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."
I love this excerpt: (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
The real reason they're doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Worried about Precedents on Punishments? (Score:4, Interesting)
But they would have to admit that they are using corporate-punishments on non-corporate people.
Somehow, I think that is their worst fear.
Re:Don't see much wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why WOULD the artists get this money? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why they're worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's not about the money (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This is the end, beautiful friend? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Why is this news... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 party in the action but a proposed intervenor...) has told -part of the story-. The underlying expectation is that the other side or judge/jury will assemble the full story.
But if an attorney says "X" (but fails to say "and also Y", where Y is similarly relevant to the overall facts of the mater), does this constitute a breach of ethics? My empirical observation from both a small exposure to the law and larger exposure to politics is that there is presumably some point where, for example, the prosecution must disclose evidence that might help the defense. But must the prosecutor fully qualify his presentation by citing all parts of the facts? That's not my observation from the litigation that I've observed (and I've very carefully read the 1k pages of pleadings, evidence, statements, etc, and can specifically see where stuff was quoted out of context, etc, etc.)
And with respect to ethics, all I can think of is Al Gore's "No controlling legal authority..." quote, which I am sure is an accurate statement of legal ethics.
dave
Re:It's not about the money (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.