RSSRIAA backs away from one file-sharing case
By Ed Oswald | Published June 12, 2008, 12:15 PM
Court documents from late May indicate the RIAA asked for the dismissal of a case that would have argued whether simply making one's files available for download constitutes copyright infringement.
RIAA sued Joan Cassin in April 2006, after its MediaSentry program detected a Kazaa account linked to her was sharing 406 files. Cassin's lawyers objected, and filed a motion to dismiss the case questioning the merits last year.
They argued that simply making a file available for download did not constitute infringement. It appears that RIAA had no actual evidence of piracy occurring, and may have been spooked by similar cases now making their way through the courts.
In the past few months, judges have thrown out at least two cases because the RIAA has failed to prove there was actual file distribution. In a high-profile case last April, an Arizona judge overturned his own decision, finding that infringement requires distribution. Somebody actually needs to download a file whose content is protected by copyright -- and proof of that transfer needs to exist -- in order for the rights holder to claim infringement.
Such rulings may have been the reason for the group's move. It has asked for a dismissal of the case "without prejudice," which means both sides are responsible for their own legal fees, and the plaintiffs can file against Cassin again on the subject if they feel they have a case.
The motion was filed on May 27, and was approved on June 4 by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. It just so happens that this is the second dismissal for Cassin, which may protect her from future litigation -- she was named in a John Doe suit by RIAA earlier, which was also dismissed.
Federal law states that if two cases are dismissed for an allegation of the same claims, that second dismissal is considered an "adjudication" of either case's merits.
There may be some self-protecting strategy in RIAA's move: By having a case dismissed whose outcome could have been detrimental to its claims in other pending cases, future defendants may be prevented from using those rulings in their own defense.
Cassin may still be able to hold the RIAA liable for her troubles. "If Ms. Cassin chooses to do so, she could bring a winnable motion for attorneys' fees. She has not yet decided whether or not she will make such a motion," stated lawyer Ray Beckerman, whose blog is where the motion to dismiss first appeared.
Maybe, they could file another case against someone else (remember the early cases) without a computer?
That was quite original.
Score: 0
|haha, scared of a real case RIAA?
hahahahahahahahahaha
Score: 0
|"It appears that RIAA had no actual evidence of piracy occurring, and may have been spooked by similar cases now making their way through the courts."
But isn't the RIAA/MPAA the same as the DHS and above the law??
Score: 0
|"Without prejudice," how pathetic! The RIAA has billions more than that person and they're being skinflints.
Score: 0
|In Canada the loser pays ALL legal fees for BOTH sides. And there is a limit on how much one can sue for as well.
Score: 0
|In Canada...
http://arstechnica.com/n...opyright-to-canada.html
*laughing*
Yeah, things are *so* much better up there in America's Hat.
Score: 0
|i feel bad for innocent people like her, the trouble, stress, financial crap... all for nothing! ugh
Score: 0
|Know her personally, do ya?
Otherwise, any claims as to her innocence are highly suspect. She *was* running Kazaa....
Score: 0
|dude there are lots and lots of people downloading music like that and i bet $100 that you do...
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Your point?
How does 'lots of people doing it" imply she is innocent of any claims that she's doing it?
If anything, your statement only *supports* my statement of her likely guilt. (If everyone else is guilty, then it's more likely she is as well, right?)
"lots and lots of people" doing it doesn't make it right. :)
Score: 0
|If the "second case dismissal is considered an adjudication" is correct, then yes, she would very likely get attorney's fees if she went for them. It's happened a few times lately, if I recall.
Best of luck to her.
Score: 0
|I cant see how the RIAA are getting away with all the lawsuits because they are also Illegily downloading the music from the users computer. I know this because Ive seen it in another news post about those guys> They are using software do search for music files that are Illegaly being share and to prove its being shared they need to use their software to download the music from that persons computer>
So Why are they suing people for sharing music when they are Illegaly downloading music that they already own? Why are they being let do this? Ill tell you why.
MONEY TALKS and MONEY IS THE THING THAT MAKES THE WORLD SPIN THESE DAYS. Its because the RIAA are being greedy. They tell us that we have no right to copy the music we own onto another disk incase the original gets scratched. Thats just not right. I hope to se the end of the power andmoney hungry RIAA one day.
Score: 0
|because they are also Illegily downloading the music from the users computer
You cannot illegally download something *you* own the rights to...
Sorry to crush your cute little rant.
Score: 0
|