Slashdot Log In
RIAA Trying To Avoid a Jury Trial
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Sep 11, 2007 07:02 AM
from the judges-are-friendlier dept.
from the judges-are-friendlier dept.
Joe Elliot writes "Faced with a jury trial set to begin on October 1, the RIAA has filed a motion for summary adjudication of specific facts: that the RIAA owns the copyrights to the songs in a file-sharing case; that the registration is proper; and that the defendant wasn't authorized to copy or distribute the recordings. If the judge rules in their favor, Ars notes that it may turn into a Novell v SCO situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages. There are some significant problems with the copyright registrations — they don't match up. 'Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to conduct a thorough examination of the ownership history (e.g., track the ownership of "Hysteria" from Mercury to UMG) for the songs she is accused of infringing the copyright to, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is either via discovery or cross-examination at trial.' Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
Related Stories
Submission: RIAA trying to avoid trial by jury next month by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
Good story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good story (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, destruction of your whole business model, financially costly? Really?
Parent
Re:Good story (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if your business model is fatally flawed and/or obsolete.
The fact is that the labels' current business model is untenable. Fifty years ago it took LOTS of money to make a record. Today it only takes a couple thousand; just about every local band [thestationmusic.com] (link is to friends of mine) in Springfield has at least one CD recorded in a studio and professionally duplicated.
They don't HAVE to sell a million to make a profit - the things only cost a buck or two apiece, anything above that is profit, so long as they're sold at the bands' shows.
The RIAA labels' only current hold on music is that they still control radio and empty-v. THAT is why they killed internet radio and are trying to kill P2P - they can't control it and keep the indies off. These two outlets are the indies' meal tickets and the labels' worst nightmare.
If you're trying to find, say, a live version of The Station's song The Fog [kuro5hin.org] on Kazaa (say someone told you about them), you're likely to find a Radiohead song by the same name, and get yourself sued. But the labels' fear is that you'll be looking for Radiohead's tune and find The Station by mistake. You buy their two CDs (or downloads from iTunes) and you no longer have the money you spent on those two CDs and now can afford one less RIAA CD, since they cost twice as much as most indie CDs sold as shows.
This isn't about "piracy", it's about destroying the competetion.
-mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
Parent
Re:Good story (Score:4, Interesting)
To make this comment not a gripe in whole, it does seem quite possible that the RIAA could avoid the trial by jury silver bullet in this case, if the defendant was in fact file sharing and they have "good" proof. Not all the defendants are dead, children, or too old to own/know how to use a computer.
Still, the writing is on the wall. They won't get away with extortion forever.
Parent
Re:Good story (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they will move to voluntarily dismiss their own case, as they did in Capitol v. Foster, Interscope v. Leadbetter, Priority Records v. Candy Chan, Elektra v. Santangelo, and others.
They should not be able to escape paying the attorney fees of the defendant, particularly if the case is dismissed by the judge with prejudice and the defendant should definitely make the case to the judge that the entire action brought by the RIAA was frivolous and deserves to be punished with an award of attorney fees. The RIAA should not be able to jerk people around for no cost other than their own attorney and court filing fees, especially not when their case is frivolous, and moving to dismiss your own action when you feel that the tide is turning against you should definitely be taken as strong evidence of frivolousness (i.e. the burden should be upon the plaintiff to prove that his withdrawal by moving for dismissal of his own case is not frivolous and that should be a heavy burden in order to deter frivolous actions which waste the court's time).
I agree with you, but that's their usual strategy. They'll try to avoid the attorneys fees but may not succeed. In Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com] they dismissed their own case, but the judge slammed them for $68,685.23 in attorneys fees.
From 34 years of experience in litigation, I don't think I've ever seen a judge say no to someone wanting to withdraw their own case.
Re:Good story (Score:4, Funny)
So pointing it out is redundant....
(and yes this is probably a troll, or flamebait. Possible Funny)
Parent
Re:Good story (Score:4, Insightful)
But "redundant" is the wrong terminology; if it's the first post it couldn't be redundant.
But if I were the moderator I might have done the same thing -- there are only 4 negative moderation choices, "Troll" "Flamebait" "Redundant" and "Offtopic", and the comment was really none of those.
So I think, given the limited choices, the moderator did the right thing and I do not fault him or her in any way, even if it did hurt my feelings.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good story (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Now we will hear comments from the jurors..
Juror #7: (jumps to feet) FIRST POST!!!!
Juror #2: Powned!
Juror #5: Common guys, -1, off topic.
Juror #12: In Soviet Russia, first post owns you!
Juror #2 snickers
Parent
Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me you're still okay. I'm scared that I haven't done anything wrong.
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the "I didn't know sneaking around on a P2P program and downloading copyrighted material from random people all over the world was wrong" defense is just lame.
Tom
Parent
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the RIAA is not interested in teaching people the difference between wrong and right, they are interested in using the legal system to extract far more money than they deserve from them.
And that too is wrong. No one has the moral high ground here, but I think the RIAA is standing on lower ground, personally.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its a "You did $500 in unfair and illegal damages to us, an association of mega-corporations (and that's a high estimate). So we're going after you for $75,000 in unfair but legal damages to you, and that's not counting the stress, lost time at work, and other intangibles."
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It matters a great deal from a legal standpoint. If Universal doesn't actually own the copyrights to the material, then they have no standing to sue, regardless of what the defendant is alledged to have done. And given the history of the music business regarding copyright and royalty abuse with artists, it is a legitimate question to raise - if it is discovered that Universal never really took ownership of the copyright, then
a) the suit gets dismissed
b) someone elses lawyers start knocking on Universal's door, looking for "misdirected" royalties (maybe they won't be able to find their address, just like Stevie Nicks)
Of course, the suit could be re-filed by the actual copyright holder.
From a tactical standpoint, getting Universal's people up on a stand to walk a jury through a byzantine recording contract to explain just how it is that they own the copyright and are owed a kajillion dollars in damages when the original artist gets a pittance is almost certain to dispose a jury toward the defendant.
If we can bleat about "due process" and "competent defense" for murderer's, rapists, thugs, petty theives, and Gitmo detainess, surely this person deserves that same support?
Parent
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing intuitive or obvious about the difference between all the ways to listen to music free about which the general consensus is "Not wrong" and the several ways the RIAA thinks are so wrong that you should have to go to court and pay thousands and thousands in fines and attorney fees. For someone far inside a particular culture's arbitrary distinctions, those distinctions can look to be plain, obvious, and simple. That's an illusion, a distortion of perspective. What the RIAA wants us to accept as "wrong" depends on a very fine legalistic parsing of differences.
Basically the RIAA wants to find a loophole among all the ways that listening to music is "not wrong" by which to make a few instances so wrong as to deserve massive punishment and rewards to them. To respond legalistically to the RIAA's legalistic claims is not wrong; it's response in kind. If being legalistic is wrong, the RIAA has no case to begin with.
Parent
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA, the defendent *still* doesn't have the copyrights to the songs, even if the registrations are wrong - in that case, the registered copyright is still to record companies. Who are probably RIAA members. If this case fails, the defendent can just be sued again by the registered rights holders. I don't see then name "Jammie Thomas" as the rights holder under either columns in TFA.
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
She's not fighting the case soley on the basis of ownership. However, if she wins then it sets a huge precedent, which would further prevent the RIAA from using their shotgun approach to lawsuits. If they have to trace & prove ownership of every song that they're claiming for, it's going to add a lot of overhead to their cases and could well dredge up some unwelcome cases where they discover that they *don't* own the copyrights to songs that they've been making money off for years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Wishful thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
That's irrelevant. *Only* the copyright holder has standing to sue over the copyrights. If the plaintiff doesn't own the copyrights, the suit will be dismissed.
Assuming it fails only on the copyright ownership grounds, probably. It's also entirely possible that the copyrights fell through the cracks at some point and that it's not possible to clearly establish the ownership, or that the ownership ended with some other company or individual that isn't interested in suing Thomas, since it will be much more profitable to sue the company who has been illegally distributing the material for profit.
Actually, even if the ownership did turn out to rest with another RIAA member, I'd still expect a lawsuit against the current distributor, seeking restitution of all profits related to the song (less expenses related to the song, of course, meaning that a bunch of auditors will make millions).
Finally, as another poster pointed out, this may well establish a precedent that the labels are required to exhaustively trace the ownership of the songs over which they sue, adding significant cost and complexity to already-expensive cases. It's a good legal tactic and it's also quite proper -- companies *should* have to ensure they truly hold copyrights before they sue over them. Think how much pain that would have saved in the SCO case.
Parent
Plagiarism is bad, mmkay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, either the lifting is okay, or the article is not worth the time to click the link. Problem solved.
what case? (Score:3, Informative)
Jury trials are both good and bad (Score:3, Funny)
Jury trials are good if RIAA is subject to them
Jury trials are bad if IBM is subject to them
Hence it is proven that jury trials are both good and bad.
Summary Judgment (Score:5, Informative)
Surely they've planned for this eventuality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Backups? (Score:5, Interesting)
I see this more as a "can I legally 'help' people backup their music" and "is it my fault that others can't follow the law."
From how I see it, it isn't their fault someone else downloaded the song; they didn't force anyone to do anything illegal. If they own the recording, shouldn't they be able to let others download it to have a personal, digital, copy? If not, why?
Re: (Score:2)
So sending the other person the files you copied, means they didn't make the copy themselves. Depending on where you live, this either makes both of you a copyright offender or just the person sending the copies.
I don't quite know how it works if you just provide the other person with instructions on how to make the backup. Just look at the whole DeCSS history to see how difficult this can get.
While we're playing what if's... (Score:2)
Same scenario as far as What if my friend makes a copy of his CD using my computer, then downloads it onto his computer from mine (assume we don't have any external memory storage device). Is it okay then?
Isn't this normal (Score:4, Interesting)
The article makes it sound like RIAA is running scared, it sounds to me like they understand it's a big deal and are doing everything they can to win the case. I would expect anyone involved in a court case to, you know, actually try and win it.
um (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds like the only disputed issue is whether RIAA in fact owns the copyrights. This is a question of fact that would vary song-by-song, and a determination that these particular songs belong to RIAA would not prevent the issue from being re-litigated in every other case.
the thing with jury trials is... (Score:5, Insightful)
some jurors may empathize with the defendant while at the same time, another handful of jurors sympathize with the plaintiff.
the truth is that you just don't know. i think that some of these cases should go before a jury and let's see what happens.
the riaa's arguments may be solid but the question of what constitutes copyright infringement and what constitutes fair-use needs to be codified.
my question has always been, "why was it okay for my to make copies of my vinyl albums, put them on cassette, and give it to a friend but it's not okay for me to make a copy of a cd and give that cd copy to the same friend?"
the end result is the same. my friend gets the music that i paid for.
could it be that only now the record labels are panicking because people are not gathering in herds to buy the latest stuff put out by seemingly talent-less hacks like kelly osbourne or britney spears?
so many computers are used in producing pop music now that it would indeed make the world's largest beowulf cluster.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote me the law that says it's ok (as in legal) to give out a copy to a friend.
Just because the practice is winked at doesn't make it legal. I think it's just a matter that the technology has not only given people a better and easier way to distribute it but it's also given way to an
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot to be said about a government that has done nothing about the practice for years nay DECADES and suddenly (and EXCLUSIVELY) because of lobbying starts "arresting" people for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the practice is winked at doesn't make it legal.
They only winked at it because recording to analog tape is inherrently lossy no matter how good your equipment is. After a few generations it's clearly not as good as the original source. To top it off playing vinyl and analog tape wears out the surface and eventually the quality of your media degrades. It seems only fair that if your expensive vinyl is going to wear out if you play it over and over that you're better off only playing it a f
Re: (Score:3)
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
emphasis added.
Note that it does NOT say, "for personal use only", it says "for noncommercial use"
Re:the thing with jury trials is... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that was legal?
Parent
How about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe my thinking is a little wacky. However, how about someone scan through the files that RIAA say that they "own" and look for any infected by viruses. Wouldn't RIAA be responsible for that? I think establishing ownership for data could be very expensive in secondary consequences.
Defense Fund? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law and you (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA has filed a motion for summary {judgement.] If the judge rules in their favor...it may turn into a...situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages.
Well, yeah. In a motion for summary judgment, you are asking the judge to rule that the defendant hasn't got a case worth taking to trial - no matter how generously how you read the arguments in his favor.
Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to..track the ownership of [the] songs she is accused of infringing, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is via discovery or cross-examination at trial.'
Her lawyers want a trial to determine whether the RIAA should sue her as the representative of Label X or as the representative Label Y? There is no real doubt that the recordings are still under copyright?
Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
Cases are lost at trial all the time.
You don't get that far unless the parties are pretty evenly matched. But establishing meaningful precedent is extraordinarily rare.
The problem here is that you are really looking only at the admissibility of evidence used to prove infringement and the weight to be given that evidence. The burden of proof in a civil case is light and relevant evidence is rarely excluded.
I Don't See How the RIAA is Worried (Score:3, Insightful)
This, ladies and gentlemen is the entire point of the exercise. Induce the consumer behavior to check with the RIAA members before doing anything with the media you have legitimately purchased.
"Check with us before doing anything with the media you purchased or else we'll drag you into court." is the explicit threat. That one in 20,000 isn't going well is a fantastic track record. The RIAA is already lawyered-up and ready to drag it out. What individual can afford the fight? Certainly not the ones the RIAA has chosen to prosecute.
And yet nothing will be done by American consumers to reign in another abusive cartel.
Some interesting side notes... (Score:3, Funny)
- "Appetite for Destruction"
- "The Comfort Zone"
- "Control"
- "Frontiers"
- "Let it Loose"
- "Get a Grip"
- "Hysteria"
- "If You See Him"
Based on the titles, if these aren't RIAA anthem songs, I don't know what would be. No wonder they want to get her!Also... A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen--who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. Why are all the women getting off? If Jammie Thomas wins, there's another one! I am pretty sure men are being discriminated against...or are only women actually fighting the RIAA?
But it is important (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely right, but it is important. Otherwise, you or I could sue this person for copyright violation. But that doesn't make sense. I can't ask the police to arrest you for trespassing on my neighbor's property. And I can't enforce somebody else's copyright.
And assuming the person were to lose the copyright infringement case, wouldn't they have to award damages to the copyright holder? What if it turns out the copyright holder had no interest in suing widows and orphans?
I think this is not trivial.
Parent