RIAA Trying To Avoid a Jury Trial 183
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.'"
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.
Plagiarism is bad, mmkay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely they've planned for this eventuality? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
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.
Re:Surely they've planned for this eventuality? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a mechanism to fight piracy, the policy was a reasonable one. However, instead of promoting law suit abuse, they should have been more careful about making sure the person they sued was really legitimate. It would have had the same effect, without becoming extortion.
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:the thing with jury trials is... (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 easier and better way to enact the law.
Re:Just for the record, I am too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the thing with jury trials is... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that was legal?
Re:Good story (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
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]
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.
Re:Good story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good story (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good story (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that they're "avoiding a jury trial", it's that they're limiting the scope of the trial to things that are actually disputed. If the defendant claimed that she hadn't actually downloaded the files then a jury trial would be appropriate to figure out if she did or not. But, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't really think that the copyrights are invalid--she'd just like the chance to get the jury to invent an excuse to not find her liable.
Unfortunately for her, to the extent that it's "recognized" at all, jury nullification is a criminal doctrine, not a civil one. If there is no question over the facts of a civil case (for example, we all agree that we had a contract for me to deliver you 100 widgets and I did not delivery any of them) then the court will use summary judgment to get rid of the uncontested issues (there, the existence of the contract and my breach of it). Sometimes that eliminates the need for a trial at all. I don't get to argue before a jury that it was a bad contract or that the other side is a bad person. It just doesn't work that way.