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.'"
Re:About time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your Honor (Score:5, Interesting)
sigh... Gamesmanship at its most disgusting...
I'm curious - can the judge deny their voluntary dismissal and still hand down judgment?
All of my MP3s... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see, reasonably-price music whose price depends upon the bit rate chosen. I can't wait to get home and send more money to the Russian mafia!
Re:About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what necessitates the "making available theory"
The you can't fire me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:About time. (Score:3, Interesting)
Be afraid, be very afraid (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally think it has something to do with the nature of P2P. In the old days if you shared music, the person would download it directly from you. Now you're only sharing bits and pieces of songs,not entire songs, spread out among many different people.
Of course the RIAA could attempt to make the argument that that sharing one even one bit of a song constitutes infringement. However, when one and zeros themselves become illegal, we're all in trouble!
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a lawyer -- of course -- but it seems to me that threatening a ton of people with lawsuits in order to achieve a settlement and then never following through when the settlement is rejected would be just a bit too obvious, even for organizations like these. I doubt most courts look favorably on that sort of bluff, even ignoring the fact that only a credible threat of being sued would induce people to settle in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:About time. (Score:4, Interesting)
...which could leave an interesting loophole...
If you require all music downloaders at your site, before downloading, to check a box that states "I hereby state that I am a MediaSentry/RIAA employee/contractor, and assume responsibility for affirming as such", could that get you off the hook?
Re:About time. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that the RIAA just wants to settle; nonetheless, they must take, at least, some of the people who choose not to settle to court. Also, a very practical reason would be that no one would settle because there would be no fear of more costly retribution.
Re:It will be of interest (Score:5, Interesting)
And the answer is, she hasn't decided yet.
She clearly has a winnable attorneys fee motion ahead, if she decides to make one, with a lot of good recent precedent behind it, such as Rivera v. Jones [blogspot.com], Mostly Memories v. For Your Ease [blogspot.com], Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com], Atlantic v. Andersen [blogspot.com], and Bridgeport Music v. WB Music [blogspot.com].
Re:Interesting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
-make money on the settlements
-lose money on the default judgments, and
-lose a lot of money on contested cases. Overall I think they're losing money now, but the settlements are the money-making part of it. They get almost no revenue from anything else.
Re:You can't sue someone & withdraw forever! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About time. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Re:About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Contrary to popular opinion, the legality of ripping files is not a given. I don't have the text in front of me, but I recall the legality being hinged on judicial interpretation of several seemingly obvious, but legally fuzzy terms (such as "home audio recording device," and whether or not said term includes computers).
I'm aware of the questions there, but I'm going with MGM v. Grokster. Plaintif's oral arguments included an explicit admission of the legality of ripping a purchased CD to one's hard drive, and copying it to a media device (two separate acts, in my view). While of course a statement made in oral arguments is not a legal opinion or ruling, I think it not unreasonable to assume permission.
Still questionably legal. This is the (untested as far as I know) act that the RIAA is trying to get labeled as inducement or contributory infringement. The idea is that, but for Charlie making it available for Denise to download, no infringement could have occurred.
Rejected by 9th Circuit in Atlantic v. Brennan and others, though I don't know if any of them qualify as an actual ruling of law. Nor do I know if it is a binding precedent.
Nope, they both have. Charlie and Denise have both infringed the reproduction and distribution rights of both the song writer and the recording artist. The RIAA has been choosing to sue only those who are making the tracks available (probably either because they think it's the cheapest way to get their message across, or because they haven't figured out a way to nail the downloaders without stirring up entrapment charges), but could go after both.
Hmmm ... I can't find what specific law or provision that would actually violate--if you have a citation, I'd love to see it--but it certainly makes sense the way you explain it.
Re:Interesting.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'll have to read that information... (Score:3, Interesting)
i didn't find any flaws in your presentation
Re:Interesting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
So it has been a short term financial boon for some lawyers who (a) are not very particular about the kind of work they accept, and (b) won't have that work for much longer.
And it's been a disaster for the record company shareholders, and a disaster for the victims of the suits, and it's been a hardship -- albeit one assumed voluntarily -- for folks like me who decided to step into this mess to try to stop these bullies.