by Mike Masnick
Mon, Sep 10th 2007 11:42am
Recently, we've seen the courts getting less and less willing to accept the RIAA's flimsy evidence as being enough to convict someone of breaking the law with file sharing applications. The latest such case is along those lines, as a judge dismissed a case noting that it was just a "boilerplate listing," lacking enough substance to make a case. Specifically, the judge found that: "Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant." It's about time that courts realized that the RIAA shouldn't be able to run around accusing all sorts of people without any real evidence.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Dear ZDNet: Comcast Has Been Sketchily Injecting Messages Into User's Browsers For Years
- If You Want To Have Sex With Charlie Sheen, You Have To Give Him The Copyrights On Any Photos You Take Of Him
- Judge Mocks Public Interest Concerns About Kicking People Off Internet, Tells Cox It's Not Protected By The DMCA
- So How Much Of The $90 Million Pandora Is Paying RIAA Labels To Settle Lawsuit Will Go To Artists?
- Whatever You Think Of The RIAA's Lawsuit Over Aurous, Shouldn't We Be Concerned That It's Pretending SOPA Is Law?