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."
But he didn't lose, the case was dropped, "amicably". Nobody won, nobody lost. But the guy is still out his time and legal expenses. What if they'd searched his house, confiscated his equipment, sent him to the point of bankruptcy with legal fees and then went, "Ah, hah-hah, we,er, don't have a case. Yeah, er, sorry about that. Let's call it even, eh?"
Or worse, at that point, they say, "Well, the evidence is shaky. But we've got the time and money to draaaag this out.We're very persistent, you know. We believe you're guilty of *something*. Care for an out-of-court , undisclosed, settlement?"
How many cases does the RIAA have to screw up like this before the law realises that they're out firing random lawsuits at people on the internet?
The withdrawal was clearly consensual and mutual. Yes undoubtedly Mr. Wilke could have insisted that the case continue. Usually, though, when the plaintiffs want to drop the case, the judge will let them. However, they might still be liable for attorneys fees. See Capitol v. Foster [riaalawsuits.us].
You still don't get it, do you? They'll find you. That's what they does. That's all they do! You can't stop them. They'll wade through your lawyers, reach down your throat, and pull your fucking heart out.
Listen. And understand. The RIAA is out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me. There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just s
From what I can tell, they both came to some sort of 'amicable agreement' and each covered their own court costs. So..... going from that, there might have been *cough* some little bit of guilt involved.
I wish some truly innocent person would counter-sue after one of these backdowns for legal costs... and, say, a hundred million for emotional trauma from being branded a horrible, filthy, industry-ruining pirate.
I just think that he probably did do something. It is just a guess, but there are plenty of people who have actually downloaded songs, why didn't they sue them... Or me?
... all these songs from exhibit B, which resided on my HDD, were duped from perfectly legal sources (namely CD's) that I rushed out and bought right after RIAA has launched its accusations. I find them pretty good... My pirating days are over ! Set me free !
I disagree. All of the people that I know who download music (which is a lot on my college campus) do not own ANY of the music they're downloading. however, I think we all can agree that the RIAA and MPAA are out of line in what they're doing. I don't think that a lawsuit against them would be very succesful, but I could be wrong... I was wrong once.
Interesting offtopic flamebait at best, but I digress...
While we're doing the ball-less class-action suit, STOP F'ING BUYING CDs AND MUSIC and take away their bottomless pit of money. Right now they're raking in the dough so they can afford to pay plenty of lawyers to argue about how much piracy (Yarrrr!) is hurting the industry. Fuck them at both ends, and maybe get some results (or at least an NC-17 rating!)
That's right, you've been planned for in advance, so mod me down as only your ignorant minds can. You are planned and accounted for, cowards, since you can mod yet you don't have the balls to do anything.
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the
I wish the 4 or 5 people that still use that Limbaugh-favoured term would stop doing so.
To me, a 'critter' is a fuzzy little (possibly annoying) animal or pest. Are vultures, sharks, sloths and blood-sucking leeches also called 'critters' in your vernacular?
I believe "vermin" is the term you are wanting, except applying it to our "representatives" would probably get you sued by the Vermin Anti-Defamation League.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net.
Whose ass did you pull that number out of?
I rip my CDs with EAC and compress with LAME or aoTuV vorbis because that's the only way I know I'm getting good quality. So much stuff on the net is ripped in igorance. I use EncSpot to check over anything I do download and most of the time it reports sync errors and crapass encoders like Xing.
most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
Can you back that up? I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your ass. Like you, I can only speak of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to meet someone who downloads music he already owns the cd for.
Of course it might be that I'm simply hanging around with the wrong crowd but I suspect that's not the case.
Agreed. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa/ [wikipedia.org] -
"The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is the trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US."
So, from that I would say that since the RIAA is not an individual company it cannot be a monopoly. Do they qualify as a cartel
I agree that they're not a monopoly, but I suspect that they might be a "trust" (which AFAIK is the same set of laws in the US under which monopolies are dealt with), defined as "a consortium of companies formed to limit competition". They all agree not to under-cut each other on prices, and to work together to protect their cash cow.
Yes, more specifically they're probably a cartel "A cartel is a group of formally independent producers whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition."
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 14 2006, @01:34AM (#16434147)
Try a price fixing cartel. Technology indicates that pre recorded music should be much cheaper than what it is, yet you look on the shelves-and it isn't? Coincidence, or large scale and entrenched (and ignored) price fixing? Or if you are an "artist", how about for fraud. Their contracts would make a mafia loan shark blush. Or how about collusion for bribery in congress? How about no matter how many of them get caught doing some form of payola, none of them are ever forced to stop being in the recording and distribution business *at all*? Why is they are allowed to continue, decade after decade, getting away with the same crimes and just passing along their joke fines they get wussy slapped with to the consumer?
Good for him. I'm glad corporations and movie stars aren't the only entities that can use the law for their own gain. Remember, it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.
He didn't beat them in court, there was no judgement. They just backed out of the lawsuit.
And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?
RIAA vs. Osama Bin Laden Aliscool, tonight, on THE PEOPLE'S COURT.
He didn't beat them in court, there was no judgement. They just backed out of the lawsuit. And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
Actually according to that website [blogspot.com]:
The only "notice" the "John Does" get is a vague letter from their ISP, along with copies of an ex parte discovery order and a subpoena, indicating that an order has already been granted against them: i.e., instead of receiving notice that the RIAA is applying for an order, they instead are notified that they have already lost the motion, without ever even having known of its existence.
And later:
They are not given copies of (i) the summons and complaint, (ii) the papers up
Piracy is wrong. However, using the term pirate to refer to a copyright infringer really makes the act sound much worse than it actually is. It's propaganda, plain and simple. Try and keep a little perspective on the rhetoric, OK?
Think about what we are saying here folks. Piracy is wrong. It is at the VERY LEAST immoral.
Is it more immoral than the vast theft that was perpetuated on the public with each extension of the term of copyright? All those works were created, published and sold under the terms of copyright at that time. Yet, the MAFIAA [mafiaa.org] was able to unilaterally change those terms by bribing enough people in congress.
If stealing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars worth of content from the public is not only OK, it is
There is more creative content available today than there has been in the whole of human history. But God help us creative artists if we actually want to charge money for that year's worth of writing/painting/composing/sculpting work, or leave a legacy for our families.
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Guess what - asking you to pay for somebody else's hard work is not theft.
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
"As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?" I would say that the amount of content availab
Cruelty maybe, but not stupidity. They start every single case knowing that they're relying on nothing but scare tactics (which is basically racketeering, illegal under the RICO act... google it, it's 2:30am), and hope that the thought of a several hundred thousand dollar settlement if they win an in-court case will convince them to settle for a few grand out of court. This is one of a few cases where the defendant knew they had no case (or assumed as much), said "OK, to court we go", and then they had to admit they had no case and drop the thing. If they didn't own half the government, I'm almost positive they'd be fined for wasting the court's time.
[...]will convince them to settle for a few grand out of court.
It makes me wonder how much money they're losing if they're paying their attorneys and only getting a few grand here and there.
RIAA is funded by the same record companies that claim to be losing millions due to piracy, while throwing money to support the whole RIAA infrastructure and to be spent on stupid (or cruel) lawsuits like this one.
They probably have the lawyers on retainer, so they pay the lawyers regardless of if they're sitting around twiddling their thumbs or scaring private citizens into coughing up money. They most likely cut back on the lawsuits whenever they need the lawyers for more legitimate purposes.
You probably want to follow the link to the guy's homepage. Among other things, he's the Beckerman answering questions in this interview [slashdot.org], so I'd like to take him on his word.
Unless you were being ironic, in which case, it's all in good fun.
The purpose of the suit is not to make or recover money from the lawsuit. The idea is to create fear. This is the same thing that the MPAA and Mattel does.
Many people see "grandmother sued for $1,000,000 for downloading music on the internet" and will be afraid to download music unless the RIAA gives its blessing. The same thing with thing with the MPAA and movies. Though they pay lots of money to their attorneys, their point is made.
The RIAA filed a dismissal on the eve of a bad ruling against them. I had Mattel do the same with a libel claim, when the judge asked what was libelous, Mattel dropped it. They do this to prevent a bad ruling against them, because they will be stuck with that bad ruling.
You present essentially every defense you can think of. You are presenting multiple levels and angles of an argument. It's like if you asked if I robbed a store and I say "No I was at work that night, and even if I was near the store I'm not nearly stupid enough to do something like that." The second part of the statement isn't saying the first is false, it's just saying that even if you don't believe me that I was at work, you still should believe I didn't do it.
In the event of a lawsuit like this, that's how you'd go about it. Off the top of my head I'd challenge if the listing was undoctored (since screenshots are easy to fake), if it was of the right client (many P2P networks will misreport what you have on accident sometimes), if they verified the contents of the files, if they verified that they were coming from the stated IP address, if the IP to account mapping was accurate and unaltered, and if there was a way to prove that nobody else was using my network. It's just pointing out all the levels of problems. So even if the judge/jury buys everything else is legit, they believe it is likely someone else was using my network.
You'll find in some civil cases there can be hundreds of responses as to why the plaintiffs are full of shit. It's just how the game is played. You throw out any and everything that is wrong with their case, and see what you can get to stick and shoot it down.
Counter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Counter? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Counter? (Score:5, Insightful)
But he didn't lose, the case was dropped, "amicably". Nobody won, nobody lost. But the guy is still out his time and legal expenses. What if they'd searched his house, confiscated his equipment, sent him to the point of bankruptcy with legal fees and then went, "Ah, hah-hah, we
Or worse, at that point, they say, "Well, the evidence is shaky. But we've got the time and money to draaaag this out.We're very persistent, you know. We believe you're guilty of *something*. Care for an out-of-court , undisclosed, settlement?"
How many cases does the RIAA have to screw up like this before the law realises that they're out firing random lawsuits at people on the internet?
Parent
Re:Motion to continue a case? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Change in attitude? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Change in attitude? (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen. And understand. The RIAA is out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the dogs (Score:5, Funny)
Standards? (Score:2, Insightful)
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just s
Re: (Score:2)
So..... going from that, there might have been *cough* some little bit of guilt involved.
I wish some truly innocent person would counter-sue after one of these backdowns for legal costs
Re: (Score:2)
Arg!
Your Honor... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Mr. Wilke wouldn't be in this situation... (Score:3, Funny)
Try this as a regular citizen (Score:3, Interesting)
He was wealthy and able to fight, it was worth it to them just to drop it. The PR of actually losing the case would be much worse.
Spartacus (Score:3, Funny)
{stands up} No, I am Paule Wilke
{sits back down}
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! WTF have you been smoking? I cannot make heads nor tails of what you're saying.
Are you asking moderators to mod you as flamebait or what?
Re: (Score:2)
While we're doing the ball-less class-action suit, STOP F'ING BUYING CDs AND MUSIC and take away their bottomless pit of money. Right now they're raking in the dough so they can afford to pay plenty of lawyers to argue about how much piracy (Yarrrr!) is hurting the industry. Fuck them at both ends, and maybe get some results (or at least an NC-17 rating!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the
Congresscritters (Score:3, Funny)
I wish the 4 or 5 people that still use that Limbaugh-favoured term would stop doing so.
To me, a 'critter' is a fuzzy little (possibly annoying) animal or pest. Are vultures, sharks, sloths and blood-sucking leeches also called 'critters' in your vernacular?
Re:Congresscritters (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Informative)
Whose ass did you pull that number out of?
I rip my CDs with EAC and compress with LAME or aoTuV vorbis because that's the only way I know I'm getting good quality. So much stuff on the net is ripped in igorance. I use EncSpot to check over anything I do download and most of the time it reports sync errors and crapass encoders like Xing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you back that up? I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your ass. Like you, I can only speak of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to meet someone who downloads music he already owns the cd for.
Of course it might be that I'm simply hanging around with the wrong crowd but I suspect that's not the case.
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Funny)
You misspelled money.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
here's one (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several potential avenues to explore.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?
RIAA vs. Osama Bin Laden Aliscool, tonight, on THE PEOPLE'S COURT.
Parent
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And later:
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it more immoral than the vast theft that was perpetuated on the public with each extension of the term of copyright? All those works were created, published and sold under the terms of copyright at that time. Yet, the MAFIAA [mafiaa.org] was able to unilaterally change those terms by bribing enough people in congress.
If stealing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars worth of content from the public is not only OK, it is
Re:Just so I actually understand this correctly (Score:4, Interesting)
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that the amount of content availab
Re:Leave it to the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes me wonder how much money they're losing if they're paying their attorneys and only getting a few grand here and there.
RIAA is funded by the same record companies that claim to be losing millions due to piracy, while throwing money to support the whole RIAA infrastructure and to be spent on stupid (or cruel) lawsuits like this one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you were being ironic, in which case, it's all in good fun.
They don't care about losing money. (Score:4, Informative)
Many people see "grandmother sued for $1,000,000 for downloading music on the internet" and will be afraid to download music unless the RIAA gives its blessing. The same thing with thing with the MPAA and movies. Though they pay lots of money to their attorneys, their point is made.
The RIAA filed a dismissal on the eve of a bad ruling against them. I had Mattel do the same with a libel claim, when the judge asked what was libelous, Mattel dropped it. They do this to prevent a bad ruling against them, because they will be stuck with that bad ruling.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how you do it in civil court (Score:5, Informative)
In the event of a lawsuit like this, that's how you'd go about it. Off the top of my head I'd challenge if the listing was undoctored (since screenshots are easy to fake), if it was of the right client (many P2P networks will misreport what you have on accident sometimes), if they verified the contents of the files, if they verified that they were coming from the stated IP address, if the IP to account mapping was accurate and unaltered, and if there was a way to prove that nobody else was using my network. It's just pointing out all the levels of problems. So even if the judge/jury buys everything else is legit, they believe it is likely someone else was using my network.
You'll find in some civil cases there can be hundreds of responses as to why the plaintiffs are full of shit. It's just how the game is played. You throw out any and everything that is wrong with their case, and see what you can get to stick and shoot it down.
Parent
Re:Anyone noticed (Score:4, Funny)
Parent