Slashdot Log In
RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case
Posted by
Soulskill
on Saturday July 05, @08:02AM
from the stick-it-to-'em dept.
from the stick-it-to-'em dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After three years of pursuing a home health aide in Brooklyn who has never even used a computer, the RIAA has announced it's ready to throw in the towel. Only thing; it wants the dismissal to be 'without prejudice' so it won't be liable for attorney's fees. The courts have been saying that where a copyright plaintiff gives up, the defendant is presumptively entitled to an attorney's fee award. So, Ms. Lindor says 'no way.' She wants the dismissal to be 'with prejudice,' and she wants her attorney's fees."
We've been discussing this case and Ms. Lindor's fight against the RIAA for quite some time.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Sues Woman Who Has Never Used a Computer 637 comments
boarder8925 writes "Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online 512 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: Lindor Attacks Record Company Copyright-Pooling 136 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Back in March, 2006, Marie Lindor called the record companies suing her a collusive cartel, and their joint agreement to pool their copyrights "copyright misuse" (pdf). A year and a half later, the RIAA apparently got nervous about that allegation and made a motion to strike the allegations. Ms. Lindor has struck back, pointing out to the Judge not only that the RIAA's arguments had no legal basis, but also that its brief was completely silent as to any justification for the record companies' copyright-pooling agreement. Such a justification would be necessary for it to pass muster under 'rule of reason' analysis mandated by the US Supreme Court. Ms. Lindor, a home health worker who has never even used a computer, let alone infringed anyone's copyrights with a p2p file sharing program, is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony. She also obtained a ruling that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory might be a wee bit unconstitutional."
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.
Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
But how about something to compensate her for the harassment, stress, and general upheaval of her life for three years? The RIAA might cave in to paying her fees if they have no other way out of it, but a nice fat damage award would go a long way toward tempering the cartel's tactics, and to encourage others who have been sued. Of course, to get such an award she would probably have to file some sort of countersuit against them, and I doubt she has the stomach for that right now. Shows how in our legal system, even when you win, you still lose to some degree.
Unfortunately, I can't disagree with anything you just said.
It's an imperfect system, and definitely being abused at the moment by the large 'rights holders', who have engaged in a maelstrom of litigation in reaction to their imminent demise.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and in a down-turning economy, as the value of their "holdings" declines, they will turn increasingly to this type of litigation-for-profit to try to keep their stock price up.
Reply to This
Parent
Her Lawyer deserves some credit too ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the reason this suit got this far, and generated as much interesting legal materials and reactions as it did, have much to do with the lawyer working the case. She would have not got this far, if it was not for the efforts of her lawyer. You have demonstrated how to defend and win a case against the RIAA.
It is not often that we think of lawyers as the good guys, but in this case, the community owes you thanks.
Good Work.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a countersuit? IANAL, but I don't see why she couldn't turn around and sue them for the harrassment, pain and suffering, etc. Or is there some sort of statute that prevents that? Anyone know?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bullshit that plaintiffs are able to withdraw a case.
Withdrawal should result in an automatic win for the defendant which should cover legal fees, loss of income, compensation for harassment and open the door for libel suits maybe then people will stop abusing the courts.
How do court case's get started get the RIAA just take you to court so your forced to lose your income to defend yourself or does the submission need approval before it can proceed?
What do you do about holidays, work or any other form of life, during a case like this?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Granting a defendant automatic damages if a plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit will lead to many meritless suits prosecuted to the end. For instance, if the RIAA had to pay legal fees, lost of income, compensation for harassment, and libel in this case, they would not be withdrawing the lawsuit. They would rather fight this to the end and wait for the defendant to go bankrupt or cave in. I think the defendant should be given the chance to get damages by filing a countersuit but should not be granted automatic damages lest we create perverse incentives to flog a dead horse.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I say grant automatic damages in court. If you can't prove it, don't fucking bring it. They deserve every bit of shit thrown at them for bringing a FALSE LAWSUIT into court.
She needs to file and have the RIAA members labeled as vexatious litigants. That'll put a HUGE hole in their operation.
Reply to This
Parent
Without prejudice... (Score:5, Informative)
also means could refile the suit if they want. It may just mean they want to try and get better legal leverage, like a new judge.
Reply to This
Re:Without prejudice... (Score:5, Funny)
I've always thought "Without Prejudice" would be a good motto for a shady company. You'd put it on your letters under the logo and you'd be protected while you lied your ass off during negotiations.
Neat idea! Kind of like "Fair and Balanced"!
Reply to This
Parent
My favorite line (Score:5, Funny)
We have been telling plaintiffs all along that the defendant is innocent of any
infringement. Unmindful of their duties as officers of the Court, they nevertheless persisted. Now
that the time has come to pay the piper, they seek to scurry away, rather than face the music.
Don't they own the music?
(I trust Mr. Beckermann will accept my quote as fair use...)
Reply to This
Re:My favorite line (Score:5, Funny)
According to the contracts, they own the musicians.
And their firstborn.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:My favorite line (Score:5, Funny)
> 3. If I were this lady I'd see a shrink, and file lawsuit against the labels for metal distress
Metallica's got that one covered, and they're on the RIAA's side.
Reply to This
Parent
Mickey Mouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright (theoretically and used to be in fact) runs out and the work goes into the public doamin with Huck Finn.
I'm coming to think that the US should make a Peter-Pan type exception for Mickey Mouse, since US congress refuse to let the sun set on the rodent.
Yes, it would be a barmy exception, but it is still worse, by some considerable margin, that one cartoon character should make law for the whole system of copyright!
Hell, they should make an exception for Minnie and Pluto while they're at it...
Reply to This
Parent
"With Prejudice" needed to send a message (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area. When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort. This case needs to be dismissed With Prejudice to counteract this misuse of the legal system.
In addition, the RIAA as plaintiffs suffer no discomfort from a failed lawsuit, as it's all just paperwork and their daily office job for them. In contrast, their defendants suffer horribly from the process win or lose, with years of their lives being damaged and unrecoverable, since the litigation process is entirely foreign to their normal lives. This is unbalanced, unfair, and inadequate.
Both areas need redress, starting with dismissal With Prejudice and including compensation to the defendant for harm caused. But really more than that is needed. The RIAA lawyers themselves need to suffer some kind of professional penalty that will stay on their record, or this kind of legal abuse will not stop. Without negative feedback, systems spiral out of control, and that is as true in law as in science.
Reply to This
Mod parent up.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message (Score:5, Informative)
Well said, Morgaine!
The RIAA lawyers themselves need to suffer some kind of professional penalty that will stay on their record, or this kind of legal abuse will not stop.
Abuse of the legal system is something that an attorney could be censured for by their state's Bar association -- with penalties ranging from fines to and including disbarrment.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area. When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort. This case needs to be dismissed With Prejudice to counteract this misuse of the legal system. In addition, the RIAA as plaintiffs suffer no discomfort from a failed lawsuit, as it's all just paperwork and their daily office job for them. In contrast, their defendants suffer horribly from the process win or lose, with years of their lives being damaged and unrecoverable, since the litigation process is entirely foreign to their normal lives. This is unbalanced, unfair, and inadequate. Both areas need redress, starting with dismissal With Prejudice and including compensation to the defendant for harm caused. But really more than that is needed. The RIAA lawyers themselves need to suffer some kind of professional penalty that will stay on their record, or this kind of legal abuse will not stop. Without negative feedback, systems spiral out of control, and that is as true in law as in science.
I agree. But I am expecting the RIAA's lawyers, who on a daily basis have been making many false statements of fact to the courts, working with unlicensed investigators, misstating the law, and using illegal procedures, to be called to task eventually. It will no doubt be too little, too late, but I'm expecting repercussions for what they've done.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. But I am expecting the RIAA's lawyers, who on a daily basis have been making many false statements of fact to the courts, working with unlicensed investigators, misstating the law, and using illegal procedures, to be called to task eventually. It will no doubt be too little, too late, but I'm expecting repercussions for what they've done.
Why have you (and other attorneys fighting them) not already filed complaints with their state bars?
Reply to This
Parent
Staying power (Score:5, Interesting)
They never dreamed that she could/would stick with it this long so they are getting worried. They are used to just bulling people into submission.
I agree they need to compensate her for their unacceptable tactics.
This needs to be plastered across every news station in the country ( but we know it wont, as the *AA is the TV industries buddy )
Reply to This
Prejudice This (Score:5, Funny)
If that dismissal can be called "without prejudice", then so is a Klan cross burning. They should pay "I'm a Dick Tax" as well as attorney's fees.
Reply to This
Re:Towel???? (Score:5, Insightful)
A hitchhiker should never go anywhere without his towel.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Informative)
And if you read Beckerman's response at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/ms-lindor-opposes-riaa-attempt-to.html then you'd have your response. He clearly lays out how any prejudice is solely plaintiff's fault. Further, he points out the defendant is an individual not accountable for anyone else's actions, and that discovery was completed 2 years ago but that the palintiff waited until the end to complain about discovery. Further, the complaint is to the wrong judge and filed in the wrong fashion, with additional defects. All of those flaws in the plaintiff's argument make it unlikely sanctions are either warranted or will be granted.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Informative)
Well IAAL and the letter is not especially convincing. For one thing the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be blaming the defendant for acts by several third parties. Another thing is that a lot of the criticism uses generic weasel words, like "inconsistencies" and "deceptive and/or incomplete information," which lawyers tend to use when they don't have anything concrete to attack. The alleged inconsistencies aren't especially damning when you're talking about witnesses and parties describing events that took place a while ago. The case ID number makes me think it was filed in early '05, so I'd think that would be the earliest the discovery requests came, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to be uncertain as to who was at your house on certain exact dates several months ago.
Reply to This
Parent