RIAA Throws In Towel On "Making Available" Case 252
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has thrown in the towel on one of the leading cases challenging its 'making available' theory, Warner v. Cassin, in which the defendant had moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint. We have just learned that the RIAA submitted a voluntary notice of dismissal before the judge got to decide the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It will be of interest to see if Ms. Cassin pursues a claim for attorneys' fees in view of recent court rulings that successful copyright defendants are presumptively entitled to an attorneys fee award, even if the dismissal came about from the plaintiffs' having 'thrown in the towel.'"
Interesting.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me further evidence that they are systematically abusing the legal system with sham lawsuits. If they actually cared about this individual case wouldn't they want to see it through?
About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news - Bad news (Score:1, Insightful)
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/0213244/ [slashdot.org]
Re:About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be). Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal). Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
RIAA Must Pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, why take it to court at all? The threat of lawsuit is only a credible threat if it is backed by a willingness to actually battle it out. Every case they give up on is further weakening their cause, both by showing people that they can fight and win and by creating animosity among judges who feel like their courtroom is being abused. In the long term, they would be much better off not taking any case to court unless they are certain they can win it....
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not illegal copies (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't ask for the royalties because they can't, the APA would have to get the money. Even if RIAA can, they don't want to because that blows their lie that the music is unlicensed.
This does not stop the music from being licensed and copying music with a license (as AllOfMP3 has, and, as "making available" is the bad part, this is licensed making available) is not illegal.
Re:Isn't copyright infringement when a COPY is mad (Score:3, Insightful)
software is often installed without the knowledge or full
understanding of the end user. The computer is capable of
doing all manner of things on it's own. It is often not
at all clear that the owner of the machine is in control
of it.
Many if not most end users are barely able to use these
machines and have no hope of fully understanding what
the computer is doing or the full implications thereof.
You can't sue someone & withdraw forever! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what you mean about someone "suddenly" no longer being a criminal, but one thing in civil law is that you can't keep suing someone, then drop the case. If you withdraw, you can bring the same case ONCE more. If you drop the same case twice, that's it. You don't get to keep suing them and dropping the case.
The RIAA works by suing first to get your identity from your ISP. They may or may not have the correct person, but they don't really care. You're not a part of this case, because you probably don't even find out that there WAS a case until it's over. Then they send you to their own "settlement center" unless you refuse and go to court.
But yeah, these aren't criminal lawsuits, they're civil (the RIAA can't bring a criminal lawsuit to begin with). So double jeopardy and all that doesn't apply, but civil rules about withdrawing from cases and such DO apply. Read the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) if you want more information.
But please note, IANAL. Get one before engaging or deciding to engage in any litigation, because I can't give you legal advice! And if NYCL comes in to correct me, listen to him. I had exactly one law class and it didn't cover this. Given how sharp the MAFIAA's practice is, I don't doubt that they will at least try to find loopholes in my line of reasoning.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property [eff.org]
Re:Be afraid, be very afraid (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't display a sculpture you bought!? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait. So, if I buy a sculpture from the artist, I can't put it out in public without permission!?
Copyright law is even more screwball than I thought.
Re:About time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just watch how the PRO-IP Act ends up being self decapitation for the big content industry. We will elect some such "rogue" DA in a city(-ies) to be named at a future time. Fuck wasting time and money lobbying Congress. There's big fortune, fame, and political power to be had from taking down the music industry. Eliot Spitzer's career as New York City DA paved the way. The internet operates in every jurisdiction. "Hello, my name is DA Inigo Montoya. You sued my father. Prepare to be bankrupted."
Re:You can't display a sculpture you bought!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Add to that, they expect to be able to out-lawyer those they sue (gaining a win) or win by default judgement (the previous norm).
Sadly, they seem yet to have realized that such a scenario isnt working anymore as more people are actually fighting them, and more lawyers are willing to step up to defend them.
Backing out to save own hides (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember how the EFF and the NSL case got pulled before the court could make a "case law definitive" ruling on the matter? Thanks to withdrawal of complaint, the legality of the NSL itself was never actually challenged in court, sparing the federal government a most likely embarrasing defeat in the form of legal precedent.
I see parallels here...maybe the RIAA is scared the judge will hand their ass back to them after sharing it with the uptillion other judges who would use such a precedent to smack the RIAA in other cases.
This is hardly throwing in the towel...things are going south and the RIAA is just pulling the plug themselves before it gets its ass kicked even harder from the judge pulling it for them.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)