Thursday, July 27, 2006

RIAA Discontinued Case in California, Virgin v. Marson

We have recently learned of a case in California, Virgin Records v. Marson, where earlier this year, after 6 months of litigation, the RIAA dropped the case.

As in all of the RIAA cases, the only basis the RIAA had for its claim against Mrs. Marson was that she paid for the internet access and owned the computer on which the shared files folder resided.

Faced with evidence that numerous other people had access to the Internet connection and/or the computer and that any of those people could have engaged in the allegedly infringing conduct, the RIAA agreed to dismiss.

Stipulation and Order of Dismissal*

(Mrs. Marson's legal team at Coast Law Group, headed up by Seyamack Kouretchian, are litigating another p2p filesharing case brought by the motion picture industry entitled Universal City Studios Productions, LLLP v. Shawn Hogan. Because (a) the Hogan case involves many of the same issues that arise in the RIAA cases, (b) the MPAA has been engaged in cartel-like behavior with the RIAA, and (c) Mr. Hogan (unliked most defendants in these cases) is a litigant who is in a position to fight back, thereby increasing the likelihood of a full and fair airing of the copyright law issues, we are initiating coverage of that case in our index of litigation documents, although it does not directly involve the RIAA. )

Keywords: digital copyright online 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


StephenH said...

This shows that RIAA's only spy bot evidence is not sufficent forensic evidence to prove that the person alleged committed copyright infringement.

CodeWarrior said...

Amen StephenH...Amen !

IFeelFree said...

However, the defendant had to pursue the case in court for 6 months before it was dismissed. How many defendants would be willing ot do that?

Dave said...

It's not just the time but the expense. Note that the dismissal includes the phrase 'with each party to bear their own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees'. I assume that it is a given that none of the money recovered by the RIAA through its 'settlement centres' ever reaches the poor hardworking musician and that this fund can be used to pursue these cases through the courts. This is little short of legalised extortion so long as the RIAA can withdraw from any case that looking remotely like it will actually come to court and set a legal precedent exposing the hypocrisy of the RIAA tactics.