Tammie! We love you!!! US record industry to drop file-sharing case

[Daniel ~]

Written by Daniel
Thursday, 03 August 2006
Woman forces US record industry to drop file-sharing case
Dangerous precedent set
By OUT-LAW.COM
Published Thursday 3rd August 2006 09:50 GMT

A group of US record labels agreed to drop a music piracy case in the US after the alleged file-sharer argued that it could not be proved that she downloaded any illegal music. The case may set a precedent that undermines scores of other music piracy cases.

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.

Read it Front Page!

[WonderBread]

Owned?

[Kaitain]

Not really - although Pinsent Masons (aka Outlaw.com) describe it as a precedent, it's not a legal precedent unless a judge rules on the case. What this means is that a different judge presiding on a different case of Music Moguls vs Pleb won't be using this case as the basis of their judgement. What it does show, though, is that the music industry hacks aren't as secure in their position as they claim, and will drop any case that they actually have to fight.

[Staz]

I had read of another case where a woman was contacted on behalf of the RIAA settlement division and they stated that her internet account was used to illegally download music from the interent and they would settle with her for a (I don't remember the exact amount but it was between $3000 and $5000) or they would sue her for $150,000.

She ignored the letter and was then notified that she was being sued for $150,000 and they would be willing to settle for (a slightly higher amount than they had asked for the first time.) At this point she hired a lawyer who file a discovery motion requesting dates and times of downloads, as well as the routing of the downloads and the origination of the files downloaded, and the procedure that they used to aquire this information. Instead of responding to the motion the RIAA lawyers filed a motion for dismissal. The womans lawyer filed an objection and requested a hearing on the motion for dismissal. He wanted his day in court and claimed that the RIAA's lawsuit was frivolous.

The RIAA won the hearing and the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (the RIAA could not refile at a later date) and ordered the RIAA to pay all legal fees.

Once again, no precident set.

[Daniel ~]

Well the word is getting out....Yes? That's a start... now several Billion people can dream of counter suit!

Ladies and gentlemen, then we will have a tidder-todder! (AKA See-saw)

[SteveI]

Unfortunately, it is too easy to abuse the system to intimidate.

With the RIAA arbitrarily coming up with $3-5,000 settlement offers... people have to stand up on ethics (not financials) to decide to fight the RIAA. It frequently comes down to the fact that hiring an attorney will cost as much, and opens the door to further liability.

OTOH, I wonder if a class action law suit against the RIAA is feasible. If everyone who took the settlement were to claim harrassment and mental anguish from the intimidations and threats, could the injured win class action status? ... After all, their methodology is systematic.

[Daniel ~]

A few sharp lawyers will see there's money to be made...at lest that's my hope!":O}