an example of an aggressive defense against RIAA claims

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 22:41 -0700, der.hans wrote:
> Am 06. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Craig White so:
> 
> > wow - want to see what good lawyering looks like when practiced by
> > defending against a claim by RIAA?
> >
> > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_weed_071226AmendedAnswerCounterclaims
> 
> It gets interesting on page 12 where it is asserted that MediaSentry (
> also used against Howell ) is operating and engaged in private
> investigation in Arizona without a required license.
> 
> Page 15 gets into claims of invasion of privacy against MediaSentry and
> the record labels.
> 
> Do you know if anything has come of these claims?
> 
> Looks like that document was filed only a few days ago. The lawyers are
> from Tucson, but the case is in Phoenix.
----
I expect that this case Capitol v Weed, will take quite some time to
wend its way through the courts. It's possible given that this case was
dropped and then refiled by RIAA that RIAA will drop it and possibly
have to cover the legal costs of Weed...that has happened several times
so far and my reading of this is that is entirely possible here.

Unless RIAA has a solid case, they are unlikely to litigate because
defendant has demonstrated an aggressive defense.

Note that several things which are common in a well defended case
against RIAA
- requirement for them to prove copyright ownership for each and every
claimed song
- eagerness to fight bitterly over the entire issue of what constitutes
an infringement
- obviously the issue of investigator licensing which requirements vary
by state
- prior settlements with Sharman (KaZaA)
- failure to make reasonable efforts to get them to stop (no warnings)

There is a ton of really good ideas on how to defend in there if you
look at it closely enough.

The lawyers for one case clearly sees how the lawyers from other cases
are handling them and it appears that the bang for the buck items are
the massive numbers of cases settled out of court because they want to
make sure that the word of mouth aspect of the cost and hassle for being
train wrecked is spread.

I've witnessed the game with IP lawyers (don't ask). They target for
impact and revenue but won't mess with a case that they could
conceivably lose and end up with a precedent setting opinion that ends
the game.

I would presume that MediaSentry is doing whatever necessary to obtain
licenses in states but this won't help for past 'investigations' and
again, the rules vary from state to state and it's likely that some
jurisdictions permit investigators from other states if they are
licensed in that state...the same reason that sharks never eat lawyers,
professional courtesy.

Craig