In Elektra v. Licata, in Cincinnati, the RIAA has made a motion to withdraw its case.
RIAA memorandum of law in support of motion to voluntarily dismiss*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property
2 comments:
As to the second factor, Plaintiffs have diligently pursued this litigation in good faith and moved swiftly to dismiss the case as soon as Defendant provided critical information relevant to the infringement at issue
In short, the RIAA was clearly not going to drop this case until someone else was implicated. They may well have believed MANY MONTHS AGO that the Defendant himself wasn't the infringing party, but THE RIAA PROLONGED THE CASE SOLELY ITSELF until it could coerce the Defendant into turning over other people that he may well not have even known about in the early days of the suit. Even so, the RIAA blubbers that it was the Defendant, and only the Defendant, who kept this case alive because he refused to do a job (locate and testify against actual infringers) which was never required of him in the first place.
issue—information that Defendant should have provided long ago, but did not.
And just where and when did this become THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIBILITY?
Defendant, in fact, did possess relevant information – namely, that his family members would assert a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination – and chose not to provide it to Plaintiffs.
First, is that relevant information? Since when is pleading the 5th equivalent to pleading guilty?
But even more so, the fact that the Defendant KNOWS THAT NOW, doesn't say that he didn't only learn it yesterday. The RIAA bald-faced states that he knew it all along, and has NOT A SHRED of evidence to support that contention. They are truly filth incarnate.
This information should have been brought to Plaintiffs’ attention months ago, but was not.
Only in your minds is that possibly true. One, it is not the Defendant's duty. Two, this may have been a recent discovery.
Of course, in the RIAA's tiny mind, Defendants are responsible for ALL OF THIS, and the RIAA Plaintiffs are never, and will never be, wrong.
So the RIAA re-tards again try to cut and run without paying for their mistakes.
They whine that the Defendant didn't help them identify the actual infringers from the very beginning as though that was the Defendant's duty to them. Sort of a we-sue-you, which then obligates you to provide the actual evidence against somebody else that we could never have developed on our own, approach that the RIAA is so fond of.
The outrageous claim that dismissal without prejudice, each side to bear their own costs, causes no legal prejudice to the Defendant is among the BIGGEST RIAA LIES of all.
Dismissal must be WITH PREJUDICE to clear the now admittedly innocent Defendant and fully remove him from any future legal question. And legal fees ARE OWED due to the RIAA SUING THE WRONG PERSON, which they knew from the beginning they never had any evidence that he was the actual infringer.
This all proves that the RIAA truly has no case when they file individual suits. They have not secured any compelling evidence, and only the threats of depositions, harassment, high legal bills, invasion of privacy, and other outrageous tactics to bully Defendants can provide them any actual information at all. Strict note should be taken that all information procured under these circumstances should be considered as provided Under Duress, and is questionable if it should ever be allowed otherwise.
In short, THESE RIAA TACTICS HAVE GOT TO STOP! This is not what the judicial system was ever intended for. Or if it was, then it's time for the Revolution NOW!
- - -
Lessons learned here:
1: If you're sued and not the actual infringer, it is now YOUR JOB to locate, identify, and provide evidence and testimony against the actual infringer(s). You will not be paid for this, and if it destroys you family or friendships — Tough Luck Sucker! You should have never bought a computer, or gone out onto the Internet, in the first place.
2: If you are not guilty and don't immediately throw somebody else under the bus, YOU are guilty of unnecessarily prolonging the case and must pay for all your own legal bills. Even if you do perform this duty, you will have to pay all your legal bills to the date of dismissal regardless of the fact that you were incorrectly sued on obviously flawed evidence. (If the evidence wasn't flawed, you wouldn't have been sued by it in the first place.)
3: Even whispering that someone else might assert their Fifth Amendment constitutional defense against testifying indicates that you know who the actual infringers are, and that they're guilty as sin. Your, and their, Lack of Testimony will be used against all of you.
4: If you haven't filed for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs on the first day possible (because they have no evidence), you should do so. It blocks one of their major arguments they cite in eventually dismissing the case against you WITHOUT prejudice, meaning you could be sued again. Either way, you have to pay all your legal bills.
5: The RIAA intends to make innocent people pay just as much as guilty people pay. Innocence, Justice, Truth, Facts, Fair Play, and any other American virtue MEANS NOTHING TO THEM. You have been warned — or more accurately, scared into submission in the event that their sights ever end up pointed in your direction.
-DM
so the plaintiffs lawyer stated more then once in this brief that they are only interested to "get" the direct infringer!
But yet they sue people just because their name is the one in the records of the ISP.
doesn't that prove on it's face even from a judicial point of view that their litigation is sham and their suits are fraudulent from the very beginning when they write letters where they claim that the person in the ISP records is the infringer and they have the evidence already for his responsibility and all that?!
I mean if I would tell my shrink that I have only the intention to kill the direct label bosses that are members in RIAA and then I do not do that but kill their lawyers he will say I'm shizophrenic since then my actions would not be in accordance with what I said I'm interested in to do!
Maybe the Plaintiffs here have a similar mental problem and all their suits they file should be dismissed at once and they are told that they are NOT allowed to file any more suits since they are obviously seriously mentally ill ("Querulantenwahn" as diagnosis comes to mind when they repeatedly sue persons for the sake of suing when they don't care that this person is the one they want)
"Suing for the sake of suing" or as a cheap ($450 filing fee only) "public advertising/scaring away from even legit p2p usage"-campaign for the diatrimend of the judiscial system if you will.
P.S. Note to my shrink: I'm not interested in killing anyone at this time
Post a Comment