AfterDawn: Tech news

RIAA retracts "evidence" not related to their case

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 30 Jul 2007 16:19 User comments (13)

RIAA retracts "evidence" not related to their case After Nicholas Paternoster, a sergeant in the US Army, filed a counterclaim against the RIAA regarding an investigation which lead to a copyright infringement suit against him, the organization's attorneys asked the judge to strike an exhibit from the court record.
The exhibit consisted of a list of shared files allegedly found on his computer. It included over 4,000 files not mentioned in the RIAA suit. Sgt. Paternoster's counterclaim alleges that the RIAA violated his privacy and tried to shame him into giving into their "unreasonable demands regarding their copyrighted materials."

The labels then asked the judge to strike the original exhibit from the record as a "professional courtesy" to Paternoster and his attorneys. The judge approved the request and the original exhibit was removed from the public record on July 26.

his is not the first time the RIAA has been caught using questionable tactics. After Oregon resident Tanya Andersen, who was mistakenly accused of copyright infringement by the record labels, was exonerated, she sued the RIAA for malicious prosecution. In her complaint, she accused the record labels of trying to contact her then eight-year-old daughter without her knowledge, even calling her elementary school under false pretenses.

Source: Ars Technica

Previous Next  

13 user comments

130.7.2007 17:55

This is too funny. I hope these bastards the the crap sued out of them.

230.7.2007 20:23

Ha, I'm betting this military official had porn on his government funded computer and felt like the RIAA was trying to blackmail him for it.

Still......way to stick it to the man.

330.7.2007 20:40
WierdName
Inactive

Sue them butts off. It's about time they learn they are not above the law as they believe.

430.7.2007 21:37

Originally posted by amf0802:
Ha, I'm betting this military official had porn on his government funded computer and felt like the RIAA was trying to blackmail him for it.

Still......way to stick it to the man.

If it would have been a military issued computer, the military would have been sued and the soldier would have never been mentioned, not to mention that if it was on the military network, the RIAA would be facing serious problems for trespassing on government property.

But good job trying to slander the military, as usual you liberal pieces of s*** take every pot shot you can at people sacrificing there life everyday so you could live free.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jul 2007 @ 21:50

530.7.2007 22:20

Mentioning the possibility that porn was on a computer now makes someone a terrorist supporting traitor? I guess I am one too cause I think they were trying to shame him with 4000 porn files you flag waving, warmongering, fringe lunatic. :)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jul 2007 @ 22:22


Protecting coffee tables everywhere!

630.7.2007 23:27

It's not the mention of porn at all.

It's the mention that Soldiers are sitting behind us government computers using the us taxpayers money to watch porn and smack his meat.

Why not say, Hey, he probably had 4000 porn files on his computer and he was afraid he would get shamed.

You made it an attack on the values of the military and the use of taxpayer dollars.

Attacking the military, even in small settle ways like this questions your faith in the military. When people do this it just gives the enemies hope that we are not united as Americans. If we are not united, it is easier for them to gain momentum on keeping us divided.

731.7.2007 4:58

Quote:
The exhibit consisted of a list of shared files allegedly found on his computer.
So the RIAA is invading privacy, entering without unautorization, and most likely infecting people's computers with software against their knowledge. Last time I checked this activity was illegal.

Nicholas Paternoster can easily use the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the RIAA in this case, as I am sure he did not knowingly give this information to the RIAA.

831.7.2007 9:40
WierdName
Inactive

Originally posted by jcur31:
But good job trying to slander the military, as usual you liberal pieces of s*** take every pot shot you can at people sacrificing there life everyday so you could live free.
So they can continue to sue everyone without people just going out and killing everyone associated in any way with the RIAA, MPAA, or other such organizations. I don't think they would live a day if they did what they do and were under another government.

91.8.2007 18:43

Well it looks like lately the RIAA have been back pedaling. Well done.

103.8.2007 17:08

I can't believe the RIAA is dumb enough to screw with the military. If this Sergent gets a military lawyer to fight for him the RIAA is royally screwed.

114.8.2007 3:29

Maybe its just me but it the army guy was so cleaver when he decided to use kazaa.

Anyway the other point is ... how could they be violating his privacy when i assume he shared the folder to the network in the first place.

So when every other person on kazaa would have been able to see the same how was it a violation.

Or is he trying to say they explioted his machine and viewed folders that were not shared....

If that were the case its not a violation of privicy its HACKING full stop.... but it doesnt say that..

If u ask me some wig got caught with his pants down, but does beg the question is it going to be such a good idea making an example of out of a goverment employee in the pubilc domain .... i dont think so.


Hahah a ive just read:

"she accused the record labels of trying to contact her then eight-year-old daughter without her knowledge, even calling her elementary school under false pretenses"

I dont know where to start with how wrong that is, the must have know her rough age prior to calling the school as the had the number..... but they still made the call.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2007 @ 3:33

1211.8.2007 1:18

Man, the guy isn't attacking the military. Relax.

Is it wrong to assume the Sargeant is just another red-blooded man? What makes you think he has become so perfect he doesn't need to clean the pipes once in a while?

Saying a guy masturbates isn't an attack on his credibility. It's a statement by Captain Obvious. So relax, and let the forces of darkness alone for a few minutes.

1314.8.2007 17:13

Why isn't there some variation of the Double Jeopardy thing? Here you have one company repeatedly suing individuals for the same thing. It seems their ineptitude for coming up with solid facts has already been proven.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive