RIAA Gives Up In Atlantic Recording v. Brennan 230
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic Recording v. Brennan, the landmark Connecticut case in which the first decision rejecting the RIAA's 'making available' theory was handed down, the RIAA has finally thrown in the towel and dismissed its own case. Mr. Brennan never appeared in the case at all. In February, 2008, the RIAA's motion for a default judgment was rejected for a number of reasons, including the Court's ruling (PDF) that there is no claim for 'making available for distribution' under the US Copyright Act. The RIAA moved for reconsideration; that motion was denied. Then, in December, the RIAA's second motion for default judgment was rejected. Finally the RIAA filed a 'notice of dismissal' ending the case."
Not the end by a longshot (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that anyone should really be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who paid attention and had even a hobbyist's legal training could see that the goal of the RIAA lawsuit in question was primarily intimidation.
Transmitting copyright material without authorization (or without a solid fair use claim) is illegal, and I don't begrudge copyright-holders their ability to do so. But simply advertising that you might have some information someone might want? This gets far into the realm of Orwellian and rightly doesn't have any legal teeth.
My bet is that the RIAA is quietly formulating ideas about how to push for legislation that will allow them to draw and quarter... *ahem* litigate against individuals who imply that they might have some copyright content available. Hopefully those of us who get the silliness can educate Congress and keep that from happening.
The system does, kinda-sorta, work. ;-)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo.. will it cost the RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I said this is *close* to breaking the promise nit that he did break the promise. Since about 2001 this guy has been on speed dial for a lobby group. I am unable to find anything he has done outside of the Recording industry for the past seven years. This, to me, is straining the spirit of that promise.. The guy decided to make his bones throwing for one industry while in public life (2001-2008) and lawyer or not that says something about his relationship to lobbyist..
Can we now get $120,000 per dismissed lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that anyone should really be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
And the damage is done (Score:4, Insightful)
Being accused amounts to a punishment as it requires a HUGE expenditure to defend yourself.
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge Roy Bean would say the thief 'gave back your stuff' as it fell from his hands shortly after his heart stopped working.
Isn't there some room for a counter suit based on harassment of a frivolous litigation? Trained and experienced lawyers 'should' know better than to initiate frivolous litigation. Isn't that an act that can be penalized? [cbsnews.com]
I certainly hope that there is a punishment dished out to the RIAA legal team. It might put a lot of this to rest quickly, and subdue any plans to have ISPs start bollocking their own customers.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:1, Insightful)
Hey remember when these guys used to SELL MUSIC?
Not really. I'm only 23 :(
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just you. The RIAA hasn't realized anything of the nature, whether true or not. What the RIAA has> realized is that the lawsuits are ineffective (duh, big surprise, dumbasses) and that there are less costly and probably more effective ways of dealing with copyright infringement, such as pushing the responsibility over to the ISPs.
As I've said before, I think the RIAA has discovered a way to either force or at least entice ISPs to do their bidding.
I'm not in the loop on this, but here's the entirety of what I think
1) P2P has, most recently and very publicly, become a headache for high speed Internet providers. P2P traffic taxes their infrastructure, so they make moves to block or at least limit it, including everything from additional charges through routing changes, to downright packet manipulation.
2) RIAA has a different reason for disliking P2P. But they see that the ISPs have a common enemy here: P2P.
3) The only remaining question is -- where to go from here? P2P is prevalent enough and has enough legitimate uses that the ISPs don't want to outright cancel customers, but they also don't want customers taxing their infrastructure to the max.
How do RIAA and the ISPs team up in this regard? It's a good question. I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of network neutrality.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm amused.
Don't get me wrong- I'm still idealistic enough to *hope* that Obama is everything he said he was going to be. But I'm amused that there are people who *expect* him to be.
History lesson- GWB (the first time) ran as a centrist with a proven ability to bring Dems and Repubs together.
The Clinton Gestalt ran as a centrist who would bring the two sides together.
Both were card-carrying extremists with no real agenda other than bashing up members of the opposite tribe.
Bit of a corollary to Barnum's famous saying. You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time. You just have to fool enough to take the Electoral College.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey remember when these guys used to SELL MUSIC?
They never sold music, they sold records. The music was just a reason to get you to buy a black piece of plastic with grooves, or a silver piece of plastic with rainbows. If they were selling music to you, you would own the music and it would be yours to do with as you wished. As it was, you could do anything you wished with the plastic disk, but not the music it contained.
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Now the majors are trying to rent music and call it a sale. All they are selling is a service, a download of bits. Whether or not there is DRM you have no rights to the music you "buy" from them. You are paying only for the download. IMO sixty nine cents for a download of bits you have no rights to is insane.
The indies are far more honest and reasonable; they give the music away on websites and via P2P, using the music itself as a reason for you to buy other things (CDs, t-shirts, etc).
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not that anyone should really be surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's also illegal in the U.S. for a lawyer to refuse a case based on their personal opinions one way or the other. Just because a lawyer made a case in court doesn't mean they actually believe their own rhetoric. Lobbyists, now that's another story.
Re:Make this avalible (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong. Some of us are unhealthily underweight. In fact the skinny nerd with the thick glasses is the stereotype. And some of us do get laid [NSFW] [slashdot.org]
And it isn't true about us all being Linux zealots. There are Mac zealots here too!
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:3, Insightful)
anyone who professes to hate the RIAA should be sure to buy music from indie performers
Well, other than saying they sell music (like I said, you don't won the music you "buy", only the medium or the act of downloading) I agree completely. Plus, the indies have the advantages of usually being less expensive, and the music on the media or the download you buy is usually higher quality (I'm referring to the quality of the music, not the quality of the recording, which is also often superior). RIAA fare is produced and recorded only for the money; it is a commercial item only, like a black velvet painting of Elvis or dogs playing poker. Indie fare is often (perhaps usually) art for art's sake where the artist cares more about the art than whether or not it sells.
Re:And there was a cheer throughout the land... (Score:5, Insightful)
So to play Devil's Advocate, if you know that you've got a loser (either because new evidence comes to light or just by the way that the trial is moving), you think that they should continue to waste taxpayer money in order to avoid a fine rather than cutting their (and the taxpayer) losses and dismissing the case?
Re:How can I fileshare and not get sued? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is a politician.
Politicians lie.
QED Obama lies. I don't know why this comes as such a shock to you, but I know how you feel. I was duped by Clinton in 1992. Hopefully you've now learned, as I learned, not to trust either side of the Demo-Ruplicrat Duopoly. They lie to got votes, just the same as you and I would lie on our resume to get a job. "They are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps." - Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P has, most recently and very publicly, become a headache for high speed Internet providers. P2P traffic taxes their infrastructure, so they make moves to block or at least limit it, including everything from additional charges through routing changes, to downright packet manipulation.
Yeah, P2P has become a headache for ISPs but how much of that headache is caused on music vs video? I could download/upload 60 mp3s and probably not have the same impact on my ISP as the neighbor downloading last nights American Idol......
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>also illegal in the U.S. for a lawyer to refuse a case based on their personal opinions one way or the other.
I doubt that. Matlock and Perry Mason refused cases all the time. ;-) But seriously, if I was a lawyer I would refuse to do any case I felt was unethical, same as I would refuse as an engineer to develop a biological weapon that indiscriminately targets children. There's a Law higher than Congressional law.
Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me a default judgment. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor, so having a trial is a waste of time.
No, really, give me a default judgment. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor, so having a trial is a waste of time.
Oh, we're going to have a trial? Well, then I have no chance. I give up.
Elections have consequences, they will get a law (Score:3, Insightful)
The entertainment industry was an extremely enthusiastic and early backer of Barack Obama. When he needed large masses of money to make abandoning the finance system smart, they were ponying up millions for him, in a single night, so he didn't have to do multiple big fundraisers. The Democratic Party has been a heavy recipient of financial support from them. Unions supplied the GOTV manpower for the party, even if Senator Obama built his own network as well, and the entertainment industry, trial lawyers, and other big money components like Wall Street (Wall Street has been 2:1 Democrat since the Party and Street realized under Clinton that a careful tax and regulation policy can snuff out competition, raising stock prices, even if you have to pay more in taxes).
There are many positive aspects to Sen. Obama's election and becoming President in 11 days. There may be some positive aspects of the enlarged Democratic majority in Congress (I hate large majorities in Congress, because if you don't need moderates in both parties, the wing nuts are in charge).
But don't pretend that pro Entertainment legislation, laws that make more things civil torts as enforcement, and business regulations that somehow entrench the oligopolies that most of the S&P 500 firms operate in, and protect the existing financial sector players at the expense of smaller competition isn't part of the equation.
When the GOP gets power, the religious right gets bones on a bunch of abortion related policies (funding orgs, etc.), the military industrial complex gets Fed, defense contractors get big contracts, etc.
But, if you expect the new administration and Congress to be supportive of the anti-copyright ideals of Slashdot, you are simply ignoring who butters the Democratic Parties bread.
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
In many cases, a woman (or man) standing on a corner at midnight dressed in hot pants, bikini top and spiked heels, is soliciting for prostitution, but to make an arrest stick, she (or he) still has to actually ask for money. We make cops go through the action of bringing up price and getting an answer, to avoid basing an arrest merely on whether that same cop thinks someone is dressed too provocatively.
Copyright infringement may be every bit as difficult to pinpoint as you say, but it's equally difficult to say just where to draw the line if we start drawing it somewhere in the largish space of 'making available'. Just like Barney Fife may honestly think that woman standing on the curb, trying to hail a cab, in the same outfit she went clubbing in, is a hooker, the RIAA may honestly think (or claim to think) that having a torrent program at all is over where the line should be drawn.
In debating just where to draw the legal line, it should always be remembered, some lines have practical problems when it comes to actually testing them, some are based on simple principles, and some require very intricate interpretations of those principles. Good laws are usually, if not always, ones where the lines are simple enough to apply in many cases, clear cut enough to repeatedly give the same verdicts when the same circumstances apply, and based on principles that can be explained to the general public's satisfaction.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been reading these stories for years and wanted to thank you for the good work you have all done.
It's changed my perspective and my families purchasing habits with music. Everyone I speak with knows I don't purchase music when the RIAA will benefit from it.
I go to sites such as secondspin.com, gametz.com or amazon.com marketplace and purchase second hand music if I must have that song. Also I've been using google to find independents to purchase directly online.
The internet is a liberating tool. Another reason I'm hoping it becomes like public roads. Everyone should have it available and fast. This way we can punish organizations such as these guys by taking our money elsewhere.
Over the last few years I've also switched my home computers to Ubuntu Linux (kicking Microsoft out) and replaced Concast Internet with a local provider. Similar reasons. I don't like their poor attitude and won't do business with them.
This is the only way everyday people will get these companies attention. Perhaps they will figure it out. Then again, perhaps they will be the ones asking for a bail out as well.
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:2, Insightful)
He's either a career politician, xor he's a completely inexperienced nobody. (cf. republican propaganda during election season)
I'm getting a little tired of the relentless bashing of the guy a genuine majority of the country elected. Where were you asstards when Bush "won" with less than 49% of the voters?
Re:Not that anyone should really be surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
The Northerners wanted to count slaves as whole people, whereas the Southerners refused to acknowledge blacks as being human.
No, it was the other way around. Remember, the fight in the 3/5 Compromise wasn't about freeing or enfranchising them, it was about allocating seats in the House of Representatives. If slaves were not counted, the South would have a low population, and be dominated by the North in the House. If counted fully, the South would have a huge population, and dominate the North in the House. Each side preferred to not be dominated, thus the North was against counting them, and the South for. As with the composition of the legislative branch, a compromise between the two sides was reached. Even so, the South wound up being very powerful prior to the Civil War, thanks to this.
Re:And there was a cheer throughout the land... (Score:5, Insightful)
When a prosecutor or litigant voluntarily closes a case, the government should impose a fine for "wasting taxpayer dollars" or something similar.
Because the law as it is is restricted to the wealthy, but isn't restricted to the rich enough?
The intent is good, but your suggestion would achieve the opposite of your stated goal: Only the very rich could sue, because THEY can afford the fees.
Maybe not that easy (for the RIAA) (Score:5, Insightful)
The defendant might still be able to recover costs and/or expenses if he wants to try. That is up to the judge. It's easier to get into court than to get out of it. You can't necessarily say "Oh well, that didn't work" and walk away.
Re:Boo RIAA, Hooray beer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Time is money, so any time you fight against a corporation doing idiotic things, it is going to cost someone. The only shame here is that someone didn't fight back earlier with this defense. If you are concerned about money being spent, you will cheer this dismissal. Consider it an investment, because those settlement letters are losing their effectiveness every time RIAA gets their crappy legal theories shot down. And that costs the people less money overall.
Justice is not a waste of money, it's all of the passive settling that people did. They gave up a little money, collectively, to avoid being personally hit for a bunch of money. And basically, that's what you're complaining about - the taxpayers collectively giving up a little money so they don't get individually hit with this silly prosecution idea. Only this way, the prosecution's ideas get thrown out (yes, slowly) until they come up with something valid.
Whether the RIAA will stop going after individuals is still being debated, but they at least made the announcement, meaning they know it's not effective, or it's not based on sound legal theory.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting a little tired of the relentless bashing of the guy a genuine majority of the country elected.
If you're tired of that, then you're tired of democracy.
I voted for him, and I don't care if every other person in the country voted for him and elected him unanimous proclamation.
He is president, not king. And when we disagree with something he does, we're going to let him know about it.
Re:And there was a cheer throughout the land... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that pretty much how it is now anyway?
Re:Not that anyone should really be surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe it. They say that, but I believe they know full well it's a lie. When a known liar says something that makes no sense, you can be pretty sure it's a lie. I simply don't believe them. What I do believe is that that know that piracy doesn't cost sales, but P2P downloading does -- because it lets their customers hear the competetion.
I don't but music. Not that I listen all that much... but that's beside the point. I don't know anyone that buys - they all just download what they want from somewhere.
The idea that after I listen to it I will run out and buy it is nonsense. I have it, so why would I want to "have" it again? Is it somehow better if I buy it? Frankly, on the devices in use today I challange anyone to make a meaningful argument what the differences are between a 128Kb/sec MP3 is vs. the original CD. Or something recorded off FM radio. Nobody is using anything decent for headphones or speakers with current devices, so faithfully reproducing all the high and low notes isn't going to happen anyway.
Piracy isn't an advertising tool, it is a tool for "having" what you want immediately without a monetary transaction being involved. Sure, there might be some "discovery" and if your searching leads you to find that the absolute latest material from Band XYZ isn't available for downloading some folks might actually try harder to find this absolute latest material, even to the extent of paying for it. Some folks. Nobody I know - the people I know would wait a week for it to show up on their favorite download tool's search.
The idea there can be a "business" of selling recorded music is doomed. Too many people are familiar with the idea of downloading for free and expect it. Wait until the first US Senator is elected that is an avid downloader of music and movies. Do you really think we can turn back the clock somehow? I don't think so. Downloading for free is being taught in schools - student to student. The concept of paying for something that is available for free isn't going to spread, it is going to disappear completely. The RIAA know this and so do all of the various people behind businesses that currently get revenue from selling recorded music. Within a fairly short time, it is over.
Today, the business of selling recorded music exists for people that either believe downloading is somehow wrong or do not have either the knowledge or access. This is why in an affluent area WalMart has almost no music section but in a poorer section of town it is full of CDs. Today there is a stark digital divide between the rich suburbs and the poor inner city. Even that is going to change and when it does WalMart isn't going to be stocking any CDs at all.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Beckerman, I don't live in a democracy. I don't like democracy. Democracy has never been shown to work as a national government, and I frankly don't believe it can. I live in a representative republic. The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is a bad idea.
I've reread the thread in hopes there was an actual argument that I missed, or a disagreement with a policy Obama intends to enact. All I can find is the shrill and unfounded claim that Obama will lie as bad or worse than the Bush/Cheney camp has lied for the last 8 years. This is not disagreeing with what he's doing or has done, this is simple minds hating without reason. I stand by my insult of "asstard" for everybody engaging in that action.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Beckerman, I don't live in a democracy.
I do.
I don't like democracy.
I like democracy.
Democracy has never been shown to work as a national government
Yes it is one of the least convenient forms of governance.
and I frankly don't believe it can.
I don't know if it can or can't; I just know that it has to.
I live in a representative republic.
Not me. I live in a democracy.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is a bad idea.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is the greatest idea the human race ever had.
I've reread the thread
Well you're even more of a glutton for punishment than I am.
in hopes there was an actual argument that I missed, or a disagreement with a policy Obama intends to enact. All I can find is the shrill and unfounded claim that Obama will lie as bad or worse than the Bush/Cheney camp has lied for the last 8 years.
You are engaging in fallacious reasoning on this point. I do not have to 'disagree with a policy' the President-Elect intends to enact in order to criticize one of his appointments. I am critical of his appointment of Thomas Pelletti because I do not think Mr. Pelletti is of good enough character to hold the position to which he is being appointed. I have no idea what policies Obama will enact, and I do not even think Mr. Pelletti will be enacting any policies at all. I just criticize the appointment. That doesn't make me shrill. And my criticism is not unfounded.
This is not disagreeing with what he's doing or has done, this is simple minds hating without reason.
I don't hate Mr. Obama. I have high hopes form him. And I don't disagree with his policies because I don't know what they are yet.
Re:Not the end by a longshot (Score:3, Insightful)
We are not a democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). We are a representative Republic which protects the rights of the minority, or the individual.
As far as I am concerned, it is a democracy which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority or the individual. I do not believe there is such a thing as democracy without protecting the rights of the minority or the individual. How can there be government 'of the people, by the people, or for the people', if 'the people' were to be afraid to freely associate, and freely express themselves? I do not consider your definition of democracy -- tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot -- to be correct.
I understand what you're saying. And I've heard that view expressed many times. I just happen to have a contrary opinion.