RIAA backs down in face of legal threats

THE RIAA SEEMS to have had its legal bluff called after it tried to threaten a couple with legal action over P2P downloading.

Barry and Cathy Merchant s have the lawyer from hell, Merl Ledford, who not only indicated the weakness of the evidence against his client, but threatened legal action of his own. You should advise your clients that they are facing a "thin skull plaintiff", he wrote. The reply letter which can be seen here, shows the weaknesses in the RIAA's case against people it accuses of piracy, particularly in California, where the Merchants live.

The Merchants are described in the letter as middle-aged and conservative. The files they are supposed to have shared were “pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks”.

In an age of spoofing, easily cracked wireless home networks and Wintel virus created bot farms, it is fairly unlikely that the Merchants were the perpetrators, Ledford's letter says.

The letter says that the RIAA's method of collecting evidence against pirates has been found to be technically dubious. The RIAA's belief that ignoring its demands for “settlement money” as a reason for a law action, is also incorrect and opens them up to being sued.

“ Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople,” Ledford wrote.

On the basis of the weakness of the RIAA's case, Ledford made a settlement offer to them of $6,880.25 which should be paid to the Merchants to cover their costs. The RIAA backed down completely and dropped its case. It is not clear if the Merchants got costs. More here. µ