RIAA claims computerless woman was a pirate

FYI…

Downloading by telepathy apparently
- http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29462
03 February 2006
"THE RIAA seems to have adopted a "sue everyone policy" in its cunning plan to stop file sharers. Not content with suing old people and children, RIAA briefs have apparently issued a writ to a woman who does not own a computer. Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was a little surprised when she got a writ for thousands of dollars saying that she was a using an online distribution system to nick music. After Lindor called in friendly experts to find out what an online distribution system was, she decided not to pay the RIAA a cent. So the RIAA sued her. She sent her briefs to the Brooklyn federal court requesting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint. One has to wonder what evidence the RIAA has gathered on Lindor. Lindor will go for costs."

Wow… lol I wonder how the manage to catch anybody anyway

FYI…

RIAA loses court case
- http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33025
14 July 2006
"…Oklahoma mother, Debbie Foster, was accused by the RIAA of illegally downloading downloading music over Kazaa back in November 2004. The RIAA said that it would leave the single mother alone if she paid $5,000. However, Foster didn't have $5,000 and more to the point, she had not downloaded any music. In fact she didn't own a computer or know how to use one. Her name was on the broadband bill. After finding a lawyer to represent her, Foster managed to get the case to court where the RIAA tried to cut its losses and withdraw. However, that would have meant that Foster would have to pay her legal costs and so she tried to get the court to rule that the RIAA case should be dismissed 'with prejudice' which meant that she could get the Recording Industry to pay her legal bills. The RIAA opposed the motion because it makes it more costly to back out of cases where there is a shortage of evidence to get to court. So far the RIAA has taken dead people and grandmothers to court on the basis of its technical evidence. If a few more fought back, its attempts to lean on people to settle out of court before a trail might prove a bit costly…"

<_<

FYI…

- http://www.out-law.com/page-7165
August 3, 2006
"…Tammie Marson of Palm Desert, California refused to pay the initial $3,500 demanded by a group of record labels and opted to fight the case in court. Marson and her lawyer Seyamack Kouretchian of Coast Law Group argued that the fact that Marson's computer contained illegal music files downloaded over her internet connection was not proof that she had committed a crime. The record companies – Virgin, Sony BMG, Arista, Universal and Warner Brothers – agreed to dismiss the case and pay their own legal costs. "They don't take these cases to trial, they either settle or dismiss," Kouretchian told OUT-LAW. "It was our position that they could not ever prove that Tammie Marson downloaded this music or that Tammie Marson made it available. It was just an absolute impossibility. The best they could ever prove was somebody had used Tammie Marson's internet account to download the music or make it available. That's the best they could ever do." Marson argued that as a cheerleader teacher she had had hundreds of girls through her house, any one of whom could have used her computer. She also used a wireless internet network, meaning that people outside of her house could have used her internet connection. "She doesn't even know what a shared folder is," said Kouretchian. If this becomes a popular defence it could seriously hamper a huge number of file-sharing lawsuits taken in the US against individuals. It also looks to be a trend in defence against movie file-sharing law suits…"

.