RIAA sues computer-less 79yr old man!

[ayoub_ibrahim]

"Among the RIAA's recent targets is retiree Ernest Brenot, 79, of Ridgefield, Wash., who wrote in a handwritten note to a federal judge that he does not own a computer nor can he operate one.

Brenot was accused of illegally offering for download 774 songs by artists including Vanilla Ice, U2, Creed, Linkin Park and Guns N' Roses.

Brenot's wife, Dorothy, said she and her husband were stunned by the claims, offended at the suggestion they listened to such music. Brenot was targeted in the previous round of 80 suits the recording organization filed late in October."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=562&u=/ap/20031203/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_1&printer=1

[Jammrock]

You know, the more that the RIAA screws up like this, the easier it will be to for people to get away with it. People can go to courst and say, "look, they're suing people who don't even OWN a computer, let alone trade illegal music." Thus people will be able to go to court and brind severe doubt on the RIAA's case.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

Yep. Precedent matters SO much in court cases. Every single mix-up like this is another nail in the RIAA's coffin, and I'm sure their legal department is having NIGHTMARES about this.

'Cuz all the "defense" lawyers have to do is introduce reasonable doubt. If they do that ONE TIME, the next case will get tossed out on precedent, and after that they'll NEVER be able to win.

- Gurm

[KvHagedorn]

Never underestimate rich pricks who want to stay that way.

[UtwigMU]

Proabably at 79 you can reasonably expect to be excused from trial on medical reasons, especially if it's not murder or some other severe crime.

[Podfrog]

the guy ought to sue RIAA for defamation of character. those jack---es

[Jammrock]

Originally posted by Podfrog
the guy ought to sue RIAA for defamation of character. those jack---es

Now there's a mini-MUCer with a damn good idea! Too bad he wouldn't do it.

[MultimediaMan]

Gurm, that's where you would be wrong. Civil Suits are NOT Criminal Cases.

In Civil Cases: The Burden of Proof relies upon a "Preponderance of Evidence", not a reasonable doubt. Though a reasonable doubt is still part of the preponderance, it is by no means the only standard.

In most Civil Courts there is no presumption of innocence for the defendant: Both parties make their claims and the rest for a judge or jury to decide.

Now, I personally would LOVE for the RIAA to come knocking at my door and accuse me of filesharing. But since I don't do public filesharing, it's not going to happen.

Here's a scenario using "reasonable doubt" as a valid defense in Civil Court; Buy yourself a wireless bridge: Share, host and disseminate to your heart's content. And when they do mail you a suit, respond that someone hacked your network throught the wireless bridge and shared from your Internet Account.

They are going to have to prove *you* did the filesharing. The DCMA specifically protects service providers, willingly or unwillingly, who provide Internet Access. You were an uwilling service provider, at least that's what any network security expert will be able to attest to.

Case Closed: RIAA 0, Filesharers 1

You can countersue: Lost time, emotional distress, etc...

[Jammrock]

Now, I personally would LOVE for the RIAA to come knocking at my door and accuse me of filesharing. But since I don't do public filesharing, it's not going to happen.

The way it's going you still could be sued for fileswapping.

Jammrock

[MultimediaMan]

They would have to prove I what I shared. Hard to do that when you are not on a public PTP network.

My filesharing consists mostly of old TV reruns.

[Wulfman]

there are rumours they are "missing" on purpose. why? because the media isn't interested in the "normal" lawsuits anymore - old news. but if they accuse people like him, it is still reported.

sounds stupid, but it has a certain logic...

mfg
wulfman

[Gurm]

I'd believe it. Especially if their legal team thinks they actually CAN dodge the "precedence" bullet.

- Gurm