Slashdot Log In
RIAA Backtracks After Embarrassing P2P Defendant
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jul 31, 2007 07:47 AM
from the lack-of-forethought-gets-them-every-time dept.
from the lack-of-forethought-gets-them-every-time dept.
Harmony writes "When the RIAA sued Sgt. Nicholas Paternoster, it included a screenshot of a shared folder with over 4,600 files — some of which were pornographic images unrelated to the case. Last week, the RIAA got permission from a judge to, as a 'professional courtesy,' swap out the original exhibit for one with only the 350+ songs the defendant is accused of sharing on Kazaa. The RIAA's carelessness may come back to haunt it, however: 'After the suit was filed — and the exhibit made public — Sgt. Paternoster decided to fight back, filing a counterclaim accusing the RIAA of violating his privacy and seeking to "shame Counter-Plaintiff... into giving in to their unreasonable demands regarding their copyrighted materials."'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sgt. WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sgt. WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sgt. WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sgt. WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Better article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better article (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Better article (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed + she muttered a few words under her breath the reporter apparantly didn't notice.
Parent
Re:Better article (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Better article (Score:4, Insightful)
Another interresting choice of words : not the artist, but "the industry"
Funny : the captcha is "embezzle"
Parent
Actually, I believe her (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Better article (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Sue em all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People can browse the shares of others all day on this service. It's public information on a public network. Nothing here required a warrant.
The content shared was more than enough cause to allow the copyright holder to request identifying information from the ISP (this may have required a warrant, IANAL).
Sure, if it was a kid or a dead grandma, we'd all have ev
Re:Sue em all (Score:5, Informative)
Publishing the sub-set of this information required for the lawsuit is acceptable disclosure, publishing unrelated information is not. While analogies are often misleading, this one might work:
Consider a prosecution for producing something like methamphetamine. It would be acceptable for the prosecution to enter as evidence (and thus make public) the information that the defendant had purchased certain precursor chemicals at a pharmacist. It would not be acceptable for them to publish that the defendant had also purchased STD medicines (for example) at the same time, and this publication.
Parent
Re:Sue em all (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Sargent's position and the choice to include the porn info are really more than a coincidence, then the RIAA lawyers lied in court when they claimed it was merely an oversight.
By extension, they likely had intent to damage the Sgt. with his employer, and took the opportunity (Note: If a deliberate lie occurred, then malice is clearly established, and a modus operandi has already been demonstrated and admitted to by the RIAA. Intent, opportunity, method, a grand jury would see at least half the elements of a crime here as solidly proven, others as probable, and likely find plenty of cause to indite.).
The RIAA were also trying to use the courts to accomplish this. That's a general abuse of the legal system that can warrent disbarment, at the very least. Claiming in court that it was just a coincidental mistake would be perjury if there's any evidence the Sgt's position was discussed in this context, and some of the related remarks would likely be multiple counts of contempt of court. There's certainly enough evidence at this point for a judge to subpoena all RIAA documents relating to this case (although Attny/Client privilege will of course limit that). Worse, some possible evidence comes in the form of the RIAA's legal letters to the Sgt. - the RIAA certainly can't prevent him from using them in the civil suite. Those are available to the court, and the RIAA may be sweating over how they were worded even now.
Alternately, RIAA had the full intent to actually threaten the Sgt. with revealing this irrelevant information unless he settled out of court for whatever amount they chose. There's not as much evidence for this, yet, but even that claim already has some supporting evidence established, and something as simple as one sentence in the wording of a letter pressuring the Sgt. to settle could be enough to make a solid case. That action's extortion. Extortion is a major felony. Using the court system to attempt to do it is an aggravating circumstance which normally calls for additional penalties.
Proving either of these to a full legal standard would be challenging, given who's involved. It's still reasonable to suspect that at least one of these two scenarios is true. Maybe the RIAA's lawyers didn't make an actual threat, or even consider it. Maybe they are either more aware of the law or more decent minded. It's still reasonable to figure that if they went that far down the path towards a very serious crime, they likely have done enough to deserve at least the lesser charges.
Parent
Possession a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Paternoster was unaware that the Kazaa software was installed on his computer. While on a tour of duty in Germany from 2004 to 2005, the document says, another soldier downloaded the software and set up a Kazaa account under Paternoster's name. Last summer Paternoster discovered the software and 'thousands of files downloaded on his computer by the soldiers he housed,' and he uninstalled the software and deleted the files, according to the document."
So, is unknowing possession a crime in this case? Let the poor analogies begin...
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fact that they intentionally put out images of content that they don't own the rights to, and have no legal standing to sue regarding, does put them in an actionable position, especially given the nature of the content. Their whole information gathering process is pretty shady already, but if they're routinely scanning content that they don't actually have rights to, that's much shadier.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their whole information gathering process is pretty shady already, but if they're routinely scanning content that they don't actually have rights to, that's much shadier.
Yea, and considering that rights to content is exactly what they're arguing about...
I don't really understand. It seems fairly obvious to me that they are using their position/power/money to get what they want, but in the process they seem to be making a mockery of the very laws that they think others are breaking.
How do they think any of this is helping them?
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do they do? They try to kill it, whether it's trying to shut down web radio through massive fee increases, trying to stifle online music sales through use of restrictive DRM schemes, trying to prevent CD copying through hugely invasive software installs, or trying to stifle "free" file sharing by intimidation through massive lawsuits.
Their goal isn't to protect their content, their goal is to protect their revenue stream, which means intimidate the bulk of the sheep to the point where they'll go out and buy the content...preferably more than once so they can listen to it on multiple devices.
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:4, Interesting)
That isn't necessarily true.
Assuming you would discount the Rhapsody/Napster models of "pay subscription for unlimited access" and continue to sell music centered around media/format, there is still plenty of room for these companies to resell the same content to users over and over.
For example, you might have purchased the mp3. But, what about purchasing it again as FLAC? Or, after there is the nextgen lossless that is smaller than FLAC? Or perhaps the "extra special edition" with embedded video?
There are many "value-add" features that can be found to cause a consumer to repurchase; this is wholly independent of the format (digital vs physical).
All digital does is decrease the costs of distribution. So, profit margins can still be maintained, even if the price of the product drops.
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't. You wouldn't.
But, I suspect we don't represent the mainstream users. Most people would need software that was dirt-simple to use to even begin considering doing these things. And even then, there'll be the "I don't want to think about it, I just want it to work" crowd that wouldn't want to hassle with converting their purchased library into XXX format.
Even among the technically inclined, there would be resistance.
For example, did you convert your CD's to mp3 when that became the "standard?" Did you reconvert to ogg? Or FLAC?
Too much trouble, right?
For most people, just "rebuying it" would be the "lazy tax" they'd be willing to pay.
Sure, there will always be ways around it for those so inclined. I just don't think the majority of the people fall into that category, hence, there'd still be a market when a new format comes out.
Parent
Warning: Rant Ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
His attitude did a complete 360 when one of his band mates, who had done all their computer mixing and CD burning, created a website. It featured schedules, and club's sites linked to it. In addition, you could download their entire album in lo-fi, and two songs in hi-fi, and you could order a CD for about six bucks. They didn't get rich, but it was the first time they made any significant money off of their recordings (better than selling them at shows, anyway).
He had finally realized what I had been trying to tell him: the recording industry is a middleman, that makes their money connecting artists with consumers. Modern technology has eliminated the need for such middlemen, and that is why they are up in arms. They have carved out a niche as necessary parasites of artists, and seeing that necessity vanishing, are lashing out in any way they can to hold on to the position of power they held when limited technology made them useful.
This is always what happens when a middle-man sees their position becoming obsolete. Another great example is health care. Why does socialized medicine have no chance. Is it because the people don't want it? Hardly. Is it because doctors don't want it? Not really. Is it because the existing insurance companies don't want it? Bingo! After all, pass true national health care today, and every health insurance company (with their average 18% overhead, as opposed to Medicare's 2%) is out of business tomorrow (Ever wonder why, after Clinton's absolute failure with his plan for socialized medicine, Kerry came along with his plan that you could have any private insurance you wanted, but the government would pay the bill). Another example. Do you think defense lawyers who defend drug dealers want to see any drugs legalized? HELL NO! Illegal drug sales are their bread and butter. Legalize pot and many of them would have to go out and get real jobs.
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people have NO idea what is on their computer. A modern PC with a large HD is a very big place in which you can loose data. I would think that the huge number of systems running zombies and open mail relays is proof enough of reasonable doubt in this case.
The fact that the RIAA published images that they had no rights to seems to me to make them just as guilty as the anybody using a P2P program. They took copyrighted material that they had no rights to and published it for their own proposes. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for P2P users then the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on..
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially if he was provably out of the country.
It's one thing to claim you have no idea how you got cocaine in your pocket or a stolen radio in your back seat -- that's pretty thin, and arguably you probably know what's in your pocket. It's another thing entirely to say "I wasn't in the same country as this PC when this took place, so how the hell do I know who did it?".
I completely agree, but they're going to argue that they need to look at all of your data so that they can find the bits which might be infringing. Because, obviously, the data you don't want them to see must be the infringing pieces.
Cheers
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Funny)
No, wait, it's more like he lent his garage to his buddies and they filled the rafters with hookers and rock stars.
Man, this is harder than I thought.
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, we have a guy who downloaded some songs on the Internet, which he presumably then listened to.
On the other hand, we have a guy who ran an illegal operation on his property, called "Bad Newz Kennels" where fighting dogs were bred and then tortured and killed if they lost a fight.
One of these things is not like the other...
Now if Vick had been forcing RIAA lawyers to get into a pit and fight to the death, and then hang or drown the loser, we'd really have something to work with.
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Possession a crime? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Really Bad Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I'm more apt to believe that Vick is guilty because witnesses have come forward and said that he not only bought the property in Virginia for dog fighting purposes, he financed the entire operation. Obviously these witnesses have yet to be cross-examined, so who knows what will come out. He can't claim ignorance, because he attended dogfights. Attending dogfights, of course, is not a crime, but it does mean he knew damn well where his money was going.
For right now, the Sergeant does not have multiple witnesses testifying against him, and Vick does. This is why I am more likely to believe that Vick is guilty.
Parent
New plan (Score:5, Funny)
2)Download handful of songs
3)Wait for RIAA
4)File a counter-suit
5)PROFIT!!!
It would be nice! But.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Vasquez believes that the RIAA could be vulnerable to charges of malicious prosecution, but even that would be difficult. "It would likely take someone on the inside testifying that the RIAA pursued people that it knew were innocent," Vasquez explained. "Then there would be a serious risk of malicious prosecution. But you've got to have them cold."
The article goes into why a RICO prosecution is really just good PR and probably wouldn't work in court.
Corporate Security Police (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA, and any other complainant (like you or me, if we file a complaint) has to identify the "stolen" property in specific detail, and the police must seize only that property under a specific court order.
The police state tyranny of extorting suspects by confiscating all their property they need to live and work was already in violation of our rights protected by the Fourth Amendment [cornell.edu]. Corporations using the police as a mercenary army is fascism: government by, for, but not of, corporations. Using coercion and intimidation as the fear to enforce corporate government "discipline".
Expose (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA's ideas of property and ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
In The Deathly Hallows by JKR there is this conversation: (nah, it is not a spoiler. Don't worry.)
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SPOILER ALERT *
******************
Interestingly enough, Rowling seems to settle the ownership question fairly definitively when Neville Longbottom pulls a literal Gryffindor hat-track at the end of the book - one almost identical to the hat-trick Harry uses at the end of the Chamber of Secrets. So the goblin-made object truly belongs to the wizard who bought it.
Re:RIAA's ideas of property and ownership (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
"Sgt. Paternoster" (Score:4, Funny)
Are the people at RIAA really that stupid? (Score:5, Funny)
It boggles the mind. You've heard of the four horsemen of the apocalypse? Here we have the Three Stooges of copyright enforcement. Oh, a wise guy, eh? Wo-wo-wo-wo.
Except the Three Stooges were funny and, overall, I think they could do a better job of copyright enforcement.
Wait...wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait...wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Professional Courtesy (Score:5, Funny)
"You're honour, here is the gun the defendant used to kill Jane Doe"
"That looks like a hammer"
"Oh, shit. I can swap it for a gun?"
"Sure thing, let's call it a "Professional Courtesy"
Re:Professional Courtesy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Professional Courtesy (Score:4, Funny)
Here's a much better analogy. Additionally, I have corrected several mistakes you made.
Lawyer- Your honour, here is the gun the defendant used to kill Jane Doe along with his magazine subscription to Hustler"
Jury -*Hushed whispers of deviancy*
Judge"What does that have to do with anything"
"*deadpan*"Oh,no". Here's only the gun? We're....sorry..about that...mistake."
"Sure thing, let's call it a "Professional Courtesy"
Parent
err (Score:5, Funny)
Screenshot as evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else feeling less bad about pirating? (Score:5, Interesting)
up until about 2 years ago, I always intended to legally purchase these cds someday (No, seriously) once I get out of college and into the real world. At ~$15 each it would come to $7500, which I suppose is a lot but spread over a few years, it wouldn't really kill me. The problem is I can't stand to contribute a single cent to the sleazy companies behind the RIAA. On the other hand, I am getting a bit tired of mp3 quality and I'd like to have actual cds to rip into a lossless format.
Any suggestions? Anyone else feeling the same way?
Buy them used (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone else feeling less bad about pirating? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Check the anagram (Score:5, Interesting)
Co-incidence?! I THINK NOT