Slashdot Log In
Why the RIAA Doesn't Want Defendants Exonerated
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 29, 2007 05:12 PM
from the so-many-reasons-just-pick-one dept.
from the so-many-reasons-just-pick-one dept.
RageAgainsttheBears writes "The RIAA is beginning to find itself in an awkward position. A few of its many, many lawsuits don't manage to end in success for the organization. Typically, when they decide a case isn't worth pursuing (due to targeting the wrong person or not having sufficient evidence), they simply move to drop the case. Counterclaims are usually dropped in turn, and everyone goes separate ways. But recently, judges have been deciding to allow the RIAA to drop the case, but still allowing the defendant's counterclaim through. According to the Ars Technica article: 'If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
RIAA SUCKS MY FUCKING COCK (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA SUCKS MY FUCKING COCK (Score:5, Insightful)
Question - the lawsuit against the 7 year old girl, is it:
A. RIAA -v- Andersen
or
B. Atlantic Records -v- Andersen
I think you'll find the latter. The record companies themselves are doing the suing. If you want to hate someone for spamming the courts with lawsuits, hate the record companies themselves. They love it that the RIAA is catching all the shit (because the RIAA doesn't sell to the public so it doesn't matter if the RIAA has a horrible reputation amongst the public). However, if people understand that the record companies are the ones spamming the courts, maybe the right people will be the object of vilification.
Parent
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you mean:
making sure the accused can't defend their innocence against the charges."
Nobody is actually guilt of anything until the courts say so. A fine, yet critical line.
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, I stand by the modified statement: Ideally, the accuser wouldn't accuse unless the accused were actually liable. Obviously, we can't achieve the ideal because, as you
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)
There are common usages of the words and legal definitions of the words. If you are going to complain about someone's usage, you should at least differentiate between them.
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many of the accused would still choose to settle... even if they are guilty.
Parent
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
So they (we) should obviously boycott industry associations that resort to this sort of legal chicanery. I hear there are some great bands playing live down at the local pub...
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)
Some of us (us) work for the RIAA and affiliated companies. We (them)(us) are being paid (our funding) by those (the RIAA) who are costing us money (our funding). It follows that the RIAA is the ultimate victim of the RIAA. Thus, we (they)(the RIAA) should boycott the real criminals (us)(the RIAA).
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:About time (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:4, Interesting)
There needs to be a sliding scale, as I don't want the 1st year associate who's boss told him "do this work" to have his career ruined. The 1st year (and mostly no one below partner) has no power in the firm, and has the only option of doing the work or quiting.
Whether or not this is a frivolous lawsuit is a question of fact; therefore the jury decides. Not the judge (unless they are acting as the trier of fact in that instance.)
You start threatening attorneys livelihood, especially when that livelihood is such a huge investment, you will see these cases go away.
Parent
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:4, Insightful)
Second of all, such a system may make it quite difficult for smaller parties to participate in lawsuits. In the case of lawsuits that may not necessarily be frivolous, but that are near enough to that border line, lawyers may demand that the client cover any expenses if those lawyers are suspended or disbarred. This is something that a client without vast financial resources would likely not be able to afford. So soon enough the only people who will have the resources to sue are corporations or industry associations. We end up with the problem we have now, but without normal people having the ability to fight back.
Parent
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing so in either case will have a lot of consequences that we would all not like:
1) Other clients/patients of the guy who loses his licensure will suffer the loss of the relationship and professional services they get. You might think that no one would want to see a lawyer or doctor who had lost a malpractice case, but if that was the case the majority of physicians in the US would not be practicing today.
2) Every professional by virtue of being a human being will make honest mistakes. Punishing single mistakes by completely destroying that professional's ability to practice will lead to a shortage of people willing to enter that field as well as a shortage of people willing to take the difficult cases in that field. (I can tell you I would never have entered Emergency Medicine where I cannot choose who I will and won't see had this been the case.)
3) If you are defending your own ability to practice (and perhaps your children's livelihood) you are going to go to extremes in order to protect it. If I was under this kind of pressure the amount of defensive medicine I (and every other physician) practice would go through the roof meaning increased costs, unnecessary tests, unnecessary antibiotics, etc. I suspect the same would be the case for lawyers if you pressed them to that extreme.
So while it may seem like it would help to levy draconian punishments for medical or legal malpractice, if you have that sort of system, you won't be happy with the results.
That doesn't mean that you should not use those kind of extreme punishments against professionals who are habitual douchebags. It also doesn't mean you should not levy punishments for errors. But it does mean that you shouldn't punish people innocent of any wrongdoing (the lawyer's other clients) and you should not extract unreasonable punishments for common mistakes.
Nick
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing "malpractice" with "frivolous lawsuits" Not the same thing at all!
I repeat
An attorney can get sued for malpractice (i.e. negligence). However, a frivolous lawsuit is not negligence, it is willful. We already have laws against this type of things when dealing with SLAPP suits (frivolous suits by corp's against people who protest the corp).
You miss a bar date, file the wrong form, etc.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:5, Insightful)
No, making it harder to start a lawsuit is definitely worse than alternative solutions. You've got your heart in the right place, no doubt, but all you're going to get is less lawsuits, period. Not just less frivolous lawsuits, less lawsuits, which means more people suffering who could have sued but didn't, because of the price just to start.
I'd rather have the plaintiff pay all legal expenses if he loses. NOt the defendant, just the plaintiff. The defendant has to respond or he gets summary judgement against him. Then, people who really want to fight can theoretically find a lawyer willing to take the case (assuming they have a case to begin with).
It's not as good as the goal you want, but if there's anything I've learned programming, it's that incremental change is the path to success, not sweeping change. Make little changes and test them.
Parent
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:4, Informative)
And if you used a three strikes law for malpractice claims you can just add the words 'practicing for 10 years' to my previous statement about physicians. The average OB/Gyn has over a dozen suits in their practice lifetime (which starts at age 30 if you go straight through hs to college to med school to residency. Which means that is a suit every few years.) So if you actually want a doctor to deliver your baby, you might want to reconsider that statement.
No, it means that we will have less lawsuits period. If the cost of entering the game is higher then fewer people will play. However, who plays is largely determined by who has enough money to enter rather than who has s legitimate claim.
Nick
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But then part of
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:5, Informative)
OK, /.'ers, since 99% of you AREN'T lawyers and don't know the first thing about law suits - while you have to do some due diligence before filing a lawsuit, you usually don't know the real facts until you are already partway into the case in a phase called "discovery," which is usually the most expensive part of the suit.
Under your torch-weilding system, I would have to root through your firewall logs BEFORE I filed a lawsuit, even though I may actually have a legitimate claim against you.
Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm.
-p-
Parent
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:4, Interesting)
The fourth amendment has clearly not been applied in this way, historically speaking, but as of five minutes ago I think I'm a fan of this proposal. I am not a lawyer, but you seem quite right to me that a literal reading of this amendment should apply to civil cases. This would profoundly change the level of evidence required for lawsuits to be filed, which is sensible since the financial burden for legal expenses is similar, and the huge financial penalties can often exceed the fines from criminal cases.
I wonder what it would take to actually get this applied to civil cases. Could a single Supreme Court ruling do it?
Parent
It is nothing to do with the judges (Score:3, Informative)
However, there is no reason why this should be the outcome of an out of court settlement. The RIAA can choose to withdraw a claim without any obligation on the defendent, in which case the counter claim stands.
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say I believe you have done me harm, and sue you.
It turns out that, in fact, it wasn't you.
Then I wouldn't call that frivolous.
Parent
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Cross your fingers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cross your fingers. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more inclined to believe that judges have long known that the RIAA are a bunch of bastards and are now acting in a manner that respects the general population's regard of the RIAA as a bunch of bastards.
Parent
Class Action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Class Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
This is not a stable state of affairs (Score:3, Interesting)
Missing The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Individuals won't have enough money to diminish the environment of fear the RIAA is trying to establish.
The goal is to establish an environment of fear, such that most users are afraid to anything other than what the media conglomerates say is okay. Better still, what's okay today can be wrong tomorrow.
The RIAA end game is good. Stories like this just help it along.
Re:Missing The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. The RIAA would certainly like to create an environment of fear, however if they lose cases and have to pay the defendants legal fees, more people will be willing to go to court. They can only maintain their environment of fear if they're winning their cases or getting settlements.
Parent
Re:Missing The Point (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot and Groklaw analyses of RIAA "evidence" showed significant holes. It is unclear how much relevance the MediaSentry logs have, there are issues with time-stamping and dynamic IP addresses, shared (WiFi) networking, decoy mp3 files and last but not least no proof that the subscriber to the IP package was the one operating the sharing computer. The RIAA seems to ignore the possibility of remote control of a system. With so many holes in the evidence even the guilty can get out.
Parent
Re:Missing The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal is to establish an environment of fear, such that most users are afraid to anything other than what the media conglomerates say is okay.
And that, I believe, is the problem. I can no longer buy RIAA-parent-company DVDs and CDs in good conscience, because I know a portion of the proceeds will be used for suing women and children. And I think the impressions being formed are overwhelmingly negative. Where are the college students protesting, "Save the RIAA!"? Teenagers and college students are starting to believe that buying CDs will only fund lawsuits against the defenseless and poor.
I understand their position regarding copyright infringement. But it is infringement, not theft, and certainly not murder on the high seas. Their strong-arm tactics make the entire industry look bad, and call into question the legitimacy of their cause. When such an entity chooses to pursue lawsuits on such frivolous evidence, one can only conclude that the real goal is not justice but merely the acquisition of additional wealth. First, they steal from the artist through oppressive and one-sided contracts, and now they are trying to extort money from those whom they believe will not have the resources to resist. When was the last time the RIAA filed a lawsuit against a millionaire?
It just makes me sick. And the artists, of all people, stand to lose the most. Instead of buying from big labels, I've begun looking at the smaller, independent artists precisely because of the RIAA tactics.
I wonder if they even considered the fact that dropping CD sales might be related to people unhappy with the fact that they are suing their customers. Unhappy customers tend not to be repeat buyers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons) (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if an actual person filed frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, eventually a judge would tell them that they have to quit wasting the court system's time with any more nonsense. If the RIAA were a real person, rather than a legal "person", this would have happened to it long ago.
Re:Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons) (Score:5, Informative)
For example, dumping toxic waste in somebody's yard does happen sometimes and is genuinely dangerous when it does. However, that doesn't make somebody who files lawsuit after lawsuit with baseless allegations that his neigbor is dumping toxic waste in his yard any less guilty of wasting the courts' time with frivolous lawsuits.
Parent
Why should the defendant suffer? (Score:5, Informative)
I hope this ensures that the RIAA ensures that in future cases they have valid and sufficient evidence to proceed rather than filing such frivolous suits that waste time and money for all concerned.
Eternal Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
What has changed? The laws are the same. The actions are the same.
Maybe the judges are a little smarter now. Maybe the lawyers are a little smarter. But if I didn't get the same results as a defendant in the same circumstances a year or more ago, I'd want a new trial. It's not supposed to be my problem if the administrators of justice are too stupid to leave me alone with laws they don't understand.
That's the new development I want to see: a retrial on the basis that maybe the courts aren't as stupid as they were when they decided against me.
Re:Eternal Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't a matter of a difference in court rulings. In most of the previous cases the defendants settled with the RIAA to avoid a court fight. The difference with these recent cases is that in them the defendants refused to settle and actually filed counterclaims and presented evidence and basically went forward with the actual court part of things. And as it turns out, the RIAA had as little case as we believed they had, and the defendants started to win. The people who decided to avoid the risk and settle have no legal grounds for complaint when people who were willing to take the risk are now winning. "But we could've won too!" is answered by "Yes, if you'd fought. But you didn't, did you?".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Put Up, or Else (Score:5, Interesting)
And while the defendants are at it, how long until someone calls the RIAA on their illegal joinder of John Doe defendants in the beginnings of these suits. Two years ago a judge told the RIAA to stop that, they they can't simply join unrelated defendants to save on their litigation costs, and the RIAA has blithely ignored that ruling and continued on their merry ways.
And did anyone see The Bay City Rollers (60's/70's band) lawsuit against Sony for not paying royalties today? Sony's excuse: We lost your contract and didn't know how much to pay you, so we've given you nothing! Puts to lie the claim that filesharers are ripping off the artists. The record companies appear to be doing that just fine on their own.
The RIAA is a business (Score:4, Interesting)
This is business at its worst. Someone should go after these guys with a class action suit or set up a fake file sharing site to lure them into a case they will lose.
The RIAA is a front (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because more people are getting sued by them all the time.
What is your basis for this?
The sad fact is, you're making the wron
RIAA Lawyers Confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do they even bother? (Score:4, Informative)
Within a year or so 500GB drives will be selling for around $100. Even at 256kbps, that'll hold an immense music library. The RIAA's biggest customers - high school and college kids - will have easy access to terabytes of free music.
It's over. Stick a fork in the record companies. They're done.
The MPAA is next.