Can RIAA sue for songs they never verified by downloading fr

[Fartingbob]

Story : http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogsp ... umg-v.html

Preclusion Motion Filed in UMG v. Lindor; Lindor Says RIAA Cannot Introduce Songs into Lawsuit if it Has Not Produced Song Files


To my understanding, without actual evidence of all the songs downloaded being linked to you personally, the RIAA wont be able to sue. So a screenshot of a shared folder and an IP might not be good enough in the future.

[Digital_Freedom]

A couple years ago I read something about the RIAA using prints. Some kind of technology in which they look at a print of the file that is supposed to tell them if it's a real copyright offense. I also read that they didnt have to actually download the file if the print matched.

I cant recall the exact term used, but Im pretty sure it had the word "print" within it.

[MrFredPFL]

sounds like a hash, DF

[KoolKat]

the phrases, burden of proof and beyond a shadow of a doubt pop into my head when i hear about these lawsuits. why is it these people have to prove they didnt download these songs the burden of proof falls on the plantiff and if u have ever sat on a jury trial u know that there is the beyond a shadow of a doubt deal.
can they prove u never owned the 8 track or album or tape or cd? legally u are allowed one backup copy of all your digital media from what i understand.

[Asuran]

A couple years ago I read something about the RIAA using prints. Some kind of technology in which they look at a print of the file that is supposed to tell them if it's a real copyright offense. I also read that they didnt have to actually download the file if the print matched.

I cant recall the exact term used, but Im pretty sure it had the word "print" within it.

Yeah, many p2p apps use secure hash functions to verify a file. If the RIAA can show that the shared file produced the same hash value as the file in their posession, they can essentilly prove it is the same file without actually downloading it.

Then again you could easily tamper any screenshot to show any hash value as well as any IP. Even if they played a song in the courtroom, there is nothing but their word that they actually downloaded it from anyone but themselves.

Personally I feel that only evidence gathered by authorities should be accepted in these cases, because the so called "evidence" can be generated out of thin air by anyone.

[Fartingbob]

the phrases, burden of proof and beyond a shadow of a doubt pop into my head when i hear about these lawsuits. why is it these people have to prove they didnt download these songs the burden of proof falls on the plantiff and if u have ever sat on a jury trial u know that there is the beyond a shadow of a doubt deal.
can they prove u never owned the 8 track or album or tape or cd? legally u are allowed one backup copy of all your digital media from what i understand.

Yes, but they arent being sued for downloading a digital copy. They get sued for distributing (uploading) copyrighted material, and that is totally different.

[MrFredPFL]

KoolKat: in the united states, it is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." additionally, this is only applicable to a criminal case - these lawsuits are civil matters, which have a different burden of proof, which is far less demanding than a criminal case.

[RayBeckerman]

Yes, but they arent being sued for downloading a digital copy. They get sued for distributing (uploading) copyrighted material, and that is totally different.

Correct. In Lindor when asked what was the evidentiary basis for the lawsuit they responded that it was their investigator going online and seeing that that user was making certain song files available. Then, they said, they confirmed their evidence by downloading "perfect digital copies" of the song files. http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor (Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers, Exhibits A & B).

When asked to produce the digital song files they produced only eleven (11). Now they are saying they want to be able to prove twenty seven (27) other songs were being made available but can't produce the "perfect digital copies".

[socguy]

They can sue you for anything they wish.

The question becomes whether or not they can win, or if they think they can intimidate you into buckling under and accepting a settlement. Another good trick is to simply come after you, guilty or innocent, till you run out of money to defend yourself.

S.

[Asuran]

Yes, but they arent being sued for downloading a digital copy. They get sued for distributing (uploading) copyrighted material, and that is totally different.

Correct. In Lindor when asked what was the evidentiary basis for the lawsuit they responded that it was their investigator going online and seeing that that user was making certain song files available. Then, they said, they confirmed their evidence by downloading "perfect digital copies" of the song files. http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor (Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers, Exhibits A & B).

When asked to produce the digital song files they produced only eleven (11). Now they are saying they want to be able to prove twenty seven (27) other songs were being made available but can't produce the "perfect digital copies".

The funny thing is, them having the songs doesn't prove anything except them having the songs. It doesn't prove they downloaded them from the defendant or anyone else for that matter.

It's equal to me ripping a CD and suing my neighbour claiming he was sharing it online. When asked for evidence I play the songs I ripped.

[Thomas Davie]

My sense of entitlement comes from the fact that I am already paying a levy on blank media in order to compensate the artists from which I am supposedly stealing 'prior to the actual act'. Additionally, my sense of entitlement derives from my Canadian Supreme Court which says I can download.

There is no confusion on my part.

Tom

[Thomas Davie]

My sense of entitlement comes from the fact that I am already paying a levy on blank media in order to compensate the artists from which I am supposedly stealing 'prior to the actual act'. Additionally, my sense of entitlement derives from my Canadian Supreme Court which says I can download.

There is no confusion on my part.

Tom

Apparently there is a trmendius amount of confusion on my part because I misread the topic. Either that or it was the medication Apologies for incorrectly posting in this topic.

[MrFredPFL]

wrong thread, eh?

[ShawnSpree]

Another thing is, can the RIAA give proof that someone actually downloaded it from you, it reside on your pc. May been in your shared folder, and they can do a check to see if the song matches, but unless they download from you. Then there is no reasonable ground to stand on.

[BasicTek]

Another thing is, can the RIAA give proof that someone actually downloaded it from you, it reside on your pc. May been in your shared folder, and they can do a check to see if the song matches, but unless they download from you. Then there is no reasonable ground to stand on.

This is a good point. Apparently the RIAA have judges assuming that because the RIAA is downloading from people that everyone else must be. If kazaa is actually checked I'd LUV to know if the defendant's IP were in the list of available downloads. Even if it was how many other choices were available??? And at what quality??? Of course it wouldn't be and the RIAA is just PUFFING SMOKE. They can't prove copyright infrindgement except that they themselves are able to infrindge on their own product.

[darkened]

They can't prove copyright infrindgement except that they themselves are able to infrindge on their own product.

I've always wanted to see this question pushed. If they are authorized to download their content (which they would have to be or the group of people that are testing the files are committing copyright infringement themselves). Then they distributing the file to an authorized party and there is no infringement taken place.

Not one single case has a person even been proven to have been distributing copyright files. And i still do not believe it has been proven in court that simply making files available counts as copyright infringement.

[BasicTek]

Not one single case has a person even been proven to have been distributing copyright files. And i still do not believe it has been proven in court that simply making files available counts as copyright infringement.

Unfortunately there was 1 person that lost a lawsuit for sharing files on Kazaa(Gonzales) and the statutory damages of $750 per song were assessed. If you think about it that figure assumes at least 750 unproven downloads from the defendant occurred and that all 750 would have actually paid for the song if they couldn't download from the defendant. The RIAA has been referring to this case repeatedly when seeking damages and it's based on a gigantic lie.

In reality these defendants are merely pawns that may or may not have been downloaded from. The biggest kicker is without them no one would have purchased the content and no proven loss actually occurred. When billion dollar organizations capable of spinning misinformation propagate these lies, innocent people get the shaft.

[RayBeckerman]

The decision in BMG v. Gonzalez was not about 'making available for distributing'. It was based only on downloading and on a narrow issue. Ms. Gonzalez admitted she downloaded 30 copyrighted recordings without authorization. Her only defense was that it was a "fair use". The Court disagreed. Based solely on her having downloaded 30 songs without authorization, the Court granted judgment to the RIAA for 30 songs x $750. See http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#BMG_Gonzalez