Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back 203

Posted by samzenpus
from the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA, unhappy with the Court's decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict over $23.76 worth of song files, and throwing out the legal theory on which it was based, has made a motion for permission to file an appeal from the Judge's order, in Capitol v. Thomas. Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back

Comments Filter:
  • by Bonker (243350) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @06:48PM (#25391621)

    It's NEVER been about the money. It's not about compensating the artists. (Ha!)

    This is 100% about trying to keep control of an entire industry in the hands of a very rich, very corrupt few.

    • by jskora (1319299) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:04PM (#25391867)
      This has been proven over and over so many times, eventually someone in the courts should notice. SCO finally fell, unfortunately the RIAA has bigger war chests.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jimicus (737525)

        This has been proven over and over so many times, eventually someone in the courts should notice. SCO finally fell, unfortunately the RIAA has bigger war chests.

        The entire legal system is set up on the assumption that everyone (with the possible exception of the defendant) is by and large fairly straight up.

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          The entire legal system is set up on the assumption that everyone (with the possible exception of the defendant) is by and large fairly straight up.

          Given that this has never been true, one of the foundations on which the legal system rests fairly well validates the legal system is completely broken. In the US you buy justice. Until that changes, the US legal system is completely broken.

      • by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Thursday October 16, 2008 @09:44AM (#25398909)

        SCO had a huge warchest too. What killed them is that their targets were also rich, organized and motivated. RIAA targets almost always lack at least two of these qualities.

    • by philspear (1142299) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:04PM (#25391869)

      Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:21PM (#25392101)

      The RIAA's claim that it's all about compensating the artists is indeed true.

      What they aren't saying is that it's all about compensating the con-artists. :)

    • >>>only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature

      I'm sure RIAA's lawyers are well aware of this.
      They should be disbarred the same way Jack Thompson was disbarred.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        FWIW, Jack Thompson actually went as far as violating restraining orders. I'm not sure this is up there yet.

        But, IANAL.

        • by SL Baur (19540) <steve@xemacs.org> on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @09:25PM (#25393271) Homepage Journal

          I'm not sure this is up there yet.

          They are definitely working on it. Read the deposition NYCL gave their "Expert" witness. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html [blogspot.com]

          It's long, but it's awesome. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but after reading that deposition and all the stuff about "MediaDefender" I wonder why the RIAA has gotten as far as it has. If I were a judge my reaction to an RIAA lawsuit landing in my court would be more along the lines of uncontrolled laughter than anything else. I suppose that's why I'm a programmer, not a lawyer.

          Their methods are unsound and sooner or later those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

          • by Samah (729132) on Thursday October 16, 2008 @02:03AM (#25395309)

            ...those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

            Best.
            Verb.
            Ever.

          • by LandruBek (792512) on Thursday October 16, 2008 @05:23AM (#25396719)

            Their methods are unsound . . .

            RAY BECKERMAN: Everything I saw told me that the RIAA has gone insane. The place was full of bodies: Napster, Limewire, young children, innocent grandmothers. If I was still alive, it was because they wanted me that way.

            RIAA: Where are you from, Beckerman?

            RB: New York, sir.

            RIAA: I worked in New York back in the old days; we pressed vinyl there. It was like heaven on earth then. Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedoms - from the opinions of others, even the opinions of your 'clients'? You say why..., Beckerman, why you wanted to terminate my control of the music industry? What did they tell you?

            RB: They told me that you had gone totally insane and that your methods were unsound.

            RIAA: Are my methods unsound?

            RB: I don't see any method at all, sir.

            RIAA: I never expected anyone like you. Are you a pirate?

            RB: I'm a lawyer.

            RIAA: You're neither. You're a monkey wrench, wrecking the beautiful engine of my protection racket.

            (brief court recess)

            RIAA: We are the hollow men / We are the stuffed men
            Leaning together / Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
            Our dried voices, when / We whisper together
            Are quiet and meaningless
            As wind in dry grass / Or rats' feet over broken glass
            In our dry cellar / Shape without form, shade without colour,
            Paralysed force, gesture without motion

            I've seen horrors . . . extortion that you've seen. But you have no right to call me musical. You have a right to depose me. You have a right to do that . . . But you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for music to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what extortion means. Extortion. Extortion has a face . . . And you must make a friend of extortion. Extortion and financial terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.

            RB: They were going to make me a Digg Hero for this and I wasn't subscribed to their fucking RSS feed any more. Everybody wanted me to do it, everybody except those on the take of course. I felt like they were sitting there, dreading for me to take the gravy train away. They just apparently wanted to go out like douchebags, like poor, wasted, rag-assed dinosaurs. Even the musicians wanted them dead, not that they really took their orders from musicians anyway.

            (The gavel falls.)

            RIAA: The Extortion! The Extortion!

            • Awesome, just awesome :)

              My own (pale by comparison) contribution...

              RB: Hear that? You hear that?
              /.: What?
              RB: Smackdown, son. Nothing in the world sounds like that.
              [kneels]
              RB: I love the sound of smackdown in the morning. You know, one time we had the RIAA smacked down by a judge, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up to the bar. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' hustler body. The sound, you know that silent sound, the whole court. Sounded like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            They are definitely working on it. Read the deposition NYCL gave their "Expert" witness. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html [blogspot.com] It's long, but it's awesome. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but after reading that deposition and all the stuff about "MediaDefender" I wonder why the RIAA has gotten as far as it has. If I were a judge my reaction to an RIAA lawsuit landing in my court would be more along the lines of uncontrolled laughter than anything else. I suppose that's why I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. Their methods are unsound and sooner or later those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

            Glad to see you reading that deposition. It's incredible to me, too, that they've gotten as far as they have. If I were a judge they'd be bounced from my courtroom so fast it would make your head spin.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          FWIW, Jack Thompson actually went as far as violating restraining orders. I'm not sure this is up there yet.

          Give them time.

  • by Darundal (891860) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @06:52PM (#25391665) Journal
    ...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.
    • by Shikaku (1129753) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @06:54PM (#25391717)

      It's still news because they have the gall to even apply for it. The judges are clearly not on their side, even if the government is.

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @06:59PM (#25391789) Journal

        They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

        • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:06PM (#25391911)

          They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

          Well, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise. But yeah ... the RIAA's brand of law is pretty much in the gutter.

          • by david.emery (127135) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:41PM (#25392333)

            ... Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise.

            I'm not convinced. I believe the current approach in legal training and education is that -anything- in support of the client's position is permissable. And frankly that approach is equally applicable in politics these days (not a surprise when the majority of politicians are lawyers.)

            On both sides of the case I've been involved with, I've seen the lawyers say outrageous things, because there's NO CONSEQUENCES for doing so.

            dave

            p.s. tell your mother I'm sorry :-)

            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:00PM (#25393927)

              With all due respect, what is your experience with "the current approach?" How many lawyers do you personally know?

              I ask because I'm a lawyer and while I do represent my client as zealously as I can, I am bound by ethical and personal standards that I cannot, and will not breach. And I feel 99% of the people I work with are the same.

              What actual experience do you have with "legal training and education" that prompted your theory?

            • by Aladrin (926209)

              No, I think it's a step further. It's not only permissible, but -required-. If they don't do everything they can for their client, they've failed them. The client will definitely think that, even if nobody else does, and the client pays the bills.

            • If I look what NYCL does I think your statement (actually, it is really a theory) is already disproved. And, FWIW, I actually know a few lawyers I could commend for their ethics. I also know a few (and some judges) in another country I would immediately help with an anvil if they were drowning so I'm sort of in the middle of this.

              Further, a lawyer does have a professional duty to help a client with the law. That does not mean they like it, because sometimes they have to continue doing so from professiona

            • by Zordak (123132)

              I believe the current approach in legal training and education is that -anything- in support of the client's position is permissable.

              Really? What law school did you attend where they taught you that? Oh, I see. You didn't attend law school. In fact, you don't know anything about the law. You're just trying to sound "insightful" to all the mods who are just as clueless as you are.

              In the law school I attended, we were taught that you are obligated to advocate zealously for your clients, meaning that if

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by david.emery (127135)

              OK, I know it's poor form to respond to yourself, but this is the best way to answer the questions/challenges from the subordinate comments.

              IANAL.

              But what I've seen is each side in the litigation I've observed, selectively pick facts that fit their position. The key word here is -selectively-. Just like political attack ads tell -part of the story-, the positions held by the bunches of lawyers pick-and-choose facts towards their position. Even the lawyer on 'my side' (not my lawyer, I'm not a direct part

          • by Fluffeh (1273756)
            Indeed. Some are all about the fathers instead.
        • by Shikaku (1129753) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:10PM (#25391959)

          HEY!

          My dad's a lawyer and my mom's dead..... Oh.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by snoggeramus (945056)
          Actually, lawyers are barred from having sex with their clients. It's regarded as double-billing.
        • by jedidiah (1196)

          They're lawyers. By definition, they only have as much gall as their clients have and are willing to pay for.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:01PM (#25391829)

        Not so much. You should see the sorts of motions that are filed on a daily basis. If their attorneys did not file for such appeal, its not only bad strategy but missing such opportunities is the foundation of malpractice. That being said, the appellate courts have a rule (FRAP 37) that grants the courts power to sanction attorneys for frivolous appeals. Up to the point of FRAP 37 sanctions, it is normal to file as many motions as one has time to in major cases.

        Further - exhaustive motion practice is a legitimate strategy where Repeat Players (RIAA is regularly involved in litigation, and needs to be careful to "control" precedent) are up against One-Shot players (individuals who will only be involved in this sort of litigation once). The Repeat Player has extra incentive to invest in the litigation, and may overwhelm the incentive the One-Shot player has. It is for this reason that sanctions exist - courts may order attorney's fees awarded to a winning party where the losing party's conduct was vexatious or in bad faith.

        by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

    • Hey, it's not news either when Steve-o gets angry, and yet we love the chair-related posts :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Because NYCL submitted it.

    • ...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

      Unfortunately the RIAA [plexipages.com] do set forth a cognizable rationale for a new trial. It may be that a judge who has set aside a jury verdict won't want to take the rap for a wasteful second trial stemming from that decision, and will let the Appeals Court rule. Now, I'm not predicting the Appeals Court is going to reverse his setting the verdict aside, but we may very well see them taking up the issue.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      ...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

      ...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

      No. Every single filthy step in their tactics has to be exposed for what it is.

      Outfits like the RIAA have gotten away with their legal bullying for this long because there is so little public understanding of what it is they are actually doing. Using the expense and asymmetry of the legal system in the hope that their victims can't afford to protect themselves is only one example of

  • by Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @06:57PM (#25391765)
    What lawyer, where, thinks its a good idea to sue some lady for $222,000 for $23 worth of illegal filesharing? Its bad enough the RIAA tried it in the first place, but the court shot them down, and they're still at it? You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.
    • The lawyer being paid by their client to perform the service requested. For the right pay a lawyer will beat your ailing grandfather with a nine-iron until he vomits up his own spleen.

    • by Godji (957148) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:45PM (#25392371) Homepage
      It's not about the money. It's about the precedent and the fear.
    • by Hatta (162192)

      Those are well within the statutory damages. And it's only going to get worse with the just passed PRO-IP act. I predict we'll be seeing plenty of horribly unjust judgments become a matter of course as the war on copyright infringers picks up speed.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @08:52PM (#25393007)

      You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

      See, you just answered your own question.

      This particular batch of attorneys only came preloaded with a fifth of one standard conscience at the factory (50% is the normal setting.) Basically, if you're buying them in quantity, they come a lot cheaper that way: consciences are expensive items, after all. In practice, it's been found that if you install more conscience than that, they start exhibiting undesirable characteristics such as "honesty" and "business ethic". Not a good thing, if you're a soulless, money-grubbing oligopoly. If you don't buy any conscience at all ... well, really really bad things happen.

      Most people don't know this, but some time ago a group of attorneys was ordered for special-purpose use in Congressional and major banking applications. Unfortunately, while the order specified a 75% conscience load, they were accidentally shipped without any. Company personnel colloquially refer to these jobs as the "Manson line" because they have all the personality traits of a typical advanced sociopath. Corporate hatchetmen are frequently M-series, for example.

      If anyone was wondering what caused the recent worldwide financial crisis ... well, now you know. It was a simple clerical error, really.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dirk (87083)

      I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to

      • There was no evidence of anyone having 'distributed' files to anyone. If that's what the case was about then there should have been a directed verdict for the defendant. Maybe there will be at the second trial, since the judge now has the law right.
      • by dwpro (520418)

        You're right about license to distribute, but I think you're wrong about the cost having no bearing on the case. Other factors (such as cost) should come in to play because they don't have any metrics on the amount of distribution that occurred and the distributions that probably did occur were not for profit. Moreover, there is a fixed amount of distribution that could occur in most instances due to the limitation of upload bandwidth, uptime, etc. The penalty for this type of distribution being in the h

      • How could the cost to distribute the CDs exceed the cost of the CDs? If that were the case, I would just go to WalMart and buy the CDs and distribute them...
  • I love this excerpt: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:00PM (#25391815)

    The parties agree that the only evidence of actual dissemination of
    copyrighted works was that Plaintiffs' agent, MediaSentry, copied songs.
    Plaintiffs argue that even if distribution requires an actual transfer, the trial
    evidence established transfers of copyrighted works to MediaSentry. Thomas
    retorts that dissemination to an investigator acting as an agent for the copyright
    owner cannot constitute infringement.

    "It is well–established that the lawful owner of a copyright cannot infringe
    its own copyright."

  • Hail Mary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:01PM (#25391821)
    Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings.

    Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them.

    Boggle.

    And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TechForensics (944258)
      If plaintiffs [plexipages.com] were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by overshoot (39700)

        If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

        Except that the current trial is scheduled for a jury, at which point it can all go to appeal together. Since the first jury trial (that the RIAA wants to stand) is already done, all that the appellate court would have to do after both are done is choose :-) It's called judicial efficiency, a

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings. Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them. Boggle. And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

      . We have a word for it where I come from.

      Chutzpah.

      • by pheede (37918)

        Honestly I thought their motion on this point was rather well written. I certainly disagree with pretty much everything they say and do, but in this case isn't their point simply: we're going to appeal the order granting a second trial if there's a second trial and we lose it; instead of going through all that work, let us already now appeal the point of law that might make the whole thing moot anyway.

        If anything, isn't it a good thing for us to get an appeals level ruling on this point of law? They appeal

        • If anything, isn't it a good thing for us to get an appeals level ruling on this point of law?

          Sure but I don't think the Court will share your high regard for the RIAA's motion papers. The motion flies in the face of everything we know about federal appellate practice.

  • by cfulmer (3166) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:02PM (#25391855) Homepage Journal

    I agree that it would be unusual for the appeal to be granted. But, it does make some sense -- if, on retrial, Thomas wins with the new instruction, then the RIAA will appeal to the 8th circuit on the jury instruction. And, if the 8th circuit agrees with the "Making Available" theory, then the case would go back to the district court where a new jury would have to, again, decide if she made the works available. (Once the second trial has started, I don't think you can go back to the outcome of the first.)

    How many juries do we need?

    • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @08:40PM (#25392905)

      How many juries do we need?

      If you can afford them, keep running through juries till you get one that gives you the answer you want.

      • by RobBebop (947356)

        If you can afford them, keep running through juries till you get one that gives you the answer you want.

        Juries are cheap. Judges are expensive. Unless they start buying the juries... in which case they will have gone far beyond the world of suing grandmothers and people who don't own computers.

  • Fear (Score:2, Insightful)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) *
    They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.

    --
    Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .
    • They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.

      I doubt it's even that. These guys are just paid to do a job, and they don't much care how they do it.

    • why is there no mod option for "-1 Thanks Captain Obvious!"
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:03PM (#25391863) Homepage

    This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.

    A successful motion response to a similarly silly motion (at least in the State of New Hampshire), was the following letter:
    Honorable Justice ____:

    Plaintiff has got to be kidding.

    Respectfully submitted,
    ________ ________, Esq

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @07:11PM (#25391967)

    They want them back.

  • by TheModelEskimo (968202) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @08:35PM (#25392855)
    If the monopolists let this stuff continue, they begin to lose their monopoly, too. A loss for the RIAA here will push music and other media (likely movies) back into the hands of the competitive market. Then you'd see the industry start to equalize, with less-common artists making more money, and famous artists making less. Mostly, though, the monopolists wouldn't make as much money anymore, and that's what counts.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SirCowMan (1309199)
      This weeks 'Economist' has a little tidbit saying that they may have recognized they won't be able to sell music to consumers anymore; instead, the recording industry is planning on bundling unlimited music "free" with thirdparty products, for say a year. The cost will thus be built into consumer electronics. The foundation may be crumbling, but we're not looking at the monopoly state failing yet, desperate as they seem.
      • The real tragedy is that they have a product that is of immense value, but they don't seem to realise it. What is this product? New music. There are more books in the public domain on Project Gutenberg than I could read in a lifetime, and yet last week I bought four books published in the last twenty years. Why? Because in entertainment, more than anything else, fashions and tastes change. Were the Beatles talented? What about Mahler? Mozart? Bach? Some people still enjoy all of these, but as time
  • by arthurh3535 (447288) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @08:37PM (#25392869)
    That's the only thing that I can see them really being worried about. Of course, if word got out that they would only charge you 2X or 4X the "real" worth of the purloined materials for non-business transgressions, their whole new business model probably implodes.

    But they would have to admit that they are using corporate-punishments on non-corporate people.

    Somehow, I think that is their worst fear.
  • by HomerJ (11142) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @08:52PM (#25393009)

    Ok, I need an explanation. The artists signed a contract to the label to produce a record. The label holds the copyright to the material and the artist is paid for this. Then the record is promoted, and either sells or it doesn't.

    If there's a suit for copyright infringement and there's money awarded, why WOULD the artist get any of it? It's the label's copyright that's been infringed. Any damages SHOULD go to them. If I'm hired to write some program for Adobe, it's pirated, and Adobe sues someone--why would I see any money? It's not my program. I wrote it, but it belongs to Adobe. Any lost income is theirs not mine.

    It can be argued that these record contracts are pretty lopsided and go against the artist. But they are the ones that signed it. Just because they are in a bad contract doesn't mean they should get money from these suits which are for copyrights they aren't the holders to.

    • by FSWKU (551325) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @09:08PM (#25393151)
      That would be because the RIAA have been shouting from the mountaintops since the dawn of time that it's all about the artist. They want to stop filesharing because, according to them, it directly takes money away from the artists in the form of lost sales. Every single anti-P2P campaign you see from them is preaching the same thing. "Please don't hurt the poor artists."

      But in reality, they're just trying to line their own coffers. When someone settles for some outrageous fee, not a damned cent of that goes to "making the artist whole" or making up for their lost sales. Nope, it goes directly into either the lawyer's wallets or the legal war-chest. The artist continues to get screwed to the tune of pennies per album sold, and tough shit about those lost sales killing your already paltry (unless you're Metallica or some other hyper-famous act) royalty payments.
      • "Please don't hurt the poor artists."
        because Metallica need a new gold-encrusted jet, and if it weren't for all you Pirates they wouldn't have to release 2 half baked albums, they could have quit while they were ahead. Bad, bad, bad, naughty, horrible Pirates.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by notamisfit (995619)

      Actually, the artist usually keeps the copyrights, or transfers them to a publishing company (generally wholly owned by the artist/artists, after what happened with Lennon/McCartney and the whole Northern Songs clusterfuck).

  • by CSMatt (1175471) on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @10:36PM (#25393769)

    The joke goes: "The RIAA called. They want their $222,000 verdict back."

  • IANAL. I'm using common sense here, which may be the wrong tool for the job, but reading the request to appeal, it makes sense to me UNLESS granting it means that the RIAA can appeal this decision twice.

    What the RIAA is saying is that it is a question of law that canceled the the previous trial (whether merely making available constitutes copyright violation), and the result of this appeal may result in significant cost savings (if it turns out it is, then no error in the jury instructions, and therefor no

    • It's quite hard for RIAA be denied an appeal on a final judgement, so they are probably asking for an extra appeal here.

      IANAL and I am not from the USA. But that is a quite universal feature of legal systems.

    • IANAL. I'm using common sense here, which may be the wrong tool for the job, but reading the request to appeal, it makes sense to me.....

      There is no "common sense" whatsoever in the motion. The entire appeal might be obviated by a trial. Federal appeals practice tries to eliminate unnecessary appeals.

      They're only doing this because they know Jammie has no money for this stuff, and her lawyer wants to get off the case.

  • "Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."

    The RIAA is of course, expecting special treatment in this case too. (Oh cmon, do you really think that any other organization would be able to pull this whole 5/10-year running lawsuit crap? Of course they have gotten special treatment.)

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...