F*ck me in the RIAAss!

[Orio5 10+ year member]

see now that $12 you saved by stealing music on the interwebs will cost your momma $4k.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

lol //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[T9X 10+ year member]

Move somewhere that doesn't expedite to the US

I hear Cyprus is nice this time of year..

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

PeerGuardian does nothing for you. The only way to be safe is to not engage in illegal activities.

coming from someone who lives in Canada. Pot Smoking Hippy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif . But no, it DOES do stuff. I blocked the Chineese Education Ministry from my computer THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

not that i did anything illegal...

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

It is well documented that your clients' reliance on MediaSecurity (an admitted "non-expert;" UMG v. Lidor, East Dist NY No. 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML) and its overall method of identifying P2P copyright infringers is wholly unreliable and inadequate. See, e.g., February 23, 2007, deposition of the RIAA's expert. See also expert witness statement of Prof. Pouwelse and Dr. Sips and amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, in Capitol v. Foster decrying the RIAA's "driftnet" litigation strategy.

Such facts were known or reasonably should have been known to you and your law firm before suit against Mr. Merchant was filed. Thus, unless you and your office undertook additional independent investigation to identify Mr. Merchant as a person who actually has engaged in copyright infringement by illegal downloading, good faith basis for a Rule 11-compliant probable cause finding consistent with the Williams line of cases cited above simply did not exist to file the action. . . and does not exist now for it to be maintained.

Your clients apparently argue that Mr. Merchant's failure to respond to "settlement" demands justifies their lawsuit without other basis on which a finding of probable cause to sue could be claimed. You devoted the bulk of your letter advocating that position. As you know, however, that posture is repugnant to both Rule 408, Fed.Rul.Evid. and California Evidence Code §§ 1152 and 1154.

The Evidence Code sections are quite clear: settlement negotiations of all kinds may not be used to prove the validity of any claim or defense. Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople. If your client (and your law firm?) are seeking probable cause shelter in a settlement negotiations house of straw (as suggested by your March 23 letter), all of you should consider the prevailing winds of the Evidence Code before making yourselves too comfortable. Straw will burn.

Get a lawyer to send their lawyer a letter like that. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

from the on-and-on-and-on dept

For years, the RIAA has been bullying all sorts of people with lawsuits over file sharing -- but the evidence they use has always been weak, at best. In the early years, before most people recognized this, they were forced to settle. But, more recently, lawyers have realized that pointing out how weak the evidence is will often make the RIAA turn and drop the case. They usually try to get out of paying legal fees, but even that's becoming more difficult. In the latest case (as usual, pointed out by Ray Beckerman) a strong letter pointing out all the problems with the RIAA's case has resulted in a very quick voluntary dismissal of the case. The lawyer's letter is absolutely worth reading, with the following being a key segment:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070327/195455.shtml

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

coming from someone who lives in Canada. Pot Smoking Hippy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif . But no, it DOES do stuff. I blocked the Chineese Education Ministry from my computer THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

It blocked the known IP's, but not the unknown.

The uselessness of PeerGuardian is well documented in the torrent circles, and applies to pretty much everything.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

This is another great letter from an attorney to the RIAA, it made them drop the case.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/model-letter-for-lawyers-representing.html

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

It blocked the known IP's, but not the unknown.
The uselessness of PeerGuardian is well documented in the torrent circles, and applies to pretty much everything.

well fine.

Me and the chineese ministry of education=pwnt.

 

[T9X 10+ year member]

So I need a lawyer with an English degree..

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

i'll do it for 4,000 dollars.

 

[AllStar1500bd 5,000+ posts]

What about kiddie pr0nz?

 

[T9X 10+ year member]

What about kiddie pr0nz?

They didn't say anything about those so I guess I'm safe. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

who cares? they arent even suing you.. just your mom.

 

[T9X 10+ year member]

who cares? they arent even suing you.. just your mom.

Yeah but unfortunately I'm going to do the responsible adult thing and pay for it since she doesn't even know how to get on the internet. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[dumple 5,000+ posts]

save ur self some money go buy the 8cds then say u were just backing them up

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

save ur self some money go buy the 8cds then say u were just backing them up

uh.. he would need to hire a lawyer to even give any sort of excuse like that. More than likely the lawyer is going to cost more than the $4K the RIAA wants.

RIAA - 1

Him - 0