Monday, July 30, 2007

RIAA Backtracks in Knoxville, Tennessee, case, Warner v. Paternoster, Moves to Strike Own Documents

The Knoxville News Sentinel now reports that after the RIAA filed a massive document containing more than 4200 irrelevant files included solely for the purpose of "shaming" the defendant into settling, it has now backtracked and made a motion to strike all but 367 of the original 4604 files.

Commentary & discussion:


Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


StephenH said...

This is very telling that their forensics are inaccurate

Alter_Fritz said...

While we all know that RIAA's "forensics" with their "expert" Dougy are inaccurate, I don't see your reasoning what THIS behaviour here has to do with that or why this incident is telling about their forensics.

That they listed all those "extra"files, where they don't have any legal interests in wasn't an clerical error or some minor glitch, it was fully intentional you can bet for that.

thank good the sergeant as a good soldier did not cave in to this cheap trick of "shaming" him.

Hey you Lawyers from BOWEN RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC working for Warner Bros. Records, Virgin Records America, UMG Recordings Arista Records and BMG Music; haven't you heard yet of the slogan "Don't mess with the Army"?
How stupid are you guys? This guy has access to very powerful weapons, Me not sure if your BMW or Porsche will look good after he parked his tank next to them if he visits your office for "out of court settlement negotiations" ;-)

*me searches for his Status Quo CD with track "In the Army now"* :-)

StephenH said...


I feel that there must have been something telling in those documents that they would strike them. The lower number of songs alleged would actually reduce the potential amount for damages. This is why I beleive that there is something forensically wrong (a.k.a false or shamming) going on with those documents.

I also agree with your arguements about the Army. It may be bad publicity for the RIAA to deal with a defendant with a good army rank. The Army is not easy to work with.

Jadeic said...

See my comment under the original 'Knoxville News Sentinel Reports that Army Sergeant Wrongfully Targeted by RIAA is Fighting Back in Tennessee in Warner v. Paternoster' posting. I probably still have some of the pages of the original Exhibit B downloaded from PACER. There was nothing telling them as far as this case is concerned merely that they laid themselves open to allegations of gross infringement of Paternoster's privacy: and with a bit of luck they are still open to such. The original Exhibit B only ever included 367 audio files.