Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PCWorld)   RIAA refiles contested piracy case involving single mother that was already dropped, refiling it under "John Doe" so it can forum-shop a better judge who will understand their "making available" clauses. Stay classy, RIAA   (blogs.pcworld.com) divider line
46
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3333 clicks; posted to Fandom » and Main » on 18 Jun 2008 at 1:19 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
markie_farkie [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-06-18 1:07:47 PM  
You'd think with all the negative press surrounding the RIAA that the people that fund them would cut off their finances..
 
dahmers love zombie
2008-06-18 1:19:17 PM  
markie_farkie: You'd think with all the negative press surrounding the RIAA that the people that fund them would cut off their finances..

You assume that the same individuals have an IQ which exceeds room temperature, and/or some basic level of logical abilities that extends beyond "durrrr...when Idol on?"

I despise the term "sheeple", but somedays...somedays...
 
InternetLOL
2008-06-18 1:26:38 PM  
Seeding @ 1082 kBps.

/Your milkshake.
 
xalres
2008-06-18 1:27:57 PM  
All they have to do is find a crotchety old luddite judge who has no knowledge whatsoever of them new-fangled compy pooter machines and their intertube webs and they've found someone who'll swallow their "evidence". Sadly, there is no shortage of judges like that.

On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.
 
Blues_X
2008-06-18 1:31:09 PM  
Judge shopping should be illegal.
 
JackDAndCoke
2008-06-18 1:32:54 PM  
I thought the RIAA lost the clone wars.
 
Im_Gumby
2008-06-18 1:35:41 PM  
xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?
 
freakdiablo [TotalFark]
2008-06-18 1:36:46 PM  
xalres: All they have to do is find a crotchety old luddite judge who has no knowledge whatsoever of them new-fangled compy pooter machines and their intertube webs and they've found someone who'll swallow their "evidence". Sadly, there is no shortage of judges like that.



Music goes WHERE?
 
Caeldan
2008-06-18 1:39:36 PM  
Im_Gumby: xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?

Except in this case, Person A and Person B may end up to be the same person.
 
Jareth Cutestory
2008-06-18 1:43:20 PM  
Im_Gumby: xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?


That's not really a fair comparison. The first case was thrown out. It'd be more like:

A crime takes place
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
Before trial, judge rules that there was no crime and the case is without merit.
Judge throws out case against A
Prosecutor refiles case against B, hoping to find another judge who won't rule crime didn't exist

That is an apt analogy, and if not illegal, then frowned upon by the courts.


/clearly, IANAL
 
ahwahoo2006
2008-06-18 1:45:18 PM  
Caeldan:

Except in this case, Person A and Person B may end up to be are the same person.

FTFY
 
haemaker
2008-06-18 1:46:01 PM  
Caeldan:
Except in this case, Person A and Person B may end up to be the same person.

...and they dropped the "making available" part of their case.

"I'll take forum and legal theory shopping for $2000, Alex"

/that's a double joke there...
//See, cause for it to be $2000, it had to be during 'Double Jeopardy'
///Get it? Anyone? Anyone? what-doo economics? voodoo economics.
 
Aevum
2008-06-18 1:47:10 PM  
NAL

Actually it's more like:
Prosecutor files case against Nancy.
Judges rules in pretrial that no crime occurred, thus the case is invalid and throws it out.
Prosecutor files same exact case, but replaces "Nancy" with "To be determined later" so that they can get a different judge.

Next step should be "Government files charges against Prosecutor and his clients for contempt/abuse".

/NAL
 
Not Available
2008-06-18 1:48:34 PM  
A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.


That's not the case hear, at least if I'm reading the article right. They sued a New York woman who had files available for downloading on her computer. Their summary judgment motion got denied, with the judge holding that they had to prove that the material actually changed hands. Since they couldn't (and were therefore facing a dismissal themselves), they voluntarily dismissed their case.

They then turned around and refiled, this time naming "John Doe" as the defendant, as opposed to the woman who was the original named defendant. The key is that when they refiled, they knew that "John Doe" and the original defendant were the same person.

At a minimum, they had a duty to disclose the existence of and pertinent facts related to the original proceedings to the court. Moreover, if they did in fact discover facts that indicated that the original defendant was not the proper defendant, the proper course would be to amend their complaint (to name a John Doe defendant), not refile and pretend that the original case never took place. Lawyers have a duty of candor to the court, and it would not surprise me to see the court (1) dismiss the new case once the existence of the previous case comes to light, and (2) sanction the RIAA attorneys, by, for example, awarding the original defendant all her attorneys' fees.
 
bukketmaster
2008-06-18 1:52:22 PM  
I was actually going to buy a CD the other day, but asshattery like this has put me off of recorded music entierly. At this point, you're either a theif or a sucker, and I don't like either of those options.
 
PanicMan [BareFark]
2008-06-18 1:55:49 PM  
xalres: All they have to do is find a crotchety old luddite judge who has no knowledge whatsoever of them new-fangled compy pooter machines and their intertube webs and they've found someone who'll swallow their "evidence". Sadly, there is no shortage of judges like that.

On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

Don't worry. The lawyer in this case (a regular slashdot poster) has sent a letter to both judges (new window) informing them of this tactic.

Judges don't like this shiat.
 
PanicMan [BareFark]
2008-06-18 1:58:03 PM  
More coverage of Ray Beckerman's cases involving the RIAA:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ (new window)
 
Gwendolyn
2008-06-18 2:01:00 PM  
bukketmaster: I was actually going to buy a CD the other day, but asshattery like this has put me off of recorded music entierly. At this point, you're either a theif or a sucker, and I don't like either of those options.

Yeah I haven;t bought a CD since it came out. My kids get gift certificates from other people to iTunes and they get all their music from there. Normally though we have Sirius in both cars and I have Pandora up on my computer.
 
Great Janitor
2008-06-18 2:02:07 PM  
bukketmaster: I was actually going to buy a CD the other day, but asshattery like this has put me off of recorded music entierly. At this point, you're either a theif or a sucker, and I don't like either of those options.

I haven't bought a CD in years. Hell, I don't even remember what the last CD was that I bought (not counting blank cds). I would actually buy music if more musicians did what Radiohead did last year. When releasing an album, sell it directly off your website and keep all the money. If production of that album is done at the recording artist's home, then really, what do you need the RIAA for?
 
xalres
2008-06-18 2:04:28 PM  
Im_Gumby: xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?

I meant change JUST the name. It went from being "Person A: Defentant" to "Jon Doe: Defendant".
 
Psychopusher [TotalFark]
2008-06-18 2:16:40 PM  
The RIAA denied that they're forum shopping. Obviously.

STFU & DIAF, RIAA.
 
SpacePunk
2008-06-18 2:17:00 PM  
---------------------
Im_Gumby 2008-06-18 01:35:41 PM
xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?
--------------------

What are you smoking that is degrading your reading comprehension?

In this case 'Person A' is a specific individual. Let's call her 'Mary'.
All the RIAA did in the refiling is refer to 'Person A' as 'John Doe', and presenting 'Person A' as a different individual 'Person B' trying to get another judge when they know farking well that 'Person A' and 'Person B' are the same person.
 
JudgeXa
2008-06-18 3:19:48 PM  
Keep in mind, this case actually gets even better.

Prosecutor files Case X against John Doe, to get discovery to find out who John Doe is.
Prosecutor gets evidence, drops Case X against John Doe.
Prosecutor files Case Y against Person A (who it allegedly found out through the first case).
Prosecutor finds that Person A did NOT do it (but not that Person B did it), and drops Case Y.
Prosecutor files Case Z against John Does 1-4, to get discovery to find out who John Doe REALLY is.
 
JudgeXa
2008-06-18 3:23:06 PM  
oh, and for a better writeup of the situation:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080613-third-times-the-charm-riaa-tries-e nd-run-around-old-case.html

(no linky goodness. Yes, I suck)
 
vegasj
2008-06-18 3:25:57 PM  
I hope she counters for $10billion and wins.
 
Buster Hermano
2008-06-18 3:50:34 PM  
JudgeXa: Keep in mind, this case actually gets even better.

Prosecutor files Case X against John Doe, to get discovery to find out who John Doe is.
Prosecutor gets evidence, drops Case X against John Doe.
Prosecutor files Case Y against Person A (who it allegedly found out through the first case).
Prosecutor finds that Person A did NOT do it (but not that Person B did it), and drops Case Y.
Prosecutor files Case Z against John Does 1-4, to get discovery to find out who John Doe REALLY is.

Bet simple explanation so far. What really scares the daylights out of me is that there isn't more outrage that this is happening. Where are you America?
 
GanjSmokr
2008-06-18 4:16:44 PM  
JudgeXa: oh, and for a better writeup of the situation:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080613-third-times-the-charm-riaa-tries-e nd-run-around-old-case.html

(no linky goodness. Yes, I suck)

because it's way too hard to highlight something and click the "link" button (new window)

/yea i'm a smartass
 
Im_Gumby
2008-06-18 4:23:05 PM  
OK.

First off, I DRTFA and don't care to.

Secondly, my hypothetic response to xalres's hypotheic question was not predicated on the case in question... it simply addressed his question with a valid scenario where changing the name on the same case is justified.
 
xalres
2008-06-18 4:36:10 PM  
Im_Gumby: OK.

First off, I DRTFA and don't care to.

Secondly, my hypothetic response to xalres's hypotheic question was not predicated on the case in question... it simply addressed his question with a valid scenario where changing the name on the same case is justified.

Right, and I did RTFA and was asking a question that had to do with TFA. You responded to a question nobody asked in a way that had nothing to do with the story. That's why half the thread corrected you.
 
BitwiseShift
2008-06-18 4:38:33 PM  
Looks like the Associated Press will charge to read this story soon, and since it contains more than five words, it'll charge a lot and issue take-downs for unsuspecting ISPs whose clients quote.
 
Saturn5
2008-06-18 6:05:19 PM  
Im_Gumby: xalres: On another note, how is this legal? How can you have a case thrown out then simply change the name of the defendant and come back and attempt to have the same case litigated? It makes no sense.

ORLY?

A crime takes place.
Prosecutor files charges against Person A.
During trial, it becomes evident that Person B did it.
Case against Person A is dropped.
Same case is retried with Person B as defendant.

How would this not be legal, moral, ethical, or make sense?

When Person A = Person B
 
Director_Mr
2008-06-18 7:26:48 PM  
Great Janitor: bukketmaster: I was actually going to buy a CD the other day, but asshattery like this has put me off of recorded music entierly. At this point, you're either a theif or a sucker, and I don't like either of those options.

I haven't bought a CD in years. Hell, I don't even remember what the last CD was that I bought (not counting blank cds). I would actually buy music if more musicians did what Radiohead did last year. When releasing an album, sell it directly off your website and keep all the money. If production of that album is done at the recording artist's home, then really, what do you need the RIAA for?

Great Janitor, and Bukketmaster: No one believes you. Face it, you are freeloaders who will not buy music because you can download it for free. It has nothing to do with RIAA. This stupid line of argument: "I was going to buy an album, but I read this article about RIAA, and now I refuse to support an artist I like because of the evil record companies" is such a farce. Face it, you are too fond of your money to spend a dime on something you could get for free, even if it is illegitimately gotten.

Music Companies need to find another model for making money soon, because it is becoming too easy to get music for free. My prediction? More music will start containing mini commercials in the song, like some stupid rap songs already do.
 
Kodiak Attack
2008-06-18 7:43:15 PM  
If you're worried about giving money to the RIAA, there's always RIAA Radar (pops), which tells you whether or not your favorite band has their lips attached to the corporate teet.

/just wanted to say teet
//teet
 
Selector
2008-06-18 8:06:33 PM  
xalres: Im_Gumby: OK.

First off, I DRTFA and don't care to.

Secondly, my hypothetic response to xalres's hypotheic question was not predicated on the case in question... it simply addressed his question with a valid scenario where changing the name on the same case is justified.

Right, and I did RTFA and was asking a question that had to do with TFA. You responded to a question nobody asked in a way that had nothing to do with the story. That's why half the thread corrected you.

I believe that qualifies as PWN3D.
 
bmxfelon420
2008-06-18 8:12:06 PM  
I think that a law should be passed that states in some sort of legalese (to prevent loophole exploiting) that if a party files a case that is proven to have been a case previously files/resolved (resolved used in a "thrown out or decided" sense) they are required to pay all damages they were trying to get, and are prevented from filing civil suits for 5 years.

Harsh, you say? Do people who do things like this really ever have a legitimate reason to sue anyone?
 
Sunidesus [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-06-18 8:18:14 PM  
Director_MrGreat Janitor: bukketmaster: I was actually going to buy a CD the other day, but asshattery like this has put me off of recorded music entierly. At this point, you're either a theif or a sucker, and I don't like either of those options.

I haven't bought a CD in years. Hell, I don't even remember what the last CD was that I bought (not counting blank cds). I would actually buy music if more musicians did what Radiohead did last year. When releasing an album, sell it directly off your website and keep all the money. If production of that album is done at the recording artist's home, then really, what do you need the RIAA for?

Great Janitor, and Bukketmaster: No one believes you. Face it, you are freeloaders who will not buy music because you can download it for free. It has nothing to do with RIAA. This stupid line of argument: "I was going to buy an album, but I read this article about RIAA, and now I refuse to support an artist I like because of the evil record companies" is such a farce. Face it, you are too fond of your money to spend a dime on something you could get for free, even if it is illegitimately gotten.

Music Companies need to find another model for making money soon, because it is becoming too easy to get music for free. My prediction? More music will start containing mini commercials in the song, like some stupid rap songs already do.

I think they have a point actually. For me it applies to ebooks though, not music. There are a large number of authors whose books I have purchased (in dead tree at the bookstore) after having first heard about/read them from on-line sources.

At this point I prefer reading on my Reader, but when I find books/authors I really enjoy I want to actually own the books; so I buy them and they go on my bookshelves. My Reader feels more like a portable library.
 
Bigedmond
2008-06-18 8:38:10 PM  
Question becomes. If they get this case against "John Doe" to a judge who will take it. What happens if it goes to trial, the judge rules in there favor. What would stop the RIAA with suing every people they know that has music on a computer, because that case already set the standard??

/didn't go to law school
//Paranoid hippie
 
DoWhatNowToWhat
2008-06-18 8:58:18 PM  
I would like to see how well the tactic of pissing off your fans is going to work out for Metallica. It seems that is where the RIAA gets it's business practices.

/Lets hope the bus falls on the RIAA
//and the rest of Metallica
 
HilPoof
2008-06-18 9:46:22 PM  
This is illegal! Res judicata means that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same offense, and it's part of the Fifth Amendment...although the fact that the case was thrown out and didn't reach a final verdict may create a loophole.

Someone needs to give the RIAA the beatdown for being unconstitutional jerkoffs. I cannot imagine that any judge would be stupid enough to go along with this.

/just finished a law and ethics class
//doesn't advocate music piracy
///hates the RIAA anyway
 
nekulor
2008-06-19 12:36:57 AM  
The RIAA can kiss the collective asses of geeks and music lovers everywhere.

VIVA LA REVOLUCION biatchES!
 
Buster Hermano
2008-06-19 1:40:57 AM  
Bigedmond: Question becomes. If they get this case against "John Doe" to a judge who will take it. What happens if it goes to trial, the judge rules in there favor. What would stop the RIAA with suing every people they know that has music on a computer, because that case already set the standard??

/didn't go to law school
//Paranoid hippie

This is actually the question, not the whole John Doe 1/John Doe 2 argument.

The JD1/JD2 argument is like two people standing in the shallow end of the pool, arguing about the deep end they've never been to, while all the action is in the hot tub. Terrible metaphor.

ANywhy, what the issue is, is that the RIAA's band of merry law-talkers is filling suit based on P2P activity that they sniff out using iffy means at best. The RIAA then sues on behalf of a member label, a series of J. Does (Ex. Connecticut: 07-1903 Zomba v. Does 1-16). The suit is filed in the city that the ISP is based in (Ex. a suit being filed against an Arizona Qwest customer in Denver). The RIAA files an "Ex-Parte" suit,(meaning that they know that only one party is talking to the court), force discovery, and get names and account numbers from the ISP.

By the time a defendant knows anything about the suit against them, it's usually too late. It's sneaky, underhanded, and legal.

I am not a law-talker guy, so go to this Law-talkers site (new window)to learn more.

And dangit all, get angry! This is crap, and it needs to stop. It has nothing to do with our favorite music, and everything to do with protecting some exec's house in the Hamptons.
 
COMALite J
2008-06-19 3:25:29 AM  
YouTube™ hit Simon "FineyLeee" Rylander of Sweden has an RIAA-free .MP3 album available through his website. You set the price you want to pay (PayPal donation).

I found it worth way more than the $15 I paid.
 
GibbyTheMole
2008-06-19 7:33:59 AM  
If it's an RIAA label, I either buy it used, or don't buy it at all. Usually the latter.

Most of my music, I buy from eMusic. 100% legal, the affiliated labels & artists get paid, (as they should) and best of all, no RIAA labels. Cheap too.

The RIAA can slurp on my sweaty nutsack.
 
stewbert
2008-06-19 9:58:21 AM  
Buster Hermano: JudgeXa: Keep in mind, this case actually gets even better.

Prosecutor files Case X against John Doe, to get discovery to find out who John Doe is.
Prosecutor gets evidence, drops Case X against John Doe.
Prosecutor files Case Y against Person A (who it allegedly found out through the first case).
Prosecutor finds that Person A did NOT do it (but not that Person B did it), and drops Case Y.
Prosecutor files Case Z against John Does 1-4, to get discovery to find out who John Doe REALLY is.

Bet simple explanation so far. What really scares the daylights out of me is that there isn't more outrage that this is happening. Where are you America?

I'm right here, and I'm pissed.
 
aguynVegas
2008-06-19 6:15:25 PM  
I am still really confused on how these RIAA asshiats have proceeded to criminally prosecute a civil case??
This a business/service agreement violation and should not even be allowed in our criminal courts. Judges/Lawyer should be ashamed of themselves.
/me is the pissed also just not so much
 
Buster Hermano
2008-06-20 12:25:51 AM  
aguynVegas: I am still really confused on how these RIAA asshiats have proceeded to criminally prosecute a civil case??
This a business/service agreement violation and should not even be allowed in our criminal courts. Judges/Lawyer should be ashamed of themselves.
/me is the pissed also just not so much

They are suing in civil courts, much like how you and I would go about suing each other.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.