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.'"
Cross your fingers. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a stable state of affairs (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons) (Score:1, Interesting)
Here the RIAA is national and therefore can piss off one judge in one state and then move to another state and piss off a 2nd judge and so on. No one judge gets stuck with the RIAA all the time.
Re:Legal Persons (More Equal Than Actual Persons) (Score:1, Interesting)
I understand that they've made some mistakes suing people who were not responsible, but I am betting a majority of the people sued were sharing copyrighted files. Are they making a large number of errors? I've only heard of a few. I'm sure it would be better if they made less mistakes.
Are you saying the lawsuits are frivolous because you believe people should just be able to share whatever they want on the internet? Maybe we should get the copyright laws changed if so many people think that is the case.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
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?".
Re:Eternal Justice (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:How to stop frivolous law suits (Score:2, Interesting)
*note that this is directed at those types who believe more jail time will solve all of society's problems or who are expecting big dividends from the law enforcement sector. I personally don't believe in subjecting anybody to that kind of horror.
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?
RIAA Lawyers Confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:About time (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 say, the full evidence may not be available until the process is begun. Still, litigants should have a pretty high degree of good faith belief that they are suing the right person before they initiate an action. It's often the case (or, more precisely, it seems often given the biased cross section presented on slashdot or on the news) that a wronged party takes the position that they're entitled to relief from somebody so they just go after someone who they think they can recover from. That covers **AA type lawsuits as well as a lot of others... If you're suing the wrong party more than very occasionally, odds are good that you're abusing the system.
Re:About time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do they even bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would expect instead for the RIAA to push for a huge "blank media" tax, as have their similar organizations in other countries. After all, if they can tax every blank CD (see Canada) regardless of what you put on it, hard drives are next. And while they've been turned back in this quest, especially in regard to MP3 players, they never stop trying.