RIAA Drops Another Case After Lawyer Points Out How Weak The Evidence Is
from the on-and-on-and-on dept
For years, the RIAA has been bullying all sorts of people with lawsuits over file sharing -- but the evidence they use has always been weak, at best. In the early years, before most people recognized this, they were forced to settle. But, more recently, lawyers have realized that pointing out how weak the evidence is will often make the RIAA turn and drop the case. They usually try to get out of paying legal fees, but even that's becoming more difficult. In the latest case (as usual, pointed out by Ray Beckerman) a strong letter pointing out all the problems with the RIAA's case has resulted in a very quick voluntary dismissal of the case. The lawyer's letter is absolutely worth reading, with the following being a key segment:It is well documented that your clients' reliance on MediaSecurity (an admitted "non-expert;" UMG v. Lidor, East Dist NY No. 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML) and its overall method of identifying P2P copyright infringers is wholly unreliable and inadequate. See, e.g., February 23, 2007, deposition of the RIAA's expert. See also expert witness statement of Prof. Pouwelse and Dr. Sips and amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, in Capitol v. Foster decrying the RIAA's "driftnet" litigation strategy.
Such facts were known or reasonably should have been known to you and your law firm before suit against Mr. Merchant was filed. Thus, unless you and your office undertook additional independent investigation to identify Mr. Merchant as a person who actually has engaged in copyright infringement by illegal downloading, good faith basis for a Rule 11-compliant probable cause finding consistent with the Williams line of cases cited above simply did not exist to file the action. . . and does not exist now for it to be maintained.
Your clients apparently argue that Mr. Merchant's failure to respond to "settlement" demands justifies their lawsuit without other basis on which a finding of probable cause to sue could be claimed. You devoted the bulk of your letter advocating that position. As you know, however, that posture is repugnant to both Rule 408, Fed.Rul.Evid. and California Evidence Code §§ 1152 and 1154.
The Evidence Code sections are quite clear: settlement negotiations of all kinds may not be used to prove the validity of any claim or defense. Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople. If your client (and your law firm?) are seeking probable cause shelter in a settlement negotiations house of straw (as suggested by your March 23 letter), all of you should consider the prevailing winds of the Evidence Code before making yourselves too comfortable. Straw will burn.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Glad to see the house of cards the RIAA has buit for itself is starting to blow over.
Now where is that wolf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its too funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SMACK DOWN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now There's An Attorney.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly OT: Legality of downloading torrent of b
What is the validity of a DMCA claim of infringement on a torrent download of a broadcast TV show? I must be missing something, but if a show is broadcast over the airwaves meaning it was not pirated and it is being shared via BT in a non-commercial way, doesn't that fall under fair use? Isn't it essentially the same as recording the show from the TV and giving it to a friend? The only difference I see here is the media it is being shared on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slightly OT: Legality of downloading torrent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slightly OT: Legality of downloading torr
That's the problem I have with so many of these lawsuits. They target people as if they are a deliberate copyright violator, but there are not provisions for negligence. If the person legitimately did not know that their content was available for other people to download, are they really responsible for the same damages as an intentional redistribution? Sure, they might be responsible of redistribution of a product, but it is not copyright infringement as the copyright was intended to prevent. They are not making money off it and I doubt that the courts will continue to uphold these ridiculous claims much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slightly OT: Legality of downloading torrent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battles...
Arrrrgh! One battle win, not the war.
But its a good begin of the end for this "moneymind" RIAA CIAA, MIAA, PIAA, whatever!!!!!!
Rhun for everibody!!!
Over~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Firms name - for those who need it
805 West Oak Avenue
Visalia CA 93291-6033
Vox 559.627.2710/Fax 559.627.0717
Web Site: LedfordLaw.net
"Team-Based Transactions & Business Litigation in State and Federal Courts"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summary for Erv
> Not sure what it says exactly but I like it.....
I'll try to summarize by paragraph:
1. The people you're relying on for evidence aren't experts, and if this goes to trial they'll be laughed at.
2. So, if that's all you've got, go home.
3. Just because the defendant ignored your ridiculous demands, doesn't mean he's admitting guilt.
4. Seriously, just because the defendant ignored you, /doesn't/ mean he's admitting guilt. It's basically the same as hanging up on a telemarketer. By the way, die in a fire.
(Ok, that last sentence might have mildly overstated the original message.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gratifying, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
I would have preferred to take a much more aggressive stance like the letter by 'Davey', and tell them to FO or I'll sue the RIAA for 'Extortion', 'Racketeering', and 'Illegal Harassment'.
Although in my heart I feel that we all should have been donating a small fee to the 'File Sharing Enterprises' to reward their enterprise, and help fight these legal issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You ain't got no Leg to stand on, and I will legally waste you and everyone associated with you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has come to my attention
In recent years, our records show that you have filed more than 3,000 lawsuits. Unfortunately, you are in violation of the CAN LAWSUITS act which was enacted in an emergency session of congress and slipped into a bill that weakens copyright strength, eliminates the patent, and enhances fair use. Sadly, you now must pay all the legal costs that were forced upon innocent victims and may not file anymore copyright related lawsuits until the year 3000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you read the whole thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laywers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i wanna be fbi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great
serves that RIAA right
it can burn in hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]