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.'"
RIAA SUCKS MY FUCKING COCK (Score:4, Insightful)
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Class Action (Score:5, Insightful)
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:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
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: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.
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.
Re:Class Action (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many of the accused would still choose to settle... even if they are guilty.
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.
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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't cheer too loudly (Score:2, Insightful)
On the surface, it seems like they're going down, and we may see an end to thier lawsuits
Or, it might be a set-up for a massive media parade.
They might continue the trend, but hold back evidence on purpose in a few cases. Then, BAM! hit back-to-back victories with careful planning, along with some careful media orchestration (particularly if you throw in words like "Prejudice" or "mistrial"), it could quickly sway public opinion back in thier favour.
Certainly, most
However, I sincerely hope that this isn't the case.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:1, Insightful)
If the government isn't going to require accountability of prosecutors of wrongfully prosecuted and imprisoned people (or the families of those wrongfully executed), they're not going to do it for something as trivial as filesharing suits.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:2, Insightful)
How about this - you file suit and lose, you pay the other parties cost to defend plus compensate them for their aggravation. Automatically.
Re:Class Action (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Somethng not mentioned (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Put Up, or Else (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a "justice system", it's a "legal system". That should make it clear who the system really serves.
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.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (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.
You do everything "right" but you have brought a suit with no merit and wasted the court's, the defendant's the juries time, you have brought a frivolous lawsuit and you get suspended (disbarred if it is really overkill). To bring a frivolous suit you have to engae not in negligent conduct but willful conduct.
The analogy of demanding that your patient have a surgery which you fully know is grossly unneeded and expensive is the correct analogy. We aren't talking about forgetting a sponge inside the patient. We are talking about performing hysterectomies (sp?) because you get a hell of a lot of money for them, even though the patient is fine (I picked a surgery at random there).
SO to answer your points.
#1) We are not disbarring the firm, only the supervising attorney. Your work (especially as a corp) was spread out among all the associates of the firm. Maybe you don't go out to lunch with Jack (Now Jill manages your account) but the firm still represents you.
As a doctor you have a 1-to-1 relationship with the patient. As a firm you have a 1-to-many-many relationship. Taking 1 guy out doesn't end that.
#2) Once again, your point is directed to malpractice. This isn't negligence it is an intention "tort"
#3) The frivolous only comes into play when you file the law suit. You don't have to win, just not file the suit for harassment purposes (yes if I was writing the law I'd have a full blown definition to "frivolous" but I am not not going to corner-case the definition for a blog forum)
So, I am not asking the attorney's to constantly worry about disbarment (more than the already do F'ing bar association). The only increased costs is a better evaluation of your case before you file. And maybe you don't just ask for $1 trillion dollars (which just looks bogus).
The $1 trillion brings up the needed reform of PUNITIVE (not COMPENSATORY) damages. Short-answer tax them at a very high rate. So, it punishes the wrongdoer but is no longer an incentive to file law suits. You should be made whole from your loss (viz. the reason you sued) not rich.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:3, Insightful)
But then part of that very problem is the malpractice system in the first place. Why do you think so many women get C-sections? Because no one ever sues you for the C-section you do. But if you are more conservative, the one time the baby does badly and you don't do a section, you are fucked. Same thing with a cardiologist: say you have a patient with chest pain that has really weak indications for doing an angiogram. If you do one and its clean that's great. The patient incurs a slight risk from the cath, and it costs several thousand dollars, but you wont be faulted for being 'careful'. However if you don't do one, eventually you are going to send someone away and they will have a heart attack the next week, at which point you are again, fucked. The system is set up for people to me more aggressive, send too many tests, do too many procedures, and prescribe too many antibiotics. In the US we are set up to not reward the avoidance of false positives but we severely punish getting a single false negative. So its no wonder cardiologists are loose with the caths and gynecologists with the sections.
You want an easier target that is both readily regulated and will seriously decrease unnecessary treatments? Outlaw physician drug detailing and advertisement for drugs in the popular media. More people are harmed with unnecessary drugs than with unnecessary surgery. Yet we allow some of the most dangerous drugs (those most recently approved) to be advertised like they are Taco Bell or an iPod.
Nick
Re:Missing The Point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is a business (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 wrong argument here. That they have bought the legal rights to these songs is completely irrelevant to them suing people who have never used a computer, people who are dead, people who don't know what filesharing is, and people who maybe have shared files, but not the ones they're talking about -- and of course, innocent but tech-savvy people.
They have the right to go after people that they know are stealing their stuff. They do not have the right to just arbitrarily pick a target and sue them for filesharing, and see what happens when they scan the person's hard drive. Even if everyone in the world was sharing files, the RIAA would not have that right.
Re:Missing The Point (Score:2, Insightful)
And if it were only your fellow males, who get inanely sued for sharing, you wouldn't consider stopping buying CDs, even for a second?
Hows that always only women and children are considered some "war crimes", even if the number of slaughtered males vastly outnumbers them? Why the fuck does having a penis more or less make you a free game in any type of conflict, so random idiots like the GP dont consider you a victim any more at all?
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.