RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the RIAA has probable cause to continue litigation because AOL did in fact correlate an IP that downloaded the music to the defendant. It doesn't prove anything but the RIAA still should have the right to continue with the lititgation, as much as it pains me to say it.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the problem here. Maybe I need someone to clear it up or just put on the 'Evil RIAA' blinders that I guess I'm supposed to wear when reading slashdot.
Not that I want to defend the RIAA but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that something "confirms" something is not the same as saying that it has a specific statement. If they have a witness who can testify as to how the internet works and that packets were received from that IP address at that time, then guess what?
You guessed it, the letter would then "confirm that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed."
Jeez, you'd think we were biased against the RIAA or something.
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this will not happen.
-nB
Re:Can we leave appeal to emotion at the door ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mischaracterization (Score:3, Insightful)
The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Copyrighted material" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone else fed up with this phrase? Nearly everything on the Internet is copyrighted. Everything on my website is copyrighted. The Xen kernel I just download is copyrighted. The ISOs of FC6 I just downloaded consist of thousands of copyrighted programs.
My webhost, for example, displays a warning every time I ssh in that says it's a violation of the terms of service to store "copyrighted materials" on the server. Like a smartass I emailed them a few times and asked if that meant I would have to release my songs in the public domain and why they violate that by storing/using copyrighted tools (the Linux system, Apache, etc), but didn't get any replies.
This almost pisses me off as much as calling copyright infringement "piracy".
</rant>
Re:Mischaracterization (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's do this:
"RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account[,] through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' "
The simple addition of a comma changes the meaning. The letter confirms the defendant owned an access account, and the RIAA claims they can prove that access acount downloaded copyrighted sound recordings. Not that AOL confirmed that the account downloaded copyrighted sounds and recordings.
This is trying to use word semantics for it's argument, which I don't really condone either. I think the judge will see through this.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
All the AOL letter says is "To the best of our knowledge, here are the people who were using these IP addresses at these times." You are correct in that it's pretty good evidence that she has an AOL account.
The problem is, the RIAA said that the letter confirmed that "defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed." The letter alone does no such thing. When a defendant's motion is denied based on materially false claims made by the plaintiff, I would certainly hope that the decision would be reviewed. If there is sufficient evidence that actually links the IP address to illegal activity occurring at that time, then the decision will stand.
Re:lying in court? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it any worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why the RIAA gets a pass on their outrageous claims of looking out for musicians...that's a complete fabrication since the RIAA does not work for recording artists, they work for recording distribution companies. But a lady with MS is pounded on?
But I do expect that corporations and officers of the court to tell the truth in a statement to the judge. The lady didn't lie when she had MS, but the RIAA lied when it said it had a special letter from AOL. And your concern is for the fact that the lady brings up MS? Maybe you want to tear into Michael J Fox, too?
I mean, separate the BS from the facts. Here they are as I read them:
RIAA: Hey lady, you committed copyright infringment
Lady: No I didn't, I don't even hook up to the internet the way you claim. Your honor, please throw this out
RIAA: Your honor, we have the actual proof from AOL
Judge: In that case, no.
Lady: Let me see the letter.
RIAA: Uh... here?
Lady: It doesn't say anything about me. In fact, it keeps mentioning something about a Wookie on Endor. What does that mean?
Ignore the MS part. This is what we have. If the judge threw the lawyer in jail for a week and sanctioned him, along with a few RIAA execs every time they lied, I suspect this kind of behavior would stop in about 20 seconds.
Re:The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume the same holds true in a non-jury case.
Additionally, I do not believe they are "officers of the court." Jesters, perhaps, but not officers.
IANAL.
Re:Wierd ip (Score:5, Insightful)
I.e., RIAA gave AOL a list of IP addresses (they may also have given them a list of times, but I suspect not). AOL responded with a time that those addresses were in use.
So, RIAA *said* that AOL had confirmed that she was a file sharer. What AOL *actually* said was only that she used that IP address, once, at a certain time.
AOL may be able to correlate that to their own records, saying that a certain IP address was downloading material at a certain time. Or not.
Re:Mischaracterization (Score:3, Insightful)
For example,
Re:The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:1, Insightful)
Additionally Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 authorizes the court to assess sanctions (monetary or otherwise) against a party engaged in dishonest behavior.
Most lawyers are extermely ethical, and you can believe that if the lawyer for the RIAA is making an improper representation to the court, the defendant's lawyer would file a rule 11 motion.
IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Please stop with these posts!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
As for New York Country Lawyer's claim that the linked AOL letter didn't say what the RIAA said it did (that his client--who tragically, but completely irrelevantly has MS--was downloading music), the AOL letter identifies the client by her IP address. Now, if the RIAA has information (albeit from another source) that shows that IP address was downloading music, than that shows, at the very least, that there is a question of fact as to whether the client was downloading music. And therefore, the requested summary judgment is in fact not appropriate.
Re:The attorneys for RIAA should be disbarred. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between lying and presenting your client's side of things. If my client tells me his story, and I don't have concrete proof the contrary, then presenting that story to the court is not lying. If my client tells me he did it, but I help him make up some alibi and put on witnesses to lie for him saying he was 100 miles away at the time of the crime, then I am lying.
Legal ethics codes prohibit lawyers from making false statements of law or fact to a court. This includes in writing. Lawyers are also prohibited from advancing arguments they know have no basis in law. If they get caught, they can lose their license to practice, possibly forever. It does happen. I have an RSS feed for the Ohio Supreme Court and there are several attorneys getting their licenses yanked weekly.
The adversarial legal system is often thought to be one of the best for providing a jury with what is closest to the actual truth. You have two different sides presenting possibly two different stories, and if both sides to a real good job, then you'll probably end up with the real truth being somewhere in the middle.
Re:Can we leave appeal to emotion at the door ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. There was never any question as to the state of the RIAA's morals.
Bologna (Score:3, Insightful)
Defendant's October 28, 2006 letter also provides no basis for a motion for summary judgment. Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent.
AOL confirmed that the Defendant was the owner of the account. The rest of the sentence describes the account and is not a statement that AOL confirmed what the account was being used for.
This should be fairly obvious to most people who can read English.
Re:Not that I want to defend the RIAA but... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "network address translation". Every home-networking router out there supports it. Even if they didn't, what AOL is saying in that letter is that a specific user account had those IP addresses leased at a particular time. That does not mean that a specific person was using that account. Usually the router or network connection's configured with the appropriate account information, and anyone using the computer will use that connection. The RIAA's claim isn't that the user account did the downloading and distributing, it's that a specific person did it. What they have to prove yet is that the person they're accusing was the person at the keyboard at the time or that they were otherwise legally responsible for the actions of whoever was (and the ISP TOS doesn't matter here since the RIAA isn't a party to that agreement).
It's the equivalent of the police charging me with reckless driving just because my car was involved. What they have to prove in court is not just that it was my car, but that it was me behind the wheel. If the car was stolen, or I loaned it to a friend and they were driving at the time, and I can prove this, everything they prove about who the car was registered to won't get them a conviction.
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.
On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.
-GiH
Not a Lawyer (yet).
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:1, Insightful)
And THAT is exactly what they are not doing!
They only record some IP addresses but not knowing anything about "who", "when", and "how" if at least "any" infringement.
After all;
You know, having soundrecordings in a shared folder is STILL NOT one of the exclusive rights under US copyright law.
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing comma (Score:3, Insightful)
(Here goes my karma, but...)
C'mon. What we're dealing with here is (deliberately?) bad English, where a left-out comma changes the meaning of a sentence.
What was written was:
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that the Defendant was owner of the internet account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed without Plaintiffs' consent."
What probably should have been written was:
"Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that the Defendant was owner of the internet account, through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed without Plaintiffs' consent."
That comma changes the meaning radically -- in the latter sentence, AOL only confirms the account, and it's RIAA who claims what it was used for.
Yes, it's RIAA's fault, and yes, I think they're being bullies, but I also think that the defense lawyer in this case would recognise this and not misrepresent what's clearly a technicality.
Regards,
--
*Art
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
eg: The RIAA have tried to sue people who have never owned a computer or an Internet account for file swapping. Firstly, this would appear to be trivially-resolvable by any competent arbitrator, it most definitely does not need to be demanding vast amounts of time from an already-overloaded court system. Secondly, it is the understanding of us non-lawyers that the worst the RIAA can get for wasting the time and money of the legal system is a rap on the knuckles for a frivolous lawsuit - the defendant is most unlikely to be reimbursed for time and costs involved - which directly implies that it is cheaper to sue first and ask questions later.
Because the rewards are perceived to be high (whether they are in practice or not) and the risks are perceived to be low (ditto), the courts appear to have become the first resort, not the last resort. No matter how unjustified such a perception may be in reality, it is nonetheless the perception that has arisen and that is seriously damaging to the credibility of the system as a whole.
Personally, I would like to see the courts have greater power to call bull - whether by the plaintiff or the defendant - and greater flexibility in the handling of what can only be called abuse of court. That should include the ability to impose fines or jail time on plaintiffs (or defendants) even outside of the frivolous lawsuit mechanism or the final verdict. There may also be problems with the public defender system, as they have developed rather a bad reputation over the years. If the courts need to supervise such people, then they should be given the power to do so.
Does this impinge on a person's right to a trial? No. I'm not saying anything about denying a person a right to a trial, but rather that such a right does NOT imply a right to a trial first, OR a right to use the mere act of having a trial as a means of inflicting punishment on a person if that person is innocent, and certainly does not imply a right to use the courts for entertainment or get-rich-quick purposes.
(That second one is tough. Time is money. Even if all other expenses are either taken care of or reimbursed afterwards, if a person is in court and is not on the court's payroll, then they are not at work. For low-income individuals or individuals who don't have much of a buffer for whatever reason, this can make it impossible for that person to argue their case meaningfully or - in some cases - at all. I don't know how you can easily close that loophole, but this is essentially a denial-of-service attack, and the courts should never tolerate being used as a weapon. They are there to judge on matters of law, they are not there as a cheap alternative to hiring a hitman.)
Re:Sure, the **AA are evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bologna (Score:2, Insightful)
With the greatest of respect, this is utter bollocks. This sentence is clearly ambiguous and can be interpreted in two different ways. Marking the subject of 'has confirmed that' makes this clear.
Your interpretation:
Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that [Defendant was the owner of the internet access account] through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent.
Equally valid interpretation:
Defendant's Internet Service Provider, America Online, Inc., has confirmed that [Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiffs' sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent].
i.e. 'confirmed that' can clearly apply either just to the ownership of the account or to the ownership, downloading and distribution issues.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Our democracy has been a beacon of light in many respects to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, while we may have led the way, we are presently ourself lagging in many respects (Compare, e.g. 2004 elections in Ohio and the Ukraine).
Our right to a jury trial is one of the most expensive and inefficient things we have; but it is also perhaps the most beautiful thing we have.
A few good rulings from some of these judges, and we'll all feel better again.
Just because one monstrous litigant is abusing the court system right now doesn't mean that the relatively easy access to the courts which our country provides should be scrapped.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Perjury? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what we have here is 4 possibilities:
1) the RIAA committed perjury and will probably get away with no punishment
2) the RIAA lied to the court (not under oath) and will probably never be held in contempt
3) the judge is incompetent
4) the judge is complicit
This kind of thing really pisses me off, and I don't even steal music online!