Florida Judge Smacks Down RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is going to have to face the music in Tampa, Florida, and answer the charges of extortion, trespass, conspiracy, unlicensed investigation, and computer fraud and abuse that have been leveled against them there. And the judge delivered his ruling against them in in pretty unceremonious fashion — receiving their dismissal motion last night, and denying the motion this morning. The RIAA's unvarying M.O., when hit with counterclaims, is to make a motion to dismiss them. It did just that in one Tampa case, UMG v. Del Cid, but the judge upheld 5 of the 6 counterclaims. The RIAA quickly settled that one. When a new case came up in the same Tampa courthouse before the very same judge, and the same 5 counterclaims were leveled against the record companies, I opined that 'it is highly unlikely that the RIAA will make a motion to dismiss counterclaims,' since I knew they'd be risking sanctions if they did. Well I guess I underestimated the chutzpah — or the propensity for frivolous motion practice — of the RIAA lawyers, as they in essence thumbed their nose at the judge, making the dismissal motion anyway, telling District Judge Richard A. Lazzara that his earlier decision had been wrong. The judge wasted no time telling the record companies that he did not agree (PDF)."

Pfft...

Call me when Boyer refuses to settle and we finally get a decision on this.

Until then, BFD.

Opps

Hi. I'm the judge in this courtroom. I told your ass to get out of here once. you didn't listen. You came back with the same complaint. Guess what happens. I deny any and all settlement offers you offer to the counter-claimer. I will make it pretty damn clear this time your crap will not be welcome in this courtroom again. Prepare for contempt processes. Oh ya, I'm gonna make sure they put you in the same cell as a guy who likes to steal car steroes.

Defendants not even asked!

That is fascinating. The judge got a motion from the RIAA to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims, and he didn't even bother to give the defendants a chance to reply! Instead he saved them the cost for their lawyers and rejected the RIAA's motion to dismiss without causing any work for the defendants. I just wonder how unusual that is.

Re:Defendants not even asked!

IANAT, but if that's really the definition of "frivious", my dictionary is missing a word.

Re:Defendants not even asked!

As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

I've seen that quote attributed to Ben Franklin, but I am sure that Olbermann could have very easily been the originator.

Re:Defendants not even asked!

As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

That "definition" has always bothered me, as I would find those considered "sane" under that definition to be extremely crazy themselves.

How crazy would you have to be to think that your previous actions would have no impact on future attempts?

If you swung an axe at a door and made a small chip, which would be more insane: Thinking that the next or subsequent blow would put the blade entirely through the door, or thinking that you could swing the axe at the door all day and do nothing but make small cuts?

It is very rare in real life that a certain event has the "memoryless" property (i.e. the outcome is based only on that event, not on the outcome of any previous events). That's a special case, not the general rule.

Look at this case. They tried the same thing, and got a different result: Their motion was dismissed even more rapidly than before. If they keep trying this, it is highly unlikely that the outcome would be the same each time; eventually they would be found in contempt. Judges in particular do not often suffer from being "memoryless". :)

I know it won't happen...

...but if there's a supreme being out there somewhere, I'll agree to start praying to it or sacrificing cans of tuna on its altar or whatever the hell it wants (within reason, of course) if only, please, please, please, there's jail sentences for the bastards at the end of this affair.

Re:I know it won't happen...

...but if there's a supreme being out there somewhere, I'll agree to start praying to it or sacrificing cans of tuna on its altar or whatever the hell it wants

I am already aware of such an entity, in its opinion.

Too bad it just sits there purring for the most part and is fuzzy, and not so big on the implementation side.

Pop quiz for you litigation buffs out there

For you litigation buffs out there, let's take a quiz.

The facts.

A lawyer just filed a 30-page brief in which he (a) devoted 28 pages to repeating the same arguments he had made in a motion that was decided less than 8 months earlier, and (b) devoted 3 pages to telling the judge that his previous ruling was "wrongly decided".

Question #1

What will happen?
(a) The lawyer will win the motion.
(b) The lawyer will lose the motion.
(c) The lawyer will have to find a new line of work.
(d) Both (b) and (c)

Question #2

If you are the client who pays lawyers to do things like that you are
(a) A smart businessperson
(b) A moron
(c) A fool
(d) Both (b) and (c)

Re:Pop quiz for you litigation buffs out there

You forgot:

Question #3: You bill your clients

(a) a small number of hours for the three new pages
(b) a huge number of hours for writing the same 28 pages again
(c) cost of copying 28 pages
(d) all of the above?

Re:Pop quiz for you litigation buffs out there

What are "Rule 11 Sanctions?"

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits "frivolous" conduct by attorneys. This was about as "frivolous" as it gets.

Will this judge get more cases?

Just wondering: Since this is Judge Lazzara's second case already, I would think that he now knows more about the subject than your average judge, so it would only make sense to let him handle whatever over similar cases come anywhere near his court. Does the judicial system work that way, giving judges similar cases where possible, or are the cases handled by a random judge?

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

Agreed. The RIAA should be allowed to break the law and use illegal practices to bring all those horrible copyright infringer's to swift and brutal justice. The RIAA's clients are literally losing TRILLIONS of dollars to people who are worse than terrorists. Personally I think RIAA should be able to hire mercenaries to rid the earth of such scum.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

Personally I think RIAA should be able to hire mercenaries to rid the earth of such scum.

Are you kidding? Comparing them to terrorists? Mere terrorists?! You want us to use mercenaries?! Christ, next thing you'll be wanting us to liberate them from their evil P2P overlords, or reform them, or stop antagonizing them by meddling in their culture, or something.

No, these scum are far worse than terrorists; they are a plague, an infectious disease that destroys all it touches. Unrelenting, incurable. Even the courts are at their mercy. Mercenaries are not enough, here. Entire armies are insufficient. Not even the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects), could handle this. No, they must be wiped out from orbit, with nukes. It's the only way to be sure.

Signed,
The RIAA:
Creators of the Culture,
Bearers of the Truth,
Defenders of the Civilization,
Champions of Liberty,
Dearer than Life Itself,
Dread Rulers of the Abyss (in a good way, we assure you),
Awesome Enough to Have Many Many Titles,
Your Beloved Content-Owning Overlords.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

(Quoted for when the OP is modded -1 Troll a few times...)
from your local friend of thieves always peddling his dubious services here at slashdot, where the people who make the movies we watch are scum, and the people who think the world owes them a living a welcome. Stop fucking stealing and you wont need the services of the ambulance chasing dick who submits all this biased bullshit.

I would submit that all the false positives that the RIAA has ensnared were not protected by being innocent. Defending yourself from a wrongful prosecution is very expensive in this country. A fact that the RIAA uses to its advantage.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

You are correct. Innocence is no defense. While you may be presumed innocent until proven guilty the simple fact that you have been pulled into court before a judge and charged with a crime leaves a an indelible stench of guilt on you.

I recently listened to a defense attorney spend considerable time schooling potential members of a jury in the difference between innocence and not guilt. He apparently was going for the not guilty verdict even though his client participated in the car jacking willingly. Most amazing speech I had heard in a long time. I think he was actually going to argue that his client just went along due to peer pressure and wanted to fit in.

I learned a long time ago that in the court room the judge and attorneys involved are not interested in the truth, the facts, or with dispensing justice. They are there to tell a story and put on an act to convince the jury that their side is telling a better story than the other side.

It reminds me a lot of survivor at the end where the remaining contestants tell a story to convince everyone in the jury to vote them the money.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

I learned a long time ago that in the court room the judge and attorneys involved are not interested in the truth, the facts, or with dispensing justice. They are there to tell a story and put on an act to convince the jury that their side is telling a better story than the other side.

Not quite, the Lawyer and Procecutor are each telling thier side. The prosecutor goes first and tries to make the defendant seem like the most vile person ever to walk the earth. Then it's the Lawyer's turn to make the defendant look like an angel and to make the procesutor look like he doesn't know anything.

Many people at this point would think that this is silly, and nothing more than a show. It was always put to me this way: It's not a lawyers job to determine if thier client is innocent or not, that is the judge/jury's job. The lawyers job is to put the defendant in the best possible light, and to ensure that a fair trial is being conducted.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

I learned a long time ago that in the court room the judge and attorneys involved are not interested in the truth, the facts, or with dispensing justice. They are there to tell a story and put on an act to convince the jury that their side is telling a better story than the other side.

One movie that describes this perfectly, is "my cousin vinny". In the movie, Ralph Macchio of Karate Kid interprets a teenager who just happened to buy something at a store where 5 minutes later the clerk was shot.

The district attorney hired a wonderful lawyer that moved the hearts and minds of everyone. Fortunately, the kid's cousin, Vinny, the most inefficient lawyer on earth, happened to save the day by presenting the facts to the jury (and add a lot of fun with his irreverence).

One of my favorite movies, btw.

Re:More pro-piracy bullshit

What's the matter, son, the judge upheld all the counterclaims against you? If you litigate as badly as you troll, you're in deep doo-doo.

Re:In the End, It Doesn't Matter

The plantiffs in this case are "Alantic Recording Group, etc. et al" so it looks like the actual RIAA member company/companies are on the hook for this.

Re:In the End, It Doesn't Matter

Very much so wrong. Look at who brought the suit the first time: UMG.

The individual record companies have to sue; the RIAA just does the legwork for "finding" who "made files available" and hands it off.

Re:I'm curious

IANAL but I'll take a guess.

The two items - ruling on the motion and imposing sanctions - though fallout from the same act by the plaintiff lawyers, are separate. I'd bet the judge issued the ruling quickly in the interest of justice, to spare the defendant additional delays and lawyer costs. Rule 11 sanctions, if the distinguished jurist decides to impose them, may be along later.

Given that there was a change in one of the counterclaims and an extra pleading by the RIAA, perhaps the judge doesn't think the motion was TOTALLY out-of-line. Or perhaps, now that he's given them some more rope, he's sitting back quietly while the RIAA's lawyers continue to demonstrate a pattern of abuse of process, in case they come up with some clearer examples. Since that's one of the counterclaims, perhaps the judge thinks a better sanction than spanking them early with Rule 11 (and perhaps deter their activities in THIS trial) is to add this (and any future frivolity) to the list of misdeeds when considering the amount to award on that claim.

Wouldn't justice be better served if they have to pay the price of their bullying to the defendant? B-)

Re:I'm curious

I've known some lawyers who talked about the degree of animosity that exists between lawyers and judges.

A lawyer spends several decades suffering various forms of abuse and condescension at the hands of the judges he/she faces with every case ... then by the time their turn comes to sit on the bench, they are so thoroughly bitter and full of spite they simply can't wait to unload gallons of the same kind of poison on the next batch of lawyers who come in front of them.

Re:chutzpah?

> Could the lawyers involved be disbarred?

No.

> Could anybody actually see the inside of a cell over this?

No.

Not even sanctions. Really. Seriously, people, I know you've all been whipped into a frenzy and want to see the public executions of every spouse and child of every clerk and paralegal of every law firm who's ever done business with the RIAA, but all that happened was that the plaintiffs made a useless motion, and the judge gave it the due consideration it deserved, which was nothing. Trust me when I say that no baby seals were clubbed in the process.

If anything, UMG should be pissed that their legal team phoned it in when it came to this motion. These are pretty serious counterclaims and they don't appear to be taking them seriously. Hubris does that I guess.

Re:Isn't that a reflex amongst corporate lawyers?

Maybe the RIAA could make the claim that it wasn't them that filed the papers, but a neighbor using their unsecured wifi?