No matter
whom the RIAA suspects of file sharing, whether they are dead or alive or even without a PC, they will try their best to force settlements out of the person. In this case, they are after a home health aide in Brooklyn, New York, who claims she never operated a computer, never mind switch one on. Now, she has had to get an attorney to request a pre-motion conference with the District Court judge in order make a summary judgement to dismiss her case. Her attorneys and relatives insist she is innocent.
While
there was no computer in her apartment for the time the RIAA accused her of illegally sharing out content, apparently her apartment had an Internet connection over the time which was connected up to an insecure wireless router. As a result, even though neither she nor her family had access to a computer over that period, it would have been possible for someone outside of the apartment to connect to the wireless router and operate a file sharing application, which would have been possible during the accused time.
Unfortunately, no matter how often her son, Mr. Raymond explained the situation to the RIAA's attorneys, they kept harassing him saying that she must pay $4,500 in settlements for the music they claim she downloaded. It seems like they have no interest in getting the issue resolved, believe what the RIAA want them to believe and only what her to settle. Thanks to RTV71 for letting us know about the following news:
Music industry association charges woman with downloading files illegally, even though she doesn't use a computer.
A home health aide in Brooklyn, New York, has been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally downloading music files, even though the woman claims she has never used a computer, or even turned one on.
Attorneys for Marie Lindor with the New York City-based firm Beldock Levine & Hoffman sent a letter Thursday to Judge David G. Trager of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asking for a summary judgment dismissing the RIAA's complaint, along with attorney fees.
'Ms. Lindor is a home health aide who not only never 'downloaded, distributed, or made available for distribution' any files, but has never purchased, used, or even turned on a computer in her life," wrote Morlan Ty Rogers, an attorney with the firm.
If this is how bad the RIAA treats someone without a PC, then chances are that there are a lot more users that the RIAA have sued who do have a PC, but are totally innocent. As long as they have filed a lawsuit for what they assume is a copyright infringing user, it seems that all they are interested in is getting settlements out of the individual no matter how innocent that person may be. It is like a traffic cop writing speeding tickets out to people they assume have sped before, even though they may never have driven a car!
On the other hand, assuming that an outside user connected to her wireless router was the culprit, this clearly shows that there is a lot more than fraudsters spying on people's data to worry about if one does not secure their Wi-Fi connection.
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
This woman is in a prime position to grandstand and make a mockery of all RIAA legal extortion. Here's hoping she doesn't back off because this could be a serious stake through the heatt of the entertainment industry and set the precedent that will call into question ALL of that industry's online allegations.
Now I'm confused, please help me out here. How can they sue you for "downloading" a file? How do they know what you have downloaded from some P2P network onto your own hard drive? I can see them going after someone offering stuff on a P2P network for *upload*, but how do they monitor what is actually **downloaded** and who the actual **downloaders** are? Seems it would be easy to identify those offering uploads, but how the hell to monitor downloads? Help me understand this please.
What I think they are doing is tracking down IP's of people they believe have been "sharing" more than 1000 files. They then suboena the ISP that covers that IP to get the identity of the person attached to it for that time period then launch the lawsuit.
How they are "tracking people down" I don't know but it seems like once you are served with the papers, the onus is now on YOU to prove you didn't do it instead of how the US law really works and they have to prove their case.
They are counting on people's ignorance and the bully tactics they use to get people to submit to the settlement.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Whoever leases the wireless connection is responsible for ensuring it's used by authorised people only. If they've set up an unsecure connection, they have no way of preventing illegal use of the link, whether the person living there had a computer or not.
well, it appears that us is going for guilty until proven innocent instead of "innocent until proven guilty"
however, this "innocent until proven guilty" only valid in criminal cases NOT in civil cases.
i think riaa is using this to take people to the civil cases & do the "extortion"
what they really do is make their product competive by offering extras (posters booklets, or quality case & disk cover design for example) & lowering the price;
they would save tons of money if they don't make so many cases
when WEP is used, it can be easily broken; nothing is really secure.
in that sense, riaa should have ensured their IP to be secure that unscrambled contents should have not been out there.
when riaa noticed the violations, they should have contacted isp to take actions rather than tracking them down to bring the suit.
riaa might just want to get settlement to cover their legal fees
Since she is a New York resident, she should make a formal complaint to Eliot Spitzer in the AG's office, for here is man who takes a very dim on all illegal scammers like the RIAA's riff raff members like SONY BMG big time!(every time they have tried to fight him they lost and have been fined accordingly, from illegally withholding artists royalty payments to payola scams!)
Oh well, if this information is accurate, this puts the RIAA's lawyers in breach of the RICO laws as well!
Oops!, it would be fun to see them disbarred for this one as well!
What about the ISP who provided her identity, are they not to be held accountable for the error? Without their mistake there could be no suit? [edited by HudZon on 05.02.2006 02:58]
That's why Canadian ISPs came right out and said they couldn't guarantee the accuracy of that information. The bastards from the RIAA tried to establish a precedent here and Canuck ISPs went to court and got them tossed.
Obviously American ISPs are a lot more pussy-whipped.
well i think thats what RIAA wants is to make it public. and to proove to people that they will do anything, no matter how stupid it is to enforce theyr sht because i bet after people read about this they ll think if they go after a person that doesnt even have a computer that makes rest of people even easier target
and other big thing is theres noone there to stop it people are useless they dont fight anymore they just sit and watch tv commercials and some people put the vote for soemthing online and hope that helps.
I dont reply much and nor do I believe the RIAA is the angel they are, nor am I defending them or the Woman, and here is why:
1 thing that bothers me about this all. She claims (or whomever) that she has no computer, never turned one on, or knows how. Okay I'll give her that. But if thats the case, then why would you have a wireless router in your home IF you have no computer?? Last I checked, you have to request internet access, and 100% of all ISP providers do not connect a wireless router to your home, UNLESS you ask for one if they have.
Again, I hate the RIAA and what they stand for, but there is also more to this story then being lead to believe. I hope she wins, cause I hate the RIAA, but as a judge, my first question would be:
"If you have no computer, never owned one, and dont even know how to turn one on, How come you have a Wireless Router with Internet Access?"
These worthless pricks are just trying to use
gestapo tactics to bully/intimidate innocent
people. I thought guilt had to be PROVEN first
before punishment could be determined, not
the other way around. I'll bet the majority of
the people sued are probably innocent of any
wrong doing, and on top of that, these lawsuits
aren't even slowing down (much less stopping)
the downloading of music files, even the RIAA
has admitted fairly recently that the lawsuits
are not having the desired effect, if that's
what they really think, then why are they
continuing with this crap?
The apartment might have a wireless connection as a feature; in other words owned by the landlord or perhaps the building factor. I don't know for sure as the article isn't clear in that respect.
I'm still fuzzy...
a) Why would she have a wireless router if she doesn't have a computer?
b) Why would she have an Internet account (which is the data someone's ISP gave the RIAA) if she doesn't have a computer?
Someone's data harvesting methods need a little work.
Maybe they had X-box connected for gaming or something... at any rate, this shows the total BS going on within the RIAA. Any court or judge going along with this has obviously been payed off.
Some apartments have wireless routers built in as a selling point. The router is wired to cable HSI.
They probably just sued the cable company which lead them to that apartment complex and asked what apartment number and who lived there.
These generic accounts just float to whoever is living in the apartment at the time. Makes it easy to manage for the Landlord.
If she downloaded the music then the RIAA have to physically have the evidence, not some piece of paper that anyone can generate with IP addresses writen on it.
Quite simply, the RIAA is making a lot of money off of shit like this. Now they done fucked up. Hopefully this will put an end to their lawsuit business.
I would like to know what the evidence is against this woman. I still don't believe that anyone can prove that X person downloaded X file from X website or address, unless they were hosting the file themselves which then makes the whole thing entrapment.
Yeah, as much as I hate the RIAA/MPAA and their extortion tactics, something smells funny here. Why would someone with no computer have a wireless router and internet account? That stuff doesn't come for free. And the idea that it may "come with" the apartment doesn't hold water either. In an apartment building, how can you determine exactly which unit is connected to a wireless node? The RF signals go through walls, someone in the apartment next door could easily connect to a wireless router from a unit 2 doors down the hall! Or the upstairs/downstairs neighbor.
I've seen this happen, in shared office buildings. One company I was consulting for is in a big building with about 12 other trnnants. The wireless NIC adapters on the computers could "see" a total of 7 wireless networks. I noticed that 2 of those networks were insecure, and I could connect to them and access the internet. I had to take special precautions to make sure the company's computers ONLY connected to their own router. And yes, it was secure. But that same idea would apply in the case of an apartment building. Chances are from inside any given apartment, you could probably see at least 2 or 3 wireless access nodes. And if they're not secure, you can log right on and get on the net. Pick one with a weaker signal, it's farther away and would look like someone else was sharing the P2P. My next door neighbor has wireless in his house, but he says it's secure.
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm not in the USA):
1) The woman has never used/owned a computer.
2) If she she doesn't use/own a computer then she doesn't need an ISP let alone an IP address.
3) With no IP address how can the RIAA even track her down?
4) How can the ISP supply her name/address if she isn't paying for an IP address?
5) If the ISP isn't getting paid to supply bandwidth - they are stupid.
6) If the ISP is supplying a connection that wasn't asked for and isn't being paid for then they are responsible for it.
7) The RIAA should be suing the ISP.
8) Your legal system is completely %^%#*@!!!
"Yeah, as much as I hate the RIAA/MPAA and their extortion tactics, something smells funny here. Why would someone with no computer have a wireless router and internet account? That stuff doesn't come for free."
actually, internet access could be included with the appartment fees, or even provided for free. My sister has such an arrangement. (free wireless internet access is provided to all residents of the appartment building).
Free wireless internet in an apartment? So if one of the tennants is running a P2P that gets the attention of RIAA, who do they come after? How could they identify *which* apartme
Whoever leases the wireless connection is responsible for ensuring it's used by authorised people only. If they've set up an unsecure connection, they have no way of preventing illegal use of the link, whether the person living there had a computer or not.
I would like to know what the evidence is against this woman. I still don't believe that anyone can prove that X person downloaded X file from X website or address, unless they were hosting the file themselves which then makes the whole thing entrapment.
"Yeah, as much as I hate the RIAA/MPAA and their extortion tactics, something smells funny here. Why would someone with no computer have a wireless router and internet account? That stuff doesn't come for free."
actually, internet access could be included with the appartment fees, or even provided for free. My sister has such an arrangement. (free wireless internet access is provided to all residents of the appartment building).