Friday, October 13, 2006

RIAA Drops Wilke Case in Chicago

We have just learned that the RIAA has dropped the Wilke case in Chicago.

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice*

This is the case in which Mr. Wilke moved for summary judgment, stating that:

1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under.
2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded] He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CD's owned by Mr. Wilke.
3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.
The RIAA's initial response to the summary judgment motion, prior to the dismissal, had been to cross-move for discovery, indicating that it did not have enough evidence with which to defeat Mr. Wilke's summary judgment motion.

Mr. Wilke was represented by Saper Law Offices of Chicago, Illinois.

In response to our question as to whether any money had changed hands in connection with the settlement, Mr. Wilke's attorneys responded: "Plaintiffs, the RIAA, and SBC worked cooperatively and amicably to resolve this dispute."

p2pnet.net had called the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder.

Commentary and discussion:
(English language)
Slashdot
p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
The Register
Digital Music News
digg
Slyck
TG Daily
(Other languages)
Heise Online


* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Table of Cases

Digg!

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

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

it's my understanding that, without actual judgements being handed down, settling actual has the unwanted (in this case) side effect of not establishing a precedence.

In other words, "officially" no blunder occurred and can't be submitted in future proceedings.

Is this true?

Ray Beckerman said...

Yes it is true that a settlement is not a judicial precedent.

But it's still a good thing.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray said: "But it's still a good thing."

I object to that finding someway if you allow me to do so.

I agree that this outcome might be good for Paul -the stress that such a lawsuit brings when mutibillion dollar "organised (crime) [pleaded guilty of pricefixing!] music"-corporations send their "attack dogs" like Mr. Krichbaum or Mr. R.L.G.after you is something I would not wish my worst enemy.

BUT
that this is yet (officialy) another "the accused must pay for himself "-case is bad for the overall cause!

Even if Mrs. Sapier could have arranged something financialy in favour of her client Mr. Wilke ( I doubt that it would be 50.000 USD), such an "secret" arangement is counterproductive for the overall cause.
The RIAA will simply continue to "litigate" money with their SS-Center, they will simply continue to ruin the lives of Consumers/Customers with their false claims, their unreliable and false "investigations".

They will not stop their "sue 'em all"-terror and be more carefull whom they terrorize if there are no official rulings by judges that they must pay every god dam dollar that an wrongfully accused defendant must have paid in legal expenses.
This ~50.000 USD claim in this other case is a good referencepoint IMO.
I truely believe it is necessary that these criminal "organised music" must risk in every case they bring that they will loose so much money for defendants attorney fees that they will THINK before they use their automated money extorting business of SS-Center and Lawyers like Mr. Krichbaum!

(Disclaimer: I don't really can speak english like i wish I could, if you are with those criminal music cartel and you feeled pissed by this comment ask me what I wanted to say in my motherlanguage german before suing me for anything)

Ray Beckerman said...

It is a good thing.

Mark said...

even if judgment had been granted to Wilke, there's no binding precedent, because federal district court judgments are not binding on any other court. So, it wouldn't have mattered in any case.

Mark said...

"p2pnet.net had called the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder."

So true!

tyme2dy said...

I would like to say something. Do you really think that someone would just let the case go if they had to pay all court cost and legal fees associated with the case. I don't think so. I don't think Wilke would have just dropped it if he was wrongfully accused. The RIAA wanted to pursue it and he was happy to tell them what they got wrong, but when Wilke did not give in the RIAA had to try further scare tactics. I think when the RIAA found that they had wrongfully accused someone, they had to settle out of court unless they wanted their campaign to become blemished.