RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies 69
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4000 default judgment they'd gotten against some lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an 'enforcement' proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. Today, it turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA's collection lawyer, the motion 'contained factual inaccuracies ... which plaintiff needs to sort out' (PDF). The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."
What in the world is there to sort out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.
Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (Score:5, Interesting)
And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.
Re:Better late than never (Score:2, Interesting)
That would be interesting. Now you can never stereotype all lawyers (even IRAA ones?) or any group for that matter without there being those that are different than the heard. But in general, lawyers, as many/most professions go, would go with the flow and continue to make money one would think. Though, there are obviously some decent honest attorneys who have righteous principals in the world.
However, having said all that, one may think that the IRAA would do their homework on prospective legal representatives in order to avoid any embarrassment or friction. Is this a sign they are slipping, or are they being underestimated again? Never underestimate your opponent, especially those who will sacrifice things of self value merely in order to deceive. I feel the IRAA has demonstrated this in the past. But this is what makes them intimidating to some. Was it intentional or not? One thing is for sure, it is hard to scratch your head in confusion and have your hands on both your sword and shield at the same time.
Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (Score:2, Interesting)
By guessing, you mean making up a reason that suits your own biased perspective.
But that is what lawyers do, come up with reasons that suit their goals.
Uh ... the process of rationalization is something all human beings do, to one degree or another. In actual fact, Man is a rationalizing animal, and usually requires training to become a rational one. Regardless, what lawyers do (to varying extents, often depending upon their moral fiber) is come up with reasons that suit their client's goals. That's a very different matter, although if it turns out that their client wants them to do something that's amoral, they may have to find a rationalization that lets them do it.
In that, they're no different from the rest of humanity.
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, I was thinking they may have realized something about their argument which could be used in a judgment against them. Better to forfeit now than risk a retrial which could open the doors with court precedent in a ruling against the RIAA, endangering future legal action. (Note the liberal use of indefinite articles... pure speculation)
Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (Score:3, Interesting)
this kind of excessive deference to client interest at the expense of common sense can be easily and comfortably rationalized as preserving the adversary system and by the feeling of an obligation to carry the client's case forward if there is any remote possibility the facts are as he claims based on the lawyer's credo that everyone deserves competent representation or a defense.
Not among real lawyers. Among us there is no confusion about that. We know who the whores are.
Boycotts and framing debate on likelihood of fame (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't recommend trying to help people not fight the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't behave in the public's interest. Also, as to the other part of your argument, we don't need to take a defeatist attitude fearing what the RIAA might say. The RIAA already complains about widespread illicit copying, the RIAA threatens to sue everyone, and sues many people. Some of the people they sue don't deserve to be sued. The RIAA is reckless and they lie. Clearly we should oppose their efforts by boycott and education.
You could only buy copies of music which you know to be good. This act shares the same outcome as a boycott but is quite different in its intention. Richard Stallman proposed this for MPAA-studio-made movies, recognizing that so few of them are worth seeing at all anyone who was so selective would see very few Hollywood movies.
You could buy tracks from distributors that treat you right, like Magnatune [magnatune.org]. Artists get half of the cost of each track, artists retain their copyrights (Magnatune licenses from the artist), you can preview Magnatune's entire catalog, you can get audio in a variety of formats, you can share tracks with others, you can include tracks in your other works (subject to the limits of the applicable Creative Commons license), and there's never any DRM to contend with. I don't work for Magnatune; it's remarkable what a great deal Magnatune offers in relation to their competitors.
But you can go beyond believing in market lies (as if you ever had any say in the market) and get into education. Explain to your musician friends that it's remarkably unlikely any unknown musician will become famous. The real choice before the musicians is not whether to sign with an RIAA label, it is how much control will the artist share with the listener. Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label. Musicians should choose to stop trading away what little they have in an attempt to become famous.