Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.

The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.

Let me be the first to say

[pak9rabid]

Yay for legal precedent

Re:Finally!

[pdboddy]

They make their money by making people buy one cd for the car, one for the computer, one for the portable cd player, and download mp3s for their iPod/mp3 player... The sort of thing the copyright laws were supposed to prevent.

Re:Question

[ZachPruckowski]

Nope, they're sealed - the RIAA won the fight to keep them out of the public eye, citing possible damage to other lawsuits in progress.

fscking A!!

[VorlonFog]

It's about damned time. Now how and when can we get Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA to back off? They just killed the open-source FixVTS website, and gagged everyone involved. Just like they did with RipIt4Me a month ago. Way too much open-source innovation is being squashed, and it's a crime they're quashing any discussion of it, too.

Re:Finally!

[HeadachesAbound]

Ripped from an email in response to a fax that I sent concerning copyright issues / problems. It may be a form response, but who knows, maybe somebody is paying attention.

>>>>>>
Thank you for contacting me regarding copyright protection. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Copyright protection has been central to America's prosperity and job creation. Movies, books, computer software, television, photography and music are among our unique American products and some of our most successful exports. United States industries depending on copyright protection employ nearly 4 million workers and produce over $65 billion of our exports ( more than agriculture and automobile manufacturing.

Protecting content in a high-technology age is a new and daunting problem, and copyright protection is an important challenge as the broadband revolution offers even more far-reaching possibilities and opportunities. With new speed and interactivity, the entire store of movies, music, books, television and raw knowledge can be made widely available. I believe copyright protection is a foundation of innovation, and copyright law should work to ultimately protect the best interests of consumers. Intellectual property is the creative core of the information age, and I agree this is a pivotal issue for Congress to address.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison

**cough**

[way2trivial]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000008LOV/ sr=8-1/qid=1177445909/ref=olp_tab_new/103-2954490- 8100607?ie=UTF8&coliid=&qid=1177445909&sr=8-1&sell er=&colid=&condition=new [amazon.com]

Re:Finally!

[Himring]

Funny? If only it were a joke. To me, John Fogerty being made to go to court to prove he didn't sound like himself (comparing new recordings he did to old when changing labels) is one of the prime examples of the insanity that is the RIAA....

Re:Question

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They are presently confidential [blogspot.com].

But when the Court's final decision fixing the amount of fees is issued, the details will probably be in the decision.

And if the RIAA appeals, then the underlying papers will be filed as part of the appellate record, and it is highly unlikely that the appeals court would keep them confidential.

Re:Why don't "we the people"

[Mattintosh]

"Unions" are for laborers. Factory workers, service-job workers (bus drivers, retail clerks, etc.) should be in unions. (Or not, depending on how they feel on that issue.)

"Guilds" are for artists and creators. Engineers, actors, painters, musicians, and even computer programmers should be in guilds, not unions. (Again, "or not" applies here.)

Unions got a bad name from the corrupt officials in their organizations (past, present, and probably future). Guilds don't have that problem.

Re:fscking A!!

[Mattintosh]

Too bad they're thoroughly incompentent in everything they do.

FixVTS [afterdawn.com]

RipIt4Me [videohelp.com]

Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA are a little vaklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Re:Question

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

With each dilatory move the RIAA has made in Capitol v. Foster, it seems to be digging its grave just a little bit deeper.

I can't for the life of me fathom what they are doing other than enriching their lawyers. Plus they're ensuring that Ms. Foster's attorney will have a nice payday at the end of this, which will enable her to help many more RIAA victims.

They're turning a $55,000 attorneys fees award into a $150,000 award, and spending a lot of money to do it.

Plus they're ensuring that their fee arrangements -- which they don't want people like me to know about -- will become public.

Go figure.

I've been in the litigation field for 32 1/2 years, and I can't imagine what they are thinking.

But Capitol v. Foster has already given the rest of us a number of excellent judicial precedents, and it seems that more are on the way.

Re:Why don't "we the people"

[ffflala]

Ah, there IS a musician's union. It's been around for over a century: the American Federation of Musicians.

http://www.afm.org/public/home/index.php/ [afm.org]

Re:Why don't "we the people"

[shark72]

"Um...isn't that what the RIAA is technically supposed to be? Not that it actually represents the artists' interests."

No; not hardly. They represent the recording industry. From their "about" page (emphasis mine):

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

Musicians have their own alliances. Somebody's already pointed out the AFM; There are also the ASCAP [ascap.org] and BMI [bmi.com]; both are performance rights societies run by and for musicians.

Slashdotters often consider ASCAP and BMI to be just as evil as the RIAA, but I should point out that ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA are often at odds with each other, because they represent groups of people who are on the opposite ends of the business deals.

Re:Question

[ChronosWS]

IANAL, but I would think the judge would then cite the corporation for contempt, which probably gives the judge a fair bit of latitude to make things happen. Corporations could also have their business licenses revoked, income could probably be taken by the government, etc. Remember even though corporations are considered legal persons, they still exist because the government and legal system lets them.

Would be interesting to know what the full process is though.

Re:Question

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't think it would be very hard to collect a judgment against these companies....

Re:Sadly....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Probably more like ~25,000.... but of course only they know for sure.

It was *BROWN* M&M's - and here's why..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen [wikipedia.org] As one of the first major bands with a full stage show to appear in many smaller cities, Van Halen had an extensive set of technical and logistical requirements including power availability and stage construction details that a venue had to comply with. Many venues in these markets had not previously dealt with such a large-scale show, and were not equipped to handle Van Halen's massive stage and light show, sometimes resulting in damage to the band's equipment and the venue, once nearly killing a roadie setting up the instruments. The band's demands were not limited to technical issues: their now infamous contract rider specified that, among other personal needs, a bowl of M&M candies, with all of the brown ones removed, was to be available in the band's dressing room. According to David Lee Roth (from his autobiography, Crazy from the Heat), this was not due to an antipathy for brown chocolate candy, but rather was listed with the technical portion of the contract in order to check up on whether venue management and technical staff were correctly reading through, checking, and honoring the technical and safety provisions set in the contract. On arrival, if brown M&M's were found in the dressing room, then the band had reason to believe other parts of the contract were also not being fulfilled, and subsequently, every line of the contract was to be double-checked, to ensure safety prior to and during the show. Some shows were canceled because of a venue's inability to handle the band's stage or equipment safely.