured "proof." Nor should we be subject to the music industry's need to make examples out of us, regardless of our actual guilt. Don't excuse the RIAA's behavior: these are a bunch of bad dudes and they really need to have the shit kicked out of them (ah, in the legal sense, of course.)
Let's face it, the RIAA's "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) appears to have been deemed insufficient. It's about goddamned time! Seems to me the judge did the right thing: he told them to come back when they could prove it, which is something that I wish more judges had been doing the past few years. What, you mean their "evidence" is too weak? Won't hold up in court? Gee, that's too bad. Good thing we have judges and laws I guess, to help us sort this stuff out.
RIAA attorneys have been getting away with a lot of questionable proceedings (and outright lying to the court, any court) and I'm hoping maybe the judiciary is finally catching on. That's the only way we'll put a stop to this.
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing has been decided except the judge's decision to not decide until an actual trial, or if the defendent continues to not respond, a hearing. Nobody has been found liable or not liable yet, neither in prinipcle nor because of proof or lack of proof.
This is about a motion for default judgement. By law, only questions of law can be decided by before a trial; facts, except uncontested facts, have to be decided by the finder of fact, usually the jury. (But, as you say, often it's better to have a bench trial. A good judge tends to be less emotional and more fact-based than a jury.)
The judge has ruled that the facts presented in the complaint, though uncontested by default and so taken as true, are, as a matter of law, insufficient to conclude a default judgement.
IANAL, YMMV, RTFA, etc. etc.
Re:RIAA heading for a big fall? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generalize. Fitting Punishment. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.
That would be true if the RIAA show trials were different from each other in any way. None of them ever present "sufficient evidence" of damage. If other judges look at this decision and follow, the game is over as it should be. This judge has come close to understanding that the charges themselves are unsupportable.
The sad fact of life for the broadcast and recording companies is that they have nothing special to offer. Anyone can now make good quality recordings and everyone has access to the same, dirt cheap promotion platform. Their position as the sole promoter of music can only be maintained by eliminating everyone else's rights.
The nature of publishing has changed and the laws need to move with it. If the goal of copyright it to maximize culture and the state of the art, copyright law needs to become more accepting of new publication methods not less accepting. Terms of exclusivity and punishment for violation of that exclusivity need to more closely match the lower costs of recording and publishing. 100 year copyrights and $200,000 judgements are absurd. You will never see anyone prove actual damages like that because it never happens.
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone can now make good quality recordings... (Score:3, Insightful)
The labels are certainly not the only ones capable of making music, but they sure seem like they create the vast majority of the music that people think is valuable enough *to pay nothing for*.
Truth Is... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the one court case the RIAA did win, Distribution was never proven. That woman was convicted, on a preponderance of the evidence, of Making Available. The jury was stupid, Internet illiterate -- and damn proud of it! Yet the two foremost authorities on copyright law (Nimmer, and the other one whose name escapes me -- IANAL) require that Distribution actually occur before the owner's exclusive right has been violated. That's impossible to prove with the evidence the RIAA has unless they can force someone to testify against the Defendant. In fact, turning somebody who probably participated in the downloading themselves is likely the only way the RIAA could honestly win a case with a fair jury and proper jury instructions.
Furthermore, even if "illegal" music files are found on a computer hard drive, that doesn't mean that they were "illegally downloaded" by the computer owner. They could have been ripped from owned or borrowed CD's. A friend could have brought over a data DVD of MP3 files and loaded them. The point is that MP3's on a computer hard drive alone is not evidence of illegal downloading.
Ray, you ask elsewhere what evidence to demand from the RIAA. Most of all you should require a guaranteed unaltered hard drive image of the computer that actually collected the evidence, this snapshot taken at the time that the Plaintiff's so-called evidence was collected. You also need them to Prove that the time clock on their screen shots matches the time clock that the ISP used when logging the IP address data. THESE ITEMS ARE CRUCIAL in determining that the evidence in question was accurately collected.
Consider, would you accept fingerprint data where you never questioned the technician on how it was gathered, or determined that he was using proper equipment with proper training? Or that the matching method used was the best available?
Would you accept as uncontaminated and properly tested DNA evidence from someone who had never shown any expertise in the area of DNA collection, could not provide proof that he had the equipment or training necessary to properly collect uncontaminated samples, or used a lab with no track record of being able to properly test samples?
How about a policeman who can't produce at trial the radar gun, in the condition it was in at the time he claims he caught your client speeding? There's a case pending right now where GPS evidence disputes the police radar evidence. And it can be very hard with a radar gun to know for sure which car it tagged. Would you accept that unquestioned?
I would hope not!
The evidence, methods, and personnel here require similar scrutiny. There is so much stuff that can go wrong in a personal computer these days, using questionable software (KaZaA in particular, which is the program that SafeNet maintains the use when they say "we went out on the internet like any other use could and found these infringing files offered for distribution"), virus/worm/trojan infections, adware/spyware, inept investigators.
And be sure to get the exact IP addresses the investigators used when downloading the files offered in evidence. There might be logs proving whether or not that IP addresses ever connected to the computers in question. In addition, the investigators may have been using illegal IP addresses in attempts to get around IP Address Blocking -- ev
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why judges still run the courtroom, even in a jury trial. We count on juries to refuse to convict based on "feelings", which is the whole purpose of having 12 random Joes rather than a professional jury class. But we also count on judges to both regulate what evidence is presented to the jury and overturn convictions where "what is said in a statute" is not met. It's basically the best of both worlds, assuming you believe it is better to err on the side of allowing guilty men to go free rather than imprisoning the innocent (not that both don't happen regardless).
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This would have been much better if (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:5, Insightful)
GP is saying that it's a "mere technicality" that the RIAA brought a frivolous suit unsupported by evidence. I hope the author thinks twice about such a ridiculous statement. If he or a loved one were sued unjustly, he wouldn't think it's a mere "technicality" that the people suing him had no factual basis for their lawsuit.
Re:Not free and clear. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Truth Is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everyone can now make good quality recordings.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This would have been much better if (Score:3, Insightful)
they won't be able to bring affidavits but will have to bring witnesses
the witnesses will have to be competent to provide the testimony they will attempt to introduce
the exhibits will have to be authentic
the exhibits will have to be properly authenticated
the investigator witness will have to show he's properly licensed
the evidence will actually have to prove that the defendant committed an infringement of one of the rights enumerated in 17 USC 106(3).
I.e., even with the defendant in default, they will not be able to prove their case, which means they will likely lose.
I would not be surprised to see them quietly forget about this case.... they've bumped into a judge who sees through their lack of evidence. They can stand on their head but will not be able to actually prove a prima facie case with the garbage they have.
Re:Semantics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This would have been much better if (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright infringement cases are tort cases, not contract cases. When is the last time you saw a default judgment entered on a negligence claim?
Re:Yet another "not liable by technicality" (Score:3, Insightful)
Forbidden? No.
Falsely claimed to be forbidden? Yes.
It is the content cartel's oppressive wave of frivolous litigation that is most at fault. It needs to be slapped down by alert judges, like Judge Larimer.
Excellent post, by the way.