RIAA Backtracks After Embarrassing P2P Defendant

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."'"

Better article

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

The linked article is pretty light on content. It does have a link to this article [knoxnews.com] which actually goes into detail about the countersuit.

Re:Sgt. WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pater noster = Our Father in Latin. Kinda ironic, in the loose sense of the term ...

Re:Corporate Security Police

[Real1tyCzech]

The screenshot was a grab from another computer simply examining the shared files he had available.

Public information.

No warrant needed.

Re:Sue em all

[TheRaven64]

The list of shared files is public, but the connection between the list of shared files and the real identity of the person sharing can only be obtained with a court order or by the ISP publishing the information (which will almost certainly violate their privacy policy and various data protection laws).

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.

Buy them used

[paladinwannabe2]

Then you still have legal rights to the music, but you don't support the RIAA. If you want to support the artist, buy their merchandise or attend their concerts.

Re:Anyone else feeling less bad about pirating?

[TheGratefulNet]

the way you feel is EXACTLY how most youths feel.

they feel ripped off by the 'big companies' and so they take justice into their own hands. when people feel that the cards are unfairly stacked against them, they rebel. big-time.

its easy to understand.

unless you are a media company - and those don't seem to UNDERSTAND a damned thing - they only see ways to extort dollars from 'customers'.

I hope the media companies DO crash and burn. they've had it coming for decades. even mob justice is a FORM of justice, when it comes down to it.

do what you want and feel no guilt. 'they' certainly feel no guilt about randomly suing their patrons. with all the years of price-fixing and wasted money (OUR money, really) on DRM tech - yes, I fully understand the hatred people have toward the media companies.

its well deserved. media companies are quite evil and deserve our hatred, more often than not. fight back any way you can!

Re:Anyone else feeling less bad about pirating?

[Jtheletter]

Used CD stores. RIAA won't get a cut from those sales (although neither will the artist) but you'll be legally purchasing at a significant discount from new material. If you want to help the artists then find their web page and order some merch direct. You can probably use the balance saved from buying used CDs vs new so it still works out to under $20/album and everyone but the RIAA gets a piece.

Re:Possession a crime?

[1729]

1. prove Vick's motivation was as stated. Recurse back to the unknowing possession entry point above.

or

2. prove Sgt. Paternoster *didn't* buy his computer for the purpose of copyright infringement. again, recurse to the unknowing possession entry point above.

itsatrap!!

I'm not going to play your sophomoric pseudo-logic games. Read the indictment [thesmokinggun.com]. The cases, as charged, are not at all the same.

Re:double standard, hardly.

[conspirator57]

The difference between civil and criminal law is that a violation of law that is civil effects just the victim and criminal law violations effect not only the victim, but society at large. This is why they are punished by different means and are prosecuted by the government.

Essentially your argument boils down to "Vick was accused of a more heinous transgression, so his assertion of unknowing is not valid. Whereas the Sergeant's alleged activity was less severe, so his assertion of unknowing is valid."

In general, there is no such causal relationship between severity of alleged crime and veracity of defendants' claims of unawareness.

In truth, each defendant's claims will be evaluated by the judge/jury in question and the cases will proceed or not as they will. However, both are making the same claim, which was my original point that you couldn't see.

Again, if you don't like the law that is being enforced in the civil court, then work to have the law changed.

Keeping it simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to buy music CDs and music online. After RIAA started with their intimidation tactics, I no longer buy music CDs or music online. That's really the only thing that matters to them. Action speaks, words are unnecessary.