Saturday, April 19, 2008

RIAA now sues Mr. Amurao's daughter

After discontinuing Lava v. Amurao with prejudice, the RIAA has commenced a new action, this time suing Mr. Amurao's daughter.

We will call the new action "Lava v. Amurao II".

Summons and Complaint*
Exhibit A

[Ed. note. Note that the exhibit A list is about 6 times longer than the usual exhibit A list. That's the RIAA's way of exacting revenge against the father for having dared to fight back. Not very nice "people" we're dealing with, are they? Wonder if they actually have those song files. If so, when did they get them? Hmmm. -R.B.]

* 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


Anonymous said...

Are they able to take "evidence" they developed in the now dismissed case and use it in her case, or do they have to start all over again?

Of course the RIAA always tries to make things look the worst they can possibly be, but wasn't Appendix A songs actually downloaded and identified by "experts" as the actual copyrighted performance? Did they download 6 times more songs recently, or were these songs they just didn't mention downloading and identifying earlier since that would have looked excessive and they only wanted to claim a few actual infringements originally just to be nice?

Also, who is the EXACT "expert" who has identified these files as truly infringing, and why hasn't s/he been deposed yet as to his/her qualifications, methods, error rates, and all the rest?


Jadeic said...

Paragraph 22 "The Defendant has stated in sworn testimony..." - did I miss something here? I can't see any record that Audrey was deposed in Amurao I.


Anonymous said...

I couldn't find the exhibit "A" list in the first case. Just wondering, is exhibit "A" in the second case longer than it was in the first case against the parents??


Jadeic said...

A comparison of Exhibits 'A' from the Amurao I & Amurao II cases shows that the first nine entries in Amurao II Exhibit A have been lifted straight from Amurao I Exhibit A. The additional 45 entries appear to be drawn from the User Log filed as Exhibit B in Amurao II. Unlike the majority of cases I have seen the RIAA did not file these additional entries as a separate exhibit in Amurao I. As usual the order of entries in Amurao II Exhibit A seems random. It certainly is not a cut and paste from Amurao I Exhibit B. Interestingly both the font and formatting change at entry 10 in Amurao II Exhibit A. The font is not that of Amurao I Exhibit B which suggests that it has been pasted from some other unidentified document: possibly a list of tracks actually downloaded by MediaSentry and 'verified' as potentially infringing the plaintiffs' copyright: which leads us back to the points raised by -DM.


raybeckerman said...

As I said, this is only revenge for Mr. Amurao's fighting back in Amurao I.

They always have a short list, exhibit A, and a long list, exhibit B. They only sue on exhibit A unless you fight back.

Then, as revenge for fighting back, they try to add some of the exhibit B songs to exhibit A, even though they don't have the song files.

Jadeic said...

If we believe that they do not have the song files then how can they demonstrate that someone using IP address on 2005-06-01 at 23:57:27 infringed the copyright of the Lava Records LLC registered track Requiem (The Fifth) by Trans-Siberian Orchestra when there is no track of that name listed on the log presented as Exhibit B in Amurao I? Admittedly the log does include the similarly named Trans siberian orchestra - Beethoven's 5th.mp3 (2,862,731 bytes) but without the actual track downloaded by MediaSentry (together with all the associated verifiable audit logs to show that it has not been tampered with) it becomes a leap of faith that the two are the same and that copyright infringement took place. This is only one example of several such anomalies between the two lists. Before long we will arrive at the RIAA apologising for not making the downloaded songs available but instead offering 'one's they prepared earlier'.


Anonymous said...

RIAA = "Ruthlessly Intent Against Amurao"


Anonymous said...

I wonder if the "identified an individual" claim works here, when they've already misidentified the father as the infringer.