RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch 411
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to disbar all the RIAA lawyers.
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Estoppel (Score:5, Insightful)
disbarment needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Fines to recover the courts cost for all actions are needed on top of disbarment of the RIAA's lawyers. The message "Don't Game the System" needs to be sent.
These are the people you buy media from... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, these RIAA lawyers should face some form of penalty or review before an ethics board. Will they? Probably not. But they should.
Why is the RIAA immune from... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that what they did here was clearly an action in contempt of court, since they ostensibly refiled the same case, hoping to get a free "reset" button with a new judge.
This is one of the real illustrative reasons why we need a "loser pays" system in the courts (where the initiating party would be liable for all legal and court expenses if they lose), since it would discourage megacartels like the MAFIAA from using their financial advantage to manipulate the legal system.
What the defendants should do is immediately file a contempt motion in the original court.
Re:Dirty Pool (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers represent thier client, but they are first and foremost Officers of the Court. Their first duty is to the court, and then to their client.
Two words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Andy
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure, "Forgotten", right (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanctions Are In Order At A Minimum..!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NYCL FTW! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this defendant has fought and won. The RIAA needs to send a clear message to everyone else: even winning against us comes at too high a cost. That's all this is about now, and hopefully the courts will send a message to the RIAA: the legal system isn't here to use as your personal club to beat people you don't like with.
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my god. Since lawyers and vampires are bloodsuckers, could that mean that NYCL... is... Blade?
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, he pushes the news to us because we're Slashdot and we're interested, and because we can give him insights with regard to the technological issues that he couldn't get anywhere else. It's not like he's pushing updates to the New York Times or ABC news (at least, I don't think he is...).
Re:NYCL FTW! (Score:5, Insightful)
So for all those who haven't, or forgotten to say it, THANK YOU NYCL.
NYCL, god bless you (Score:4, Insightful)
Disbarrment, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal tactics like this just waste taxpayer money (after all, the courts are taxpayer funded), and drive up the legal costs of the parties that are trying to defend against their claims.
Re:These are the people you buy media from... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain thi (Score:1, Insightful)
Might not be a good example, considering he got one of the most severe disbarments ever handed down by the Florida Bar. Most people hadn't even heard of "enhanced disbarment" til JT. The wheels of justice grind slowly but finely.
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
This letter should go as well to the bar associations to which these lawyers belong. This is a serious breach of ethics. (Yes, lawyers do in fact have a code of ethics; they are officers of the court first and foremost and their duty to their client comes second.)
Re:How can they get away with this (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when choosing which side to take, you obviously go with the RIAA, over the lawyer defending the Cassin family.
While their are many aspects to IP, illegal file sharing, copyrights, etc., you choose to side with the group that sends out blanket lawsuits in an attempt to do as much money-grabbing as easily as possible. This is the same group that has sued homeless people, elderly people, DEAD people, and people without computers. Based on what, they have to be right EVENTUALLY?
So many people hate these lawyers and the RIAA not just because they'd really like to download music for free (even though iTunes now sells more music than WalMart), but because they are extremely underhanded, conniving and despicable, even for lawyers. Even other lawyers can't stand them, and that says a lot.
Their MO is "find people to sue, threaten much, try to extract money, drop the case if they want to fight or it will be too hard, and don't worry about whether they did it or not, hopefully they'll just pay some money to make us go away."
Then every now and then, to show they are serious and that they can fight, push hard to win regardless of the facts so more people will be afraid.
This is not acceptable behavior in a free country. Personally, I don't know the Cassin family, and I know nothing about the evidence against them or whether they're guilty or not, but given the RIAA's tactics and prior behavior, I want the RIAA to lose, badly, expensively and repeatedly until these types of actions are no longer allowed in civilized society.
In a courtroom, your actions and your reputation as a lawyer follow you in every case you argue. These lawyers are scum and have proved it many times, they should be treated as such.
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing one nuance of this case, and several related ones: "win" doesn't mean the defendant just prevailed. In this case, it means the defendant gets awarded costs. That's a big deal. Really big. One reason defendants don't fight is that typically even if they win they'll have to bear the costs of their own defense. No lawyer's going to take a case on contingency if there's no possibility of recovery at the end, and few defendants can afford to pay a good defense attorney cash on the barrelhead. Awarding costs changes that. Now there is money in it for the attorney if they prevail, which means more attorneys will be willing to take cases on a contingency basis. That means more defendants fighting back and not settling immediately, which means more work and more costs for the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't want to win cases, they want to get settlements without having to fight at all. That, as much as the possibility of setting a bad precedent, is why the RIAA has tried to drop cases when the defendant puts up a determined defense. And cases like this are rapidly making that impossible.
Re:i want to kill myself (Score:5, Insightful)
First, don't put all your eggs in one basket. NYCL may or may not be a musician, so he may or may not have the ability to "build a viable alternative." However, he is a lawyer, so legal action is something he is capable of (and therefore is actively) doing. If you really want something better, let everyone interested do what they do best. Don't just pin your hopes on one method of attack and pray it works.
Second, how do you know the enemies of the RIAA aren't trying to build a viable alternative? Ever been to MySpace (gag) or Soundclick or any of a number of other indie artist web sites? There are quite a few indie musicians trying to produce music without working within the existing power structure; I'm one of them, as is my brother and several of my best friends.
Third, the RIAA lawyers aren't "just trying to win cases for their client." If all they were doing is taking reasonable steps to protect the IP of their client, I wouldn't have any problems with them. As unpopular as it may be on
Fourth, and finally, while NYCL may be building a cult of personality here on
Re:NYCL FTW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Use the damn library!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Use the public library as your media collection. There are over 16,000 libraries and branches in the USA, I'm sure one is near you.
Go there, BORROW what you want and return it when you are done. If they do not have what you want, buy one and donate to the library for others.
Published works are important to society, but the copyright cartels MUST be killed. Buying fewer and sharing more is the only way.
Re:i want to kill myself (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the real reason the RIAA gets as much traction as they do. No matter how egregious the RIAA's legal moves are, you and many others feel that, yes, artists do have a right to make a profit off their hard work. Well, of course they do. You think we're arguing that. We're not. You and most of the public have been bedazzled into assuming, without even noticing that the whole concept needs a bit more critical thinking, that there can't possibly be any other way to profit. Flawed though copyright is, nothing else seems as good. And therefore that while the RIAA's methods are objectionable, their hearts are in the right place.
Sooner or later, probably as late as possible, entertainers are going to have to face up to the fact that copyright is broken. You think copying is easy now? People thought the cassette tape, the VCR, and a little later the Xerox copier would be the death of the entertainment industry. Today copying is far easier, it can be done without any messy paper or tape and their propensity to jam, tear, and mangle. In the future copying will be easier yet. It may well be mostly automatic. Today you at least have to push a few buttons to initiate copying, and wait a little for what passes for broadband in some countries. And even with the enormous expansion in storage space in recent times, you can still run out of room all too easily. When the entire output MPAA and RIAA members, decades of material, can be stuffed onto a fingernail sized crystal, with room to spare, and the whole thing can be transmitted anywhere in the world in under 1 minute, then what? Why bother picking and choosing among torrents, just download the entire library of mankind, then pick over it at your leisure. With tech like that, copyright is going to make about as much sense as having to obtain the rights to breathe air-- for each individual atom.