RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back 203
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."
It's not about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why is this news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Let the punishment fit the crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Don't see much wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .
Re:It's not about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why is this news... (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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 :-)
Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (Score:5, Insightful)
A little OT, but I have to say it (Score:5, Insightful)
Thompson seemed to enjoy throwing around frivolous lawsuits as well.
It hadn't really hit me until I saw this sentence with the word 'seem' in the past tense.
Damn but that just looks beautiful. Thompson...seemed.
It just hadn't hit me until right now that he's history. Jeez, but I hope I live long enough to say the same about the RIAA. "The RIAA seemed to like to file frivolous lawsuits."
Ah, that's going to be great. Can't wait.
Why they're worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hail Mary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:The real reason they're doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.
Yes. That is the one consistent theme in their strategy.
Re:It's not about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
...those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.
Best.
Verb.
Ever.
Re:It's not about the money (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What we need is... (Score:3, Insightful)
... a standard sarcasm-calibration post. That way people can check their sarcasm detector is correctly aligned before moderating or commenting.
Re:It's not about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.