Why the RIAA Doesn't Want Defendants Exonerated 199
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.'"
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.
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: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.
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-
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.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:1, Informative)
Check out Rule 11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
The problem isn't that there aren't rules against bringing frivolous suits. It's that they're rarely handed out, because the standard for 'frivolousness' is a pretty low bar to clear. Also, even though the rules say the judge can decide on sanctions without one of the parties raising it, that's not usually how it works -- it would probably need to be a pretty egregious case for the judge to do it on his own initiative. My guess is most of your RIAA defendants aren't poring over the Federal Rules to see whether there's any kind of claim they can bring, and even if they were, it's an open question whether the RIAA lawsuits are *so* far out there that they'd be covered.
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
The RIAA is a front (Score:4, Informative)
Re:About time (Score:3, Informative)
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.