RIAA Drops Another Case In Chicago

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A lawsuit filed by BMG Music and other record labels against a Chicago man for allegedly downloading music was dismissed after his lawyer pointed out that he wasn’t even a subscriber to the ISP in question.

The RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, both the ISP and the RIAA failed to recognize that Mr. Thao was not a subscriber to the ISP at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time.
Click to expand...
 
reminds me of the comment made (by kyle i think) about a year or so ago. something about the RIAA throwing darts at a phone book to decide their next lawsuits. gave me a laugh:)
 
Shouldn't the judge impose some punitive damage to the man? or some sanctions or something to the RIAA? Isn't abuse of court time?
 
So those RIAA scumbags raked this poor guy through the coals for nothing.

I wonder if he could counter sue those stinking RIAA scumbags.


...
 
The music industry doesn't have the sense to evolve into something modern. I wonder how long they can exist on these petty suits?
 
got the case dismissed after pointing out to the RIAA's attorneys that they had made another blunder in their investigations.
Click to expand...

They're giving the RIAA too much credit in using the word "investigations."
 
Unless he took it to court, proved himself innocent and then proved it was frivolous, he couldn't get attorney fees. That is what sucks about this.

I've been on the internet since 1991 (yes, through DOS). I don't pirate software. I got a DMCA notice for downloading Battlestar Galactica (which I don't watch?).

My brother-in-law had done it while staying at my house (he plugged in a usb hard drive when I let him use the computer, infected my whole network, and hard reset my router to get out - he claimed he did that at home when he couldn't connect. He will not *ever* bring another piece of computer equipment in my house, nor will he ever touch one of mine). My cable company sent me the "abuse" notice, but told me to contact them directly. Since I didn't hear anything, I ignored it. By then, obviously there was no Battlestar Galactica share anywhere in my house, and I had fixed the holes in my network.

That is an example of the BS that can happen to someone that wasn't even pirating anything, but their dumb neighbors, relatives, etc can get them in trouble. If someone steals my gun, shoots someone with it, and I am not negligent - ie it's locked up, but someone breaks the lock I'd feel bad that my gun was used, but it isn't my fault. If they borrow my car and run over someone with it, it isn't my fault they are a bad driver.

My damn brother-in-law knows *just* enough to be dangerous. I was pissed for weeks (and still am, but to keep the peace I got over it after much fuming and griping).
 
Caffeinated said:
Unless he took it to court, proved himself innocent and then proved it was frivolous, he couldn't get attorney fees. That is what sucks about this.
Click to expand...

He has the "frivolous" part already with the fact that they never checked that he used the ISP in question only the cable modem. Silly them...silly them.
 
THRESHIN said:
reminds me of the comment made (by kyle i think) about a year or so ago. something about the RIAA throwing darts at a phone book to decide their next lawsuits. gave me a laugh:)
Click to expand...

That would probably be more reliable than whatever method they are currently using. When dead people, 94-year-old great grandmothers, and people that can't even *read* much less comprehend (or care) enough to steal software are getting sued, it is time to take action on the ones doing the suing and abusing our tax dollars. The DMCA is too vague; that's why it is getting abused so heavily. What needs to happen is that Congress needs to repeal it and define some solid terms so that this "sue them and see if they pay" abuse is stopped.

Guess their lobbyists are getting too big of a cut for that.
 
Trepidati0n said:
He has the "frivolous" part already with the fact that they never checked that he used the ISP in question only the cable modem. Silly them...silly them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to counter claim it has to go to court. You can't just say "oh, this is frivolous", you have to waste all of your time in court suing them and putting up with the hassle. You'd likely have to fight it out in appeals two or three times to ever get a settlement. Unless he was asking for major punitive damages (which he likely wouldn't get either) it isn't even worth the time trying for it.
 
I would counter sue to cover expenses.
 
Trepidati0n said:
He has the "frivolous" part already with the fact that they never checked that he used the ISP in question only the cable modem. Silly them...silly them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he'd win. Seems like the ball was dropped by the ISP. I generally side against the RIAA, but with respect to this case, the ISP probably said, oh yea "Chicago dude had the modem, so it happened at his house."

I'd assume that the RIAA has to rely on what the ISP says. You'd think the ISP would know who has what modem at any given time.

As an aside, anyone ever notice that with Cable both your IP and the router you connect is based on the mac address on your side of the Cable Modem? IOW, if you change the mac in your router, your external IP changes and so does the first router out.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they base that on something other than the MAC of the modem, but it is nice if you have connection issues....sometimes changing the mac fixes it :cool:
 
Honestly....suits like this are needed...the more of these that are exposed...the greater the likely hood of future cases brought by these tyrants will be thrown out...its unfortunate that this man was raked over the coals(and im sure he will get some $ for his trouble)
 
[Retaliation];1031011361 said:
Honestly....suits like this are needed...the more of these that are exposed...the greater the likely hood of future cases brought by these tyrants will be thrown out...its unfortunate that this man was raked over the coals(and im sure he will get some $ for his trouble)
Click to expand...

QFT. These lawsuits need to keep growing, because only then will the larger population see how these sharks are wringing innocent people for $$$ even though they are innocent...:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top