RIAA Says It Doesn't Have Enough Evidence 208
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Wilke, the Chicago RIAA case in which defendant Paul Wilke has moved for summary judgment, the RIAA has responded to the summary judgment motion by filing a motion for 'expedited discovery', alleging that it needs expedited pretrial discovery because it does not have sufficient evidence to withstand Mr. Wilke's motion. The RIAA's lawyer said: 'Plaintiffs cannot at this time, without an opportunity for full discovery present by affidavit facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant's motion.' The motion and supporting affidavit are available online."
Re:Since submitter is a lawyer ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this stuff actually legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We can't make a case against you, so you're going to have to do it for us."
What? Huh?
Atempt to translate and possible answer to RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA: Hey yr honor, this dude stole my stuf, i know 'cause a guy i pay to hang on the net told me so!
DUDE: Nope, i didn't.
RIAA: Sure, they all claim the same, and actually by now i've got no evidence, but if you let me go his home and
put everything upside-down i bet my "experts" will find something!
Well, i hope this is not the way the USA justice works.
And if i were Defendant i'd ask RIAA in return (and before giving anything to them) to let me do forensics on computer their investigators used to identify my IP and computers they used to exchange mails and every other piece of equipement i could think off (like routers of their ISP). And it'd
take me 10 years or so, and of course at the expense or RIAA (i mean, forensics is a hard work, i intend to get payd for it) if i figure that they made a mistake.
This is the way the system works (Score:5, Interesting)
So...to continue the train of thought we all have (Score:5, Interesting)
So, now the RIAA wants permission to search for the evidence the clearly never had in the first place. Alright, my question is, can this guy go back to the judge with "Given that I was summoned to appear here on the pretext of compelling evidence that we now know the RIAA does not posses, and given that I am not prepared to waive my right to a speedy trial while they are given additional time to find this evidence, can we just dismiss this and all go home?"
Also, can I counter-sue for lost time, lost wages, added stress, etc.?
but, of course, IANAL (besides being ANAL, I'm not a lawyer either
Very Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
It's disconcerting to think they can sue when they have no real evidence that they've been injured. I suspect they do this more often than not. Let's hope this motion succeeds and that other defendants and lawyers take note of it.
Re:Is this stuff actually legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Atempt to translate and possible answer to RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
I was actually thinking of a situation where I could be in the USA working as a consultant (as I have before), and the RIAA decide they want me after I login to the Internet using the laptop I use back here at home. Or to look about more widely, at a situation like Dmitri Skylarov faced when in the USA with a perfectly valid visa.
Besides, your jails are not so nice. We know that your prisoners at Guantanamo Bay arn't treated "cushy" (4 months of solitary confinement without charges or trial for example) with "cable TV". I doubt anyone else from Australia wants to join David Hicks in your jails. In our gaols prisoners have the rights we are obligated to give them under our International Agreements.
Re:So in English . . (Score:4, Interesting)
This particular phenomenon is the biggest argument for tort reform in recent memory. The American legal system is set up in such a way that, if you are sued, you are financially penalized win or lose. In other jurisdictions (I'm thinking of the UK in particular) the plaintiff is obligated to pay for the defendant's legal fees if the plaintiff loses the suit. This has the effect of curtailing suits that are filed simply to harass defendants, or to promote failing business models as the only choice available to the consumer, lest they be bankrupted in court.
Re:Since submitter is a lawyer ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what preliminary sumary judgements are about. Does the plantif have enough evidence to make this worth going forward into discovery. In this case, the RIAA is saying, 'we gots nothing, but if we rummage around enough in his life we're certain we'll find it.' Reality should intrude on the RIAA & say 'come back when you can prove we should let you look into his life', but that's not nescesarrily what will happen. Some Judges bend over backwards to try and appear fair to both sides - meaning they at least let everyone put their cards on the table before throwing things out.