Thursday, June 12, 2008

RIAA files new action against Cassin family after dismissing 'making available' action, Warner v. Does 1-4

As noted yesterday, in Warner v. Cassin, the "making available" case that had been pending in Westchester, the RIAA voluntarily dismissed the case, giving no notice to the defendant's lawyer. Defendant's lawyer learned of it on June 11th, although it had been filed May 27th.

Today, June 12th, defendant's lawyer learned that on June 4th the RIAA commenced yet another action against the same family over the same exact allegation of copyright infringement, this time suing "Does 1-4". The name of the new case is Warner v. Does 1-4. The RIAA did not disclose to the Court, in the new case, that it was "related" to Warner v. Cassin. As a result, the new case was assigned to another judge, Hon. Charles L. Brieant.

Additionally, in the new action, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for discovery.

Defendant's lawyer wrote to Judge Robinson, advising him of what had occurred, and requesting that he recall his previous order and issue a new order making it clear that the dismissal in Warner v. Cassin was "on the merits" and "with prejudice", since that case was the second action involving this identical claim (the first being the Washington DC action in which Ms. Cassin was sued as a "Doe").

Defendant's lawyer also wrote to Judge Brieant, explaining the background, asking him to mark the case as "related" to Warner v. Cassin, asking him to refer the matter back to Judge Robinson, and arguing that the plaintiffs had filed the new case in order to:

-engage in forum shopping;
-do an end-run around the impending decision of the dismissal motion; and
-do an end-run around the stay of discovery.

[Ed. note. (1) You just can't make this stuff up. (2) Guess what the new complaint says about "making available"? Answer: nothing. -R.B.]

Complaint, Warner v. Does 1-4
Motion for discovery
Declaration of Laurie Rust
Declaration of Carlos Linares
Ex parte orders from other cases
June 12, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Stephen C. Robinson (re recall of previous order)
June 12, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Charles L. Brieant (re referral of related case)
June 12, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Stephen C. Robinson (re letter to Judge Brieant)

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica
Lil Wayne The Smoking Section
DSL Reports
Merry Swankster
PC World

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


Igor said...

I think this explains what Ray said happened with the dismissal: "They say that they served a copy by mail on May 27th. I have never received a copy."

Sounds like them trying to buy time to get away with this (or they got another new firm and didn't tell them about the previous firm's actions).

Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

Does 1-4? How does that work when they've already obtained the information they usually get from doe suits?

Anonymous said...

Statute of Limitations?


Alter_Fritz said...


You indeed can't make such a thing up.

so it is that either those RIAA lawyers are like I accused them of being are truely in utter disrespect for your judiciary and those Judges, or -and that seems to be the more logical reason if one will not believe that such guys could have be members of ANY bar while showing before mentioned behaviour pattern- they are extremely smart and all this breathtaking behaviour is nothing but carefully orchestrated defense manouvres; "Look your honorable judge, we are clearly insane, if you consider slapping us for our gamesmanship and defrauding of your courts, at least you can't send us to jail since we are mad and did not comprehend what we where doing back then!

Man are those Lawyers lucke that my name isn't judge Briant or Robinson. Boy where they in for trouble. I probably would recommend doing the Rule 11 hearings in Malaysia (IIRC) or a similar country where whipping is an exapted form of punishment for wrongdoings! [Remember that american(?) teenager that got whipped for spray painting grafitti?!!
I would LOVE to see the RIAA lawyers strapped that way in that device(*) where they recieve the strokes!


ROT13 masked URL do to comment policy concerns even by me. Very graphic but IMO exactly what those RIAA vultures and the label bosses that feed them, need!
(And extortion is IIRC one of the things that can get you punished this way in those countries!)

Igor said...

re: Justin

Maybe someone messed up their database and they started the process over?

Ray: Are these comments not being moderated first?

Igor said...

Question regarding moderation was not directed at Justin's comment, just observation that it appeared right away.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the Plaintiffs did not inform the Defense of the dropping of one case and the filing of another because they are concerned that in the period in-between one case ending and another one commencing that the computer in question (the one they want immediate discovery to examine) could have disappeared entirely with no legal consequences to any Defendants afterwards. Once a case is over, anything you had to preserve for that case is over as well, and computers have proven very problematic in these lawsuits.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

I can already guess their response:

Their complaint seems to claim that Ms Cassin is NOT one of the 4 John Does they are suing, instead that these Does are the "REAL" infringers. She is mentioned in the complaint by name, thus NONE of the Does could be her.

However, looking at the 2 strikes rule, it seems to state Twice Dismissed an action over a specific set of facts, in this case alleged file sharing over a certain IP address at a certain time, not a specfic defendant. Thus, I agree that this case should be dismissed

If they had filed their cases 1 at a time, they would have been able to add the new Does to the first case and not hit this rule.

Since Ms. Cassin is NOT the defendant in the new case, would they not have to pay her for her costs for producing any info requested from her?

This is the best case so far to draw sanctions. I hope that they finally come.


raybeckerman said...


no but don't tell anyone

let's keep it our little secret

raybeckerman said...

i'm experimenting with a new way of monitoring it without interfering with the spontaneity of the dialogue

Anonymous said...

I believe I said they would try to find "loopholes" in the rule about withdrawing from cases over on Slashdot. Alas, I was correct.

Doubtless, they'll say that this is a "different" action, because they're seeking the "real" infringer this time... or something like that. And I can't wait for them to spin you pointing out their representations as "proof" or an "admission" that the people you represent are the actual infringers.

But I'm somehow surprised they didn't wait for the first judge to rule. Ordinarily, they'd want that judge to be out of the picture, so I'm guessing there's some legal reason behind that which you might want to ponder.

I just can't see why they wouldn't wait until they'd fully escaped from the old court before bringing this anew; it doesn't make sense unless they derive some crazy advantage from it, like the ability to raise new issues in the first case? No, I can't see a judge allowing that, but something bugs me.

They may be sloppy at times, but they love underhanded tricks. Be careful, I'm sure they're up to something novel.

I'd read the FRCP really carefully while imagining all the ways they might argue for more bites at the apple. Somehow, I just don't think this is the only dirty trick they intend to employ.


Alter_Fritz said...

and me is extra thankful for that and will try to calm me down even better so that stuff like above will not happen so many times since me sees how important this blog is, and doing it professionally without distracting from it's mission!!

Anonymous said...

Alter_Fritz: Unless you're talking about a different case, I thought it was in Singapore and the guy got caned for doing something stupid.

It was even spoofed in a Simpson's episode, where they had Bart sent to Australia for a "booting" over long distance telephone charges. I think he also ended up releasing cane toads to destroy their environment for some reason.


Alter_Fritz said...

@IDBIIP stated
"But I'm somehow surprised they didn't wait for the first judge to rule."

Tehcnically the "old" judge was out of the picture since he signed the order and the "old" case was already over.
That tiny technicallity that it was the wrong numberer paragraph 1 instead of 2 as I got from "fan of this blog" did not alter the facts so much i speculate

Nick Rout said...

In the jursidiction where I practice (NZ), if a plaintiff discontinues a proceeding, they cannot start another one on the same cause(s) of action without first paying costs in the first action.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nick,

If one of the Does is the previous Defendant, the rule seems to say they must pay the previous costs before it may proceed.

This is section (d) of Rule 41:

(d) Costs of a Previously Dismissed Action.

If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court:

(1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and

(2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has complied.

So, it does look like the rule is the same here in the US.


Rick Boatright said...


I read the motion for discovery and find it interesting.

They say in it that they

a) Sued Ms Cassin as a Doe to find out who she is...

b) that they then sued her for copyright infringement and then

c) more than a year later, for the first time _Oh my God!_ her lawyer lets us know that she's not responsible for any such copyright infringement... ooooops, well, we'll drop THAT CASE then, so sorry.

so then

d) SOMEONE was sharing files on that IP address

which was

e) probebly Ms Cassin's daughter Olivia since the account name was OMC


f) there are three other people who live there, and it MIGHT have been them


g) We want to snag copies of ALL of their hard disks right now, thank-you-very-much, so that we can

h) sue the hell out of whichever of them it was

so this isn't a 2 strikes rule thing since we're trying to identify some OTHER person at the Cassin house. Duh.

---- Right. That's going to go over real well.

I would ask things like: Aren't you lying when you say that no one said "we didn't do it" for more than a year? and

I note that they are once again accusing the defendents of refusing to help them find the REAL infringers -- an act of reluctance which of course, MUST BE PUNNISHED...

Go get 'em Ray.

raybeckerman said...

Dear anonymous The Common Man Speaking...

That sounds like it came out of the RIAA playbook.

Especially the fact that you have no basis for what you are saying.

Please give us citations to support your statement, which I think is totally baseless.

raybeckerman said...

Folks if you see anything that looks like RIAA trolling, or otherwise violates the comment policies, please email me with it.


Anonymous said...

"d) SOMEONE was sharing files on that IP address
which was
e) probebly Ms Cassin's daughter Olivia since the account name was OMC"

I "love" the conclusions of RIAA lawyers;

j r l i n d o r *must* be a "Junior" so they go hunting for "kids" that even live in other states then NY!
O M C are initials like some daughters name so lets go after daughter now

Thank god that in the p2p system of choice
(which the RIAA already claimed in some of their court papers as being "illegal p2p" while the other half of the combined MAFIAA [2] -the MPAA- is doing business just fine with that "illegal p2p")
named BitTorrent you don't have usernames anymore for every participant.

Imagine if it would be a prerequisite that every one would need to choose a "name" there too and not only the torrentfileuploaders!
What a hell of confusion it would bring if suddenly the world would see Billions of "RLG's", "Richard's" "Mr.Moron's" or the Horror dozends of RML's?

Hell would break loose when we would apply then RIAA lawyers logic, wouldn't it!

(^^THAT^^ might not mean what those small minded persons probably conclude!)



derivative said...


I think what the anonymous common man is trying to say is this:

If you have been sued, then you are under an obligation to not destroy any related evidence.

If you have no reasonable apprehension of being sued, you are probably free to get a new computer, for example, without worrying about what happens to the old one, or to reformat your hard drive because windows got slow.

Anonymous common man postulates that the RIAA probably wanted to make the cases overlap (insofar as the defendant knew) merely to preserve the requirement that evidence not be destroyed.

You're right -- it does sound like it's straight out of the RIAA's playbook, from the whole sneakiness about how it was done, to the implicit assumption that the dirty dogs KNOW they are guilty and will jump at the chance to unload the evidence if we give it to them.

And that line of thinking does show that anonymous common man is also a devious (fill in the blank), or is at least capable of thinking like one.

samwyse said...

I'd like to follow the link you posted, but I fear breaking your DRM, leaving my liable for damages under the DCMA.

Anonymous said...


I will not respond to your challenge to defend myself because Derivative has already gotten it correctly for me. He (or she) clearly understands the point I'm making.

I will elaborate only to the amount of pointing out that even a completely innocent person would be insane to allow anyone to rummage through their computer hard drive, which contains years of one's one personal, intimate life. Even the pieces you thought you'd deleted years ago. These plaintiffs have no compunction about searching out and revealing the most personal and embarassing information they can discover, regardless of any relationship that it may have to their case.

As examples I need only point to Lindor, where job resumes and e-mails were exposed, or to another defendant where a big issue was made of some pornographic images discovered even though the case itself was about illegal music files.

I note also in passing that even a completely clean hard drive (no evidence of any illegal music files or any peer-to-peer sharing program ever installed) have not immediately exonerated any defendant yet. Instead these plaintiffs simply claim that either the incorrect hard drive was supplied for imaging, or that all the evidence is on some external USB hard drive that is yet to be produced. They claim this even thought such ludicrous claims fly into the very face of how the Windows operating system operates.

For anything else, reread Derivative's excellent post. He got it.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Alter_Fritz said...

Fear not, Its not my DRM and the inventor is looong dead no danger though :-)

rot13 is not DRM (well "lawyerish technicly" it might be) but if a DRM sheme can be broken with simple logical thinking even if you don't know the encoding key then at least in the german "DMCA like" provision about breaking DRM protection measures the clause is "wirksame Schutzma├čnahmen"
I guess even a jugde L would not dare to claim that ROT13 is a working protection measure, would he?

what could that for a common creartext combination be, and from getting that one, you have broken the key.
Even a 10 year old might be able to do it, if he has a "view for letters" :-P

and if you still haven't figured out the "secret key" get the idea how to do it in head with the graphical help here
please note that in above link is NO aditional ROT5 for numbers involved. just the letters a-z.

Do this reversal a few times and you might have all the combination memorized so typing ROT13 out of your head without help of some scripts starts to get relatively easy (depending how good you are with letters. (start with memorizing to spell the alphabet backwards zyx (..)cba as fast and normal as you do from abc[..]xyz on and then try harder cipherkeys :-P

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Wow. With the MediaSentry printout dated June 13, 2005, this just barely squeaked in under the statute of limitations -- just nine days to spare. Looks like it was filed the minute the judge signed off on the Cassin dismissal, too.

I guess this explains the rush over the past month.

Igor said...

If this just barely squeaked in under the statute of limitations, then aren't they really too late anyway since they'll dismiss the doe law suit as soon as they get the name of the IP owner (that they already know)?

Rick Boatright said...

To Igor,

no this isn't like the usual Doe's. They know it's one of THESE FOUR PEOPLE, so they're wanting to do discovery to indentify which one, and will modify the case once they know. No dropping this time. It's not a case of improper joinder this time.

Anonymous said...

I have a few comments I have to make and see if I'm the only one seeing this.

First, on page 3 of the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery it says "2 M. & D. Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT ("Nimmer") §8.08[A][1] at 8-115 ("[The] input of a work into a computer results in the making of a copy, and hence... such unauthorized input infringes the copyright owner's reproduction right"). Are they seriously revising their tactics to once again say any music put on your computer is an infringement? How does fair use play into this? If my memory serves me correctly, didn't the lawsuits about MP3s and VCRs say time shifting media is okay as long as it's for personal use?

Second, also on page 3 of the same motion, it says Napster, 239 F.3d at 1014 (making copyrighted works available for electronic distribution on a P2P network violates the exclusive right of distribution, even absent evidence of actual distribution). Again, trying to recall, but wasn't this overturned in the appellate court? I thought I read it somewhere in other briefings. Could someone point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. Also, since it was overturned on appeal, how can they quote it here? Or is that more of the plaintiffs' attorneys hoping no one tells the judge the truth?

I also see they have left in the information about MediaSentry being the plaintiffs "investigator", albeit unlicensed.

Ray, I hope you bring all this to the attention of the judge if for some ungodly known reason it stands as a suit. I also love the part where the plaintiffs actually called you, the attorney of record, to apologize for improper service. In some states, that automatically closes the case. Not sure if that's the same in NY.

I see they now have affidavits from current counsel for the plaintiffs explaining things. I wonder if eventually they will have some attorney claim to be the one who hired MediaSentry to attempt another end run on the illegal investigation issue? And of course the Linears declaration is still the same (deleted for comment policy), different day. That's all I have for now.


Igor said...

Thanks Rick. Then my second question is what's preventing all 4 people in this case from refusing the subpoena by asserting their fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves (or various other privileges allowed to spouses and family members?) I know it's a civil matter, but since violating DMCA could be criminal I would think 5th amendment protection applies...

Alter_Fritz said...

if only "cassin I" and the counsel there had told the plaintiffs that Family Member Doe's would "take the fifth", then the well known and respected record companies of course would not have initiated "cassin II". (they are not lunatic people of the ID-10-T batch of humans and would waste theri money to uselessly bother your courts and terrorise under age kids ... No, wait. Nevermind!)

"It's all Mr. Beckerman's and Mrs Joan Cassin's fault, for simply not telling them!
Mr. B. is singlehandedly responsible from now on for all the billions of copies out there! ;-)

Will they demand Mr B.'s Car? I think to remember he is doing some form of gun less selfdefence training? will they dare to do some carjacking? (*)


raybeckerman said...

Anonymous Common Man,

You said something that was unsupportable based on my 3 years of experience, day in, day out, in these cases.

I asked you to substantiate it and back it up and your response is that you 'will not respond to your challenge to defend myself'?

All that says to me is that you can't substantiate it.

raybeckerman said...

rick boatwright,

Your comment is pretty bogus. On what do you base it?

raybeckerman said...

igor, I don't know why a smart guy like you accepted Mr. Boatwright's statement at face value. Please re-read it carefully. It is total fiction.

raybeckerman said...

Comment policy #8 states, in pertinent part:

"8. No .... misleading statements of law, or false statements of fact."

raybeckerman said...

Dear Anonymous Common Man, in response to your recent post which I have not published, I welcome your vigorous participation here (although I must admit I would be more comfortable if you had a username), and have no wish to 'disinvite' you from this forum.

When I call you on something you said, which I believe to be false, baseless, misleading, and typical RIAA propaganda-in-lieu-of-evidence, and ask you to substantiate it, I would expect you to either (a) substantiate it, or (b) admit you can't substantiate it, and withdraw it.

This is a place for truth, not for lies.

Real people's lives are being affected very seriously, and in many cases are being ruined, by speculation such as that in which you and Mr. Boatwright have indulged here.

If you can back up your statements, then let the truth come out.

But if you can't, be good enough to retract the statement. Better yet, don't make the statement if you can't substantiate it.

The fact of the matter is the only devious stuff I've seen in these cases has come from the plaintiffs' lawyers.

The hundreds of defendants I've spoken to in these cases are among the finest people I have ever known.

The RIAA lawyers don't care about besmirching peoples' reputations without any evidence for doing so.

I do.

Anonymous said...

My lack of a username is intentional. I prefer not to be too easily identified due to the vigor with which the RIAA pursues all of its perceived enemies. Identities of anonymous bloggers have been demanded in court before and an enemy with unlimited funds and no scruples is not one to tweak lightly. Every barrier one can erect to protect one's First Amendment right to speak freely and anonymously is not to be discarded casually. Unlike some of your other regular posters, I don't live in another country safely out of their reach. As such, I speak the opinion of the common man who is not a lawyer, not a record company executive, a lobbyist, a politician, or a judge.

In addition, user names are so freely available with nothing more than an unused e-mail address, which anyone can acquire by the dozen for free, that it provides little in the way of validation as to the veracity of the speaker using it.

Today that opinion is that the RIAA lawyers, their tactics, and their investigators have greatly blackened the esteem of the profession of lawyers overall. (Don't take this personally, I'm not referring to you and other defense attorneys in these cases working for defendants who who appear to have no real hope of actually paying any of you what you're worth in these cases.)

The RIAA has also blackened the esteem of judges in general who don't seem to be doing nearly enough to rein in these outrageous claims and tactics. Not a single sanction has yet been handed down, and almost no one has yet recovered their legal fees in these meritless cases. That is laid directly at the feet of the judges.

This has also tarnished the view of the legal system, which seems unable to adapt to this method of gaming it. More than ever it seems that those who have the gold make the rules.

Print this, or don't print this, I don't care. I express my opinions, and do not feel I'm automatically obligated to defend, or retract, them just because someone else disagrees with them. They're honest and they're mine. While I don't immediately jump down the throat of everyone who questions my integrity without every really knowing me, I don't consider it casually open to question either. No one can take that from me.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

Ray, you really must start watching yourself. You're starting to give lawyers a good name :-).

Only partially in jest, and totally with you. Thank you for doing what you do.

- deimos -

raybeckerman said...

Dear anonymous common man speaking,

1. Your statement - the one I challenged - sounded rather pro-RIAA to me, not anti - RIAA.

2. My opinion and my views count for something too, only because I have probably spent a heck of a lot more hours than you working on these issues.

3. If you make a statement which I challenge as being unsupportable, you should take that seriously, and either substantiate it, or admit you can't substantiate it.

4. In my opinion, based on my thousands of hours working in this area, your intimation that there is a problem with defendants' spoliation of evidence is right out of "Quotations from Chairman RIAA-Richard"; i.e., it is a bold faced lie. If you can back it up, fine, otherwise withdraw it. Don't keep pretending you said something other than what you said.

5. If you want to be completely anonymous, fine. But you have to be a straight shooter. That is not optional here.

Joe Pallas said...

Aren't we back to "failed to state a claim?" The "new" complaint replaces "made available" with "distributed ... to the public" without citing a single case of actual distribution. So, once again, there's no evidence of infringement.

Joe Pallas said...

I would never, ever accuse a lawyer of making a false statement under oath, but I have to say that the interpretation of the facts presented in Laurie Rust's declaration is creative:

In light of Ms. Cassin's denial of liability and failure to disclose who might be responsible for the infringement, Plaintiffs dismissed the Cassin case ....

Right. "We dismissed the case because she said she didn't do it."

Alter_Fritz said...

Me normaly just jumps over the sections where the lawyers cite/quote prior rulings and other stuff, but that one noticed by anonymous T above at June 13, 2008 2:20:00 PM EDT is bold!

the label scapegoat guys quote Nimmer as saying:

NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT ("Nimmer") §8.08[A][1] at 8-115 ("[The] input of a work into a computer results in the making of a copy, and hence... such unauthorized input infringes the copyright owner's reproduction right").

Where in my opinion the realy important part is that one "at 8-115 Boy thats a hell of alot text left out in that quote!

Well, I once learned when you quote someone it is considered bad journalism if you omit important parts of his words to have the quoted results apear to imply something else then that what the quoted guy told you!

leaving out more then 100 lines(!) to get a resulting quote like that one seems more then highly immoral and "frivoulous" (in terms of your profession art I indeed mean the later!)

1) normaly RIAA lawyers aren't the shy guys when it comes to file papers with more then enough filler words. So considerations on their behalf not to have a too long (but accurate the meaning representing) quote can't be the reason!

2) so what is the reason then? Could it be -what I guess most familiar with their modus operandi probably think now too- utter disrespect to judges and american judiciary system?

3) someone with a fresher brain then mine at the moment can find the complete quote and post it please?

4) so that the judge that they tried to decieve with that selective quoting sees their bad faith attitude toward him too and we might see this nice malaysian installation in action on RIAA lawyers buttocks as fast as possible?! (can bar associations -that think its important how their members practice law- install such kind of corporale punishment/humiliation in thier desciplinary resortments) It msutn't be 20 strokes liek the poor guy got in the masked URl though, maximum 4 (or 5 in case of RIAA-Richard like misbehaviour) should be the ultima ratio!
1 or 2 for Krichbaum like guys i would suggest, and very important also 5 for politicans that make it possible that RIAA richard like guys get jobs as judges! The other honorable judges in that higher court in colorade should probably feel VERY ashamed to have him among their working peers soon!

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Good catch on the "..." in the Nimmer quote actually being a hundred omitted lines. I never would've caught that! The quote is almost guaranteed to be misleading outside its first use, which I believe was a court decision establishing that computer input is reproduction thus unauthorized input is potentially infringing.

Also omitted is the date of the quote: 1993. That's old, man! Technology today is nothing like it was back then. For example, in 1993, the MP3 file format had not yet been invented, much less portable digital audio players.

So even if, beyond all belief, the Nimmers of 1993 said copying to a computer is copyright infringement, there's no way they could've predicted today's technology. Would the Nimmers of 2008 also say ripping CDs to an iPod (an act of unauthorized copying, by the way) is copyright infringement? I doubt it.

Though I can think of at least one organization that wishes they would. See RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems (1999) -- which, as we know, the RIAA lost.

Rick Boatright said...

Ray wrote:

> rick boatwright,
> Your comment is pretty bogus.
> On what do you base it?

I'm not exactly sure which post you're asking about. Is it the one where I suggested that the RIAA wouldn't dismiss the Doe suit this time?

If so, the _only_ think I base it on is that even THEY couldn't be stupid enough to dismiss the action AFTER the statute of limitations had triggered, since they wouldn't be able to re-file something other than the Doe suit.

Of course, as has been pointed out many times, the depth of their stupidity has yet to be plumbed... so the comment might, in fact, be entirely bogus. Good point Ray.

If it was my OTHER post, then, I freely admit to being confused, since I was saying that the lying RIAA lawyers lied in their papers when they said that you, and Ms Cassin never ever told them that she didn't infringe.

Alter_Fritz said...

it was this one [1] i'm willing to bet 3 allowences of rule 7 violations!

They know it's one of THESE FOUR PEOPLE, so they're wanting to do discovery to indentify which one, and will modify the case once they know. No dropping this time. It's not a case of improper joinder this time.

They know nothing!

They speculate and/or draw prejudicial conclusions that because of the "OMC" and the facts that the ISP painted "Cassin I" as the "person responsible for the IP at the date/time at issue" that it is a case of "the kid(s) is/are the infringer(s)".

While we might could assume that it is this case a case of "kids pirate" because of the probability and the fact that so many millions of americans do "it", such "SPECULATIONS" are NOT the law, and speculations are not what lead to a verdict by a judge.
Yeah, I know prepoderance of evidence, and all that, but just some initials are NOT evidence and RIAA has NOT identified an individual doing copyrightinfringement. (not in this case and neither in any of the other cases where they spoke that lie too!)

If this were a p2p blog and we were all happy copyrightinfringers and had the knowledge that so many are doing it, that from some time to time RIAA is actually fingering infringers and not only dolphins it would be NOT unserious to draw the conclusion that you did from the "evidence".

But since this a different type of blog where the LAW is the yardstick, and not the prejudicial thinking of "practicing pirates" and RIAA lawyers alike, your comment is "bogus" like RAy correctly pointed out.

raybeckerman said...

Thank you, Alter_Fritz. You are correct!

Rick Boatright said...

Blogger Alter_Fritz said...

> rick
> it was this one [1] i'm willing
> to bet 3 allowences of rule 7
> violations!

> [1] They know it's one of THESE FOUR PEOPLE,

Ahhh, the problems I get into from poor editing.

I was attempting to comment on Igor's idea that they would, as they typically do, drop the Doe suit.

I should have said that
The RIAA folks THINK that they know that the infringer must be one of these four people, so if they identify one to target they would be more likely to modify this suit than drop it, since refiling is impossible due to the statute of limitations.

but I wasn't careful enough. It certainly _IS_ bogus to state that the "infringer" must be one of these four people, and I can now see why Ray would have had his hackles raised. Uncarefulness of speech on my part. I was focused on the idea of dismissing not on the guilt or innocence part.

My bad.

Alter_Fritz said...

Oh come on Rick!

Do not try now to weasel out of your words I have clearly established what kind of professions would draw conclusions like you did. And since I guess you are not an undercover RIAAlaywer writing here...

NO, wait, me isn't either and I probably had the same idea like you.
I guess we are both now in for some stress if RIAAlawyer warped conclusive thinking is good enough for a sentence.

Aye Matey!


Igor said...

That's kind of what I assumed you said/meant. The possibility that neighbors or passers by stole the internet and were responsible could make it for a funny answer to the Doe suit. "It was 4 random dudes on the street...go sue them RIAA!"

I feel like that's the answer they are looking for.

Also, perhaps they are trying to somehow set a precedent to treat normal people with routers as ISPs?

Alter_Fritz said...

Commentary & discussion:


(It's a commenting article too but maybe not so Comment Policy #2 compatible since it is written by a swede (you know those copyrightinfringers by heart). So to not go for a #10 violation only usable for those that really want to know and don't feel that such knowledge might detract them from the dignity of RIvsTP)