MPAA to judge: We don’t need no stinking proof

The MPAA is arguing in a legal brief that plaintiffs should be allowed to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages with no proof that anyone has actually downloaded from a defendant’s shared folder. The brief was filed by MPAA lawyers in Jammie Thomas’ appeal of the $222,000 judgement against her for copyright infringement. Judge Michael Davis asked for public comments on whether simply making files available is a violation of The Copyright Act and the MPAA took the opportunity to put in their 2 cents worth.

Actually 2 cents may be a little generous for the MPAA’s contribution. Their argument basically goes something like this, it’s difficult, or maybe impossible, to prove that people are actually downloading files from someone’s shared folder so the courts should just assume files are shared with the intention of distributing them illegally and rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Read more at Afterdawn.com

Judge once again affirms award against RIAA in Tanya Andersen case

It’s been nearly 3 years since the RIAA brought a copyright infringement suit against Tanya Andersen accusing her of sharing files illegally on KaZaA, and nearly a year since she was awarded lawyer fees related to the case after it was dismissed with prejudice. Recording industry lawyers characterize Ms. Andersen’s claims against them as an attempt to game the system, but the facts simply aren’t on their side.

What really happened should be an eye opener for anyone who believes the labels are actually looking for justice, rather than simply trying to show they can bully people because they have the resources to do so. The RIAA spent nearly two years getting through the discovery process. When the investigation was complete they actually had a weaker case than when they started, and still they claimed the moral high ground, even going so far as to assert their lack of evidence shouldn’t be held against them.

According to US Magistrate Judge Donald Ashmanskas, the damages awarded to Ms. Andersen were primarily based on the fact that recording industry attorneys didn’t even pursue evidence which clearly suggested someone else was actually responsible.

Read more at Afterdawn.com

MediaSentry denies being investigators to avoid licensing

As the RIAA’s campaign of file sharing lawsuits against customers has gone on a number of interesting legal questions have been raised about how investigations are being conducted. MediaSentry is responsible for finding and identifying computers sharing copyrighted music on behalf of RIAA attorneys. One important question that has yet to be answered is whether they are required by law to be licensed as private investigators.

According to a letter from MediaSentry lawyers to Michigan regulators they believe the answer is no. The letter is in reply to another, in which Michigan officials suggested that MediaSentry’s investigations might put them in violation of state law with respect to what activities require a private investigator’s license.

Read more at Afterdawn.com

Universal lawyers call MediaSentry investigators, not experts

Earlier this week we told you about correspondence between the agency contracted to investigate file sharers by the RIAA and the Michigan Department of Labor. In the letter, published on Ray Beckerman’s website, MediaSentry lawyers argued that their activities don’t require a Private Investigator’s license because they merely act as technical experts, analyzing publicly available information. As it turns out the RIAA themselves have made exactly the opposite argument in court to block Mr. Beckerman’s efforts to question MediaSentry’s employees or obtain details of their operation.

On his blog, Recording Industry vs. The People, he points out that lawyers for Universal Music Group (UMG) specifically claimed on three separate occasions that MediaSentry was not being relied on for any technical expertise, but were in fact only being utilized as investigators. An excerpt from a November, 2006 filing UMG lawyers wrote the following.

Specifically, MediaSentry has not been designated as an expert witness in this case and is not offering any expert opinions. Rather, the MediaSentry investigator who detected the infringement at issue, Tom Mizzone, is a fact witness, having downloaded information from defendant’s Kazaa share folder that any other Kazaa user could have downloaded.

Read more at Afterdawn.com

RIAA allegedly seeking piracy tax on internet access

The folks at the Digital Freedom website are hearing whispers of a new tax some RIAA lobbyists are trying to get enacted which would be applied to every internet account in the US. The so-called Piracy Tax would be used to “compensate” record labels for internet piracy.

Although this report doesn’t conclusively show that the RIAA is actually working on such a proposal, they clearly started laying the groundwork for something along the same lines earlier this year.

Leaving aside the obvious issue of being innocent until proven guilty, and the fact that even the RIAA doesn’t claim everyone in the US with an internet connection is using it to infringe on their copyrights, there’s still the issue of calling this a tax. Last time I checked being ordered to pay money for breaking the law was called a fine, not a tax.

Read more at Afterdawn.com

Share/Save/Bookmark