Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, but was nevertheless sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an "online distribution system" to "download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution" plaintiff's music files, has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act.
Request for pre-motion conference for summary judgment motion
Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs
18 comments:
It would be nice if she sued the snot out of the RIAA for something.
Anyone noticed how much bigger Metallica got after they were involved in stomping on Napster? The next album they released went to Number 1 in 30 countried worldwide in it's first week of release... could this possibly be because of all the additional fans they acquired through their music being shared to a wider audience than it might have been without Napster giving them free distribution and publicity?
Screw the RIAA, they just want to force everyone into using their 'product' in a limited way. I'm a musician and from personal experience it's a real buzz when you find a review of a tune you wrote popping up on a review site in China with no idea of how they even got hold of it... without file sharing I'd never have had an audience anywhere near to this kind of diversity! :)
I'll bet that those "attorney fees" are pretty steep for that 1 paragraph letter. It would serve the RIAA right, but give the money to the lady!
meep.
I think that the RIAA are really getting out of hand. They have even ogne after sites that hosted music tablature. Now fans cant play along to thier favorite tunes.
Dear Andy and Russell,
Don't you think her lawyers (us) deserve to make a living, like everyone else?
Why are lawyers singled out for the view that they should work for free?
If I'm helping this wonderful lady to avoid a big judgment, and helping her to fight back against a bully, why shouldn't I be paid for that?
Thanks for your support and for your viewpoints.
Best regards,
Ray
Here's the way I see it:
1. She shouldn't 'sue the snot out them' because lawsuits have become a modern form of vigilanteism. As much as I'd like to see the RIAA pummeled into a gooey paste, I like the tar and feathering idea better.
2. Even if a lawyer should take her case for free, she should still seek the amount that would normally be charged because everyone has to make a living.
3. She should not settle under any circumstances. All the out of court settlements against that big and scary RIAA is what keeps them filing more suits. The more skulls on their belt, the scarier they look to the next unsuspecting sap they choose to sue. Fight it in every way.
Ray,
I've got nothing against lawyers. Actually, my brother will graduate from Yale Law in May. I just think that often lawyers come out way ahead of the game, as in class action lawsuits, etc.
I hope the lawyers do get paid for their work. I just think that the lady who's the RIAA's target should get more. Not that she really deserves anything but to be exonerated, but the RIAA is slime if they're going after someone without doing their homework a little better...
-Andy
I'm more interested in finding out exactly how the RIAA came across her name and what evidence they used to decide they should slap a lawsuit on her.
Did they just open a phonebook and throw a dart?
Identity theft?
Novel excuse?
Here's what I think happened...the RIAA identified more than one "Marie Lindor". Or she was a victim of identity theft, but I think the first case is more likely. They filed suit against either just her, or all of them. And they will claim to their graves that their system of identifying users is flawless. "We can identify the user who is assigned to an IP address with 100% certainty!", they cry. Yeah, except when the person assigned to the IP address is the guy with the unsecured WiFi across the street from the person leeching off of it, who is doing the real downloading.
It's almost like whoever developed the strategy of identifying the IP addresses of fileshare users intentionally gunked it up so that it wouldn't work. Anyone with an ounce of understanding about how household Internet is delivered in the United States would realize that there's no guarantee you have the right person. The odds are that yes, you will get the right person, because most users aren't savvy enough to cover their tracks. And, unfortunately, these are entirely the wrong people to go after for exactly that reason - if they're not savvy enough to cover their tracks, they're not likely to be savvy enough to be any kind of threat to anyone's property.
All they know, or have reason to believe, about Marie Lindor is that she was the person who signed the check paying for internet access through which the internet was accessed by an insecure wireless router in her house.
The router had been used by her adult children, but not at the time of the alleged screenshot, at which time there was no computer at all in the house.
Plaintiffs are completely aware that Marie Lindor herself did not infringe any copyrights. However, they refuse to drop the case against her, hoping to use the pressure on Ms. Lindor as a means of putting the squeeze on her family.
Dear hrob,
I don't know where you're coming from, but suffice it to say your ideas have no basis in, and are directly contrary to all principles of, copyright law.
And your idea of helping the RIAA is unthinkable. They are badly behaved bullies who are abusing the judicial system. If you want to help them, go help them, but I would never advise a client to help the RIAA.
Best regards,
Ray
It's way off topic for a bunch of nonlawyers to give legal opinions on suits against gun manufacturers, swimming pools without fences, and WAP manufacturers.
Let's get the conversation under control. We're talking about whether you can sue someone for copyright infringement on a computer who's never used a computer.
The answer is no.
this is very simple Quit trying to make somthing free "Mp3 encoded audio"
into something for profit and greed.
any one can for free make an Mp3 so there free. no one can make a cd for free can they? No they cant. Give Greed A Break USA you cannot Sue your country out of DEBT. to the movie biz,news biz,show biz,music biz and whatever biz Greed is DEATH.
we are watching very closely at what you are doing as your profits can attest to. Have Fun Sueing for your last bit of life MPAA,RIAA etc......
The fact that you can make MP3s for free is irrelevant.
Distributing unauthorized copywritten works for free is bad. Why? Who will write a book, or compose music, for free?
This is how stupid the RIAA is. At the very root of their nonsense is a valid point: artists should get paid. But instead of addressing that in a sensible manner (like, how do we create a digital distribution at a price where artists still make money but mainstream people embrace), they bully anyone they can find, and it culminates in ridiculous suits like this one.
Best of luck, Ray. One hopes that if enough of these get shot down, the RIAA will start thinking about how to create new legitimate revenue streams in the digital era instead of suing everybody.
--chris
Good luck, Ray!
It's stuff like this that makes me HAPPY there are attorneys in the world. Most average Americans don't have a hope against bullies like the RIAA on their own.
Get 'em!
Susi
its obvious that this lady wasnt responsible for what they are charging here with ... there are so many people that are actually stealing music and they cant get everyone ... i feel bad that she is force to defend herself and pay all these legal fees ... im sure this home health aide will be in debt to pay these legal fees
Post a Comment