NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After receiving a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion (PDF) in a Houston, Texas, case, UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, the RIAA lawyers thought better of proceeding with the case, and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case 'with prejudice', which means it is over and cannot be brought again. The defendant's motion papers detailed some of the RIAA's litigation history against innocent individuals, such as Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic Recording v. Andersen, and argued that the awarding of attorneys fees in those cases has not sufficiently deterred repetition of the misconduct, so that a stronger remedy — Rule 11 sanctions — is now called for."
Given the fact that the size of the fines rule 11 sanctions are set by the judge (not predetermined) I'd say it's more like they leveled a howitzer on the RIAA and the RIAA blinked. Sure, the howitzer might not be loaded, but is it really worth the risk?
The size of the fine is set by the judge, but here's what the plaintiff asked the judge for (taken from the last paragraph of the pdf.)
"In this case, the Court should award Defendant Lanzoni all of her costs and expenses in defending this lawsuit. In addition, this Court should make a finding that the use of an IP address to identify the defendant in a peer-to-peer copyright infringement case is not sufficiently reliable for the Plaintiffs to rely upon..."
Maybe I'm just not that good at reading legalese, but if that means 'I don't want $big$money$ from the RIAA, I want the court to rule that from now on nobody can be sued based on their IP address' then I'm very impressed with the defendant's decision to place the greater good over their own financial gain.
"you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?', well, do ya punk?"
Dirty Harry, its characters and quotes are copyrights of Warner Brothers(TM). The above quote is only meant as a humorous reference to a pop culture icon and is not meant as a performance of copyrighted material.
They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
Actually, disconnection could be appealed to the FCC. Interfering with communication systems (jamming, disconnecting) is illegal for freedom of speech reasons.
My favorite line was the part where you are forbidden to:
* undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which... in any way constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal, or non-U.S. law, order, or regulation....
Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....
Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....
You forgot to mention the laws of the Intergalactic Federation under His Grand Emporer Malicon IX.
I for one welcome the total control of our totalitarian overlords.
They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA. The way things are now, only people unlucky enough to have been sued have an interest in stopping them.
I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state.
Do as I do. Buy used CDs. Here in the Greater Boston/Cambridge/Somerville Co-Prosperity Sphere, there are several used CD/DVD shops. Sure, you may have to wait a few weeks to get the latest CD, but RIAA never sees a penny of your money.
And many artists sell CDs on their websites. Yeah, they buy them from the record companies, but they, the artists, get to keep the money from the CD sales.
Finally, local bands almost always have CDs they burn themselves. Supporting local artists with purchases is the best thing you can do to keep independent artists making music.
They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
Your recourse is a libel suit. Now thay have to prove you are a pirate, or pay you off.
First to NewYorkCountryLawyer, thanks from all of us for fighting the good fight!
And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions? Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent? Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?
Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent? Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?
If you read the motion (especially the conclusion), it will help answer these questions. It's a pretty quick read and isn't very difficult to understand (just a few terms that may cause someone to stumble if they don't have a legal background).
First to NewYorkCountryLawyer, thanks from all of us for fighting the good fight!
Thanks. And thank you for your support.
And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions?
Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.
Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent?
Absolutely. There is nothing a lawyer should fear more than a sanctions ruling.
Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?
Highly relevant. This incident will encourage other defendant's lawyers to make early Rule 11 motions. And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.
I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking. Namely that of signing agreements [slashdot.org] with ISPs to get them to do the dirty work instead.
This seems like something that the end user will have very little recourse over. Virtually every ISP agreement I've ever read gives them the right to deny you service for whatever reason they wish -- but how is that remotely just if it's based on the same lack of evidence that RIAA failed to use in the court system?
How (if at all) can the people who inevitably wind up being wrongfully accused fight this?
The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.
The only problem being that for most people the options are very limited and the way it's set up now it's nigh on impossible to start an ISP outside of the incumbent cable and phone companies. So if both members in your area (most people are lucky if they have 2 options: cable and phone company) of the current oligarchy opt into the RIAA system your options are much slower broadband at best or dialip.
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases? There is no way they are ever going to win settlements or recover damages that offset their cost it takes to litigate. I guess the RIAA lawyers are making money though, not like they are going to recommend to stop the pursuit.
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?
From the RIAA's point of veiw, they are not "wasting money". The organization makes a profit from these lawsuits (and the associated settlements). It's only when either:
1. The lawyers are likely to lose their licenses or:
2. The lawsuit/settlement program stops being profitable.
that they will stop the lawsuits.
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?
They won't. The old business model is dead, and the new business model is brain dead. The old model was that it cost uberbucks to record an album, so the artist couldn't make a record without the labels.
Now, the price of recording has come down to the point that anybody can record an album in a professional studio and have the CDs professionally pressed and packaged for as little as $1 per copy.
This leaves the labels to distribute and market, and marketing means radio. You have to be on a major label to get on the radio.
The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.
The new business model is paid downloads. The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.
The music industry as we knew it is dead, and I for one am glad. The RIAA labels' days are numbered, and they won't be able to steal from their artists and customers for too much longer.
Lawrence Lessig talks about the four reasons for P2P in his book Free Culture. Cory Doctorow talks about it in the preface to his book Little Brother, which has been on the NYT best seller list. You can buy either book at any bookstore, or check it out for free at your local public library, or download them for free from the authors' prospective websites.
Both books are making a handy profit. As I said, Doctorow's is a best seller, which kind of puts the lie to the RIAA's pathetic whining.
Here in Denmark a chain of shops that deal with items costing between $1 and $2 (guess you guys call them dollar stores?) has started its own label - it is a no bullshit label, you get 50% of profit from sales, default print I think is 1.000 CDs or 10.000 and the shop carries the risk.
CDs are selling like you wouldn't believe it - apparently people are willing to pay $2 for a CD from a group they never heard of (I for one am, heck if it sucks I can use it as a fancy coaster).
A few questions for anyone who might know:
1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?
Yes so long as they do it within the 21-day "safe harbor" period, which they did.
2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?
There are many possible penalties, from nominal to crushing... but for any attorney it's a huge black mark on his or her record.
3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?
Rarely. Rule 11 motions are rarely made. It is an extreme thing. I've only made a couple in my 30 years as a lawyer. One of them was against the RIAA lawyers.
1. Yes, if it's within 21 days after the motion for sanctions is filed.
2. The attorney has to pay fines with a goal of deterrence and not compensation. (If the attorney is poor, they'll be fined less.) The attorney's client can be held joint & severally liable. Your professional reputation as an attorney suffers, and in extreme circumstances, it might serve as pretty bad evidence towards an attorney malpractice suit or a disbarment hearing.
3. Extremely rarely. It's generally reserved for lawyers acting in very bad faith, and the 21 day safe harbor gives attorneys a way to amend the offending action. Courts are generally willing to give attorneys the benefit of the doubt on whether they did something with a good faith belief that it was true or not. Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.
Within a couple of years kids will be able to carry around and exchange thumb drives large enough to hold ALL of the music produced in the last decade. Aside from cavity searches how exactly is the RIAA expecting to stop that kind of sharing activity?
In UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, a Houston, Texas, case, the RIAA has voluntarily dismissed its case with prejudice, after being served with a Rule 11 motion.
Defendant never filed the Rule 11 motion with the Court, because the RIAA withdrew its case prior to the expiration of the 21-day "safe harbor" period.
So, no sanctions will actually be enforced. The defendant's threat of Rule 11 sanctions just scared them out of pursuing this particular case.
Since the RIAA is clearly going to lose, i wouldn't mind if NYCL didn't let them off the hook so easy. If possible.
Is the court obligated to accept their dismissal?
Haven't the defendants suffered harm thus far?
I wish there was a way for the defendants to countersue the RIAA for malicious prosecution or something. A few million dollars in punitive damages against the RIAA would send a signal, methinks.
Also, I would rather some legal precedent be established in the defendant's favor so that the RIAA would g
to be driven into bankruptcy. The BS of dropping the suit because they see they can not win is just that, BS. The judge should prevent them from filing anymore cases in his district, since logically they can't win this one(their POV) so they could not win any others.
I just love how RIAA walks-away from a case, with no punishment. How am I... I mean the defendant supposed to recover the 20,000 dollars and 4 years wasted on this case? (At this point a shot to the head of CEO seems like good compensation.)
This is the legal equivalent of threatening to mug someone at knifepoint, but saying "ha ha ha it was just a joke!" when the person calls the cops, and being let off free.
The defendant has lost time and money on this case and gained nothing. Even if every case is resolved like this, the intimidation strategy will still be effective.
So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already costed the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions?
So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already cost the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions?
Or did I miss something?
For what it's worth, here is what wikipedia has on Rule 11 Sanctions
Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney (if party is represented). It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1983 version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter.
Basically, it's a federal rule meant to deter abuses of the justice system and the fines can be practically whatever the judge wants them to be. That's a pretty scary prospect if you are concerned that you might have pissed off the judge enough that he would impose the sanctions on you, since you don't know how much money you stand to lose.
Federal rule. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 [cornell.edu] about what an attorney filing a pleading, motion or paper is representing to the court. The key part is that it requires the attorney to represent that the filing is not just to harrass or annoy the other party and that it's not frivolous and has some basis in law and/or evidence.
Spiffy! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spiffy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the fact that the size of the fines rule 11 sanctions are set by the judge (not predetermined) I'd say it's more like they leveled a howitzer on the RIAA and the RIAA blinked. Sure, the howitzer might not be loaded, but is it really worth the risk?
Parent
Re:Spiffy! (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow I don't think it was the howitzer that was at risk of being leveled. Now, the RIAA, on the other hand...
Parent
Re:Spiffy! (Score:5, Insightful)
The size of the fine is set by the judge, but here's what the plaintiff asked the judge for (taken from the last paragraph of the pdf.)
"In this case, the Court should award Defendant Lanzoni all of her costs and expenses in defending this lawsuit. In addition, this Court should make a finding that the use of an IP address to identify the defendant in a peer-to-peer copyright infringement case is not sufficiently reliable for the Plaintiffs to rely upon..."
Maybe I'm just not that good at reading legalese, but if that means 'I don't want $big$money$ from the RIAA, I want the court to rule that from now on nobody can be sued based on their IP address' then I'm very impressed with the defendant's decision to place the greater good over their own financial gain.
Parent
Re:Spiffy! (Score:5, Funny)
Dirty Harry, its characters and quotes are copyrights of Warner Brothers(TM). The above quote is only meant as a humorous reference to a pop culture icon and is not meant as a performance of copyrighted material.
Parent
They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/ [comcast.net]
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Your ISP still allows breathing?
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite line was the part where you are forbidden to: ... in any way constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal, or non-U.S. law, order, or regulation....
* undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which
Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....
You forgot to mention the laws of the Intergalactic Federation under His Grand Emporer Malicon IX.
I for one welcome the total control of our totalitarian overlords.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA. The way things are now, only people unlucky enough to have been sued have an interest in stopping them.
I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state.
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Informative)
"I consciously don't buy music anymore."
Do as I do. Buy used CDs. Here in the Greater Boston/Cambridge/Somerville Co-Prosperity Sphere, there are several used CD/DVD shops. Sure, you may have to wait a few weeks to get the latest CD, but RIAA never sees a penny of your money.
And many artists sell CDs on their websites. Yeah, they buy them from the record companies, but they, the artists, get to keep the money from the CD sales.
Finally, local bands almost always have CDs they burn themselves. Supporting local artists with purchases is the best thing you can do to keep independent artists making music.
Parent
I couldn't possibly do without music (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank god there are thousands of artists making music every single day and sharing it under acceptable terms. Cf. jamendo, magnatune, etc.
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
Your recourse is a libel suit. Now thay have to prove you are a pirate, or pay you off.
Parent
And this means what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions? Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent? Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the motion (especially the conclusion), it will help answer these questions. It's a pretty quick read and isn't very difficult to understand (just a few terms that may cause someone to stumble if they don't have a legal background).
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Informative)
First to NewYorkCountryLawyer, thanks from all of us for fighting the good fight!
Thanks. And thank you for your support.
And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions?
Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.
Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent?
Absolutely. There is nothing a lawyer should fear more than a sanctions ruling.
Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?
Highly relevant. This incident will encourage other defendant's lawyers to make early Rule 11 motions. And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.
Parent
Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Informative)
So, in other words, this won't dissuade the RIAA one whit, but it might make it hard for them to find lawyers willing to work for them.
Parent
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ray,
I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking. Namely that of signing agreements [slashdot.org] with ISPs to get them to do the dirty work instead.
This seems like something that the end user will have very little recourse over. Virtually every ISP agreement I've ever read gives them the right to deny you service for whatever reason they wish -- but how is that remotely just if it's based on the same lack of evidence that RIAA failed to use in the court system?
How (if at all) can the people who inevitably wind up being wrongfully accused fight this?
Parent
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking.
The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.
Parent
Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have that option -- at least until Verizon joins the bandwagon -- but how many people don't?
Parent
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.
The only problem being that for most people the options are very limited and the way it's set up now it's nigh on impossible to start an ISP outside of the incumbent cable and phone companies. So if both members in your area (most people are lucky if they have 2 options: cable and phone company) of the current oligarchy opt into the RIAA system your options are much slower broadband at best or dialip.
.
Parent
waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases? There is no way they are ever going to win settlements or recover damages that offset their cost it takes to litigate. I guess the RIAA lawyers are making money though, not like they are going to recommend to stop the pursuit.
Re:waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't need to make money on the cases. In fact, they can spend $1m on legal fees for a $100k judgment and still come out ahead.
Why?
Because it motivates the other 99,999 people that got 'settlement offers' of $5-10k to pay up. Sad, but true.
Parent
Re:waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
From the RIAA's point of veiw, they are not "wasting money". The organization makes a profit from these lawsuits (and the associated settlements). It's only when either:
1. The lawyers are likely to lose their licenses or:
2. The lawsuit/settlement program stops being profitable.
that they will stop the lawsuits.
Parent
Re:waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?
They won't. The old business model is dead, and the new business model is brain dead. The old model was that it cost uberbucks to record an album, so the artist couldn't make a record without the labels.
Now, the price of recording has come down to the point that anybody can record an album in a professional studio and have the CDs professionally pressed and packaged for as little as $1 per copy.
This leaves the labels to distribute and market, and marketing means radio. You have to be on a major label to get on the radio.
The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.
The new business model is paid downloads. The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.
The music industry as we knew it is dead, and I for one am glad. The RIAA labels' days are numbered, and they won't be able to steal from their artists and customers for too much longer.
Lawrence Lessig talks about the four reasons for P2P in his book Free Culture. Cory Doctorow talks about it in the preface to his book Little Brother, which has been on the NYT best seller list. You can buy either book at any bookstore, or check it out for free at your local public library, or download them for free from the authors' prospective websites.
Both books are making a handy profit. As I said, Doctorow's is a best seller, which kind of puts the lie to the RIAA's pathetic whining.
Parent
Re:waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
Actually he is somewhat right.
Here in Denmark a chain of shops that deal with items costing between $1 and $2 (guess you guys call them dollar stores?) has started its own label - it is a no bullshit label, you get 50% of profit from sales, default print I think is 1.000 CDs or 10.000 and the shop carries the risk.
CDs are selling like you wouldn't believe it - apparently people are willing to pay $2 for a CD from a group they never heard of (I for one am, heck if it sucks I can use it as a fancy coaster).
The olden ways are dead, just a matter of time.
Parent
So what happens with Rule 11? (Score:5, Interesting)
A few questions for anyone who might know:
1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?
2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?
3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?
Re:So what happens with Rule 11? (Score:5, Informative)
A few questions for anyone who might know: 1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?
Yes so long as they do it within the 21-day "safe harbor" period, which they did.
2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?
There are many possible penalties, from nominal to crushing... but for any attorney it's a huge black mark on his or her record.
3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?
Rarely. Rule 11 motions are rarely made. It is an extreme thing. I've only made a couple in my 30 years as a lawyer. One of them was against the RIAA lawyers.
Parent
Re:So what happens with Rule 11? (Score:4, Informative)
1. Yes, if it's within 21 days after the motion for sanctions is filed.
2. The attorney has to pay fines with a goal of deterrence and not compensation. (If the attorney is poor, they'll be fined less.) The attorney's client can be held joint & severally liable. Your professional reputation as an attorney suffers, and in extreme circumstances, it might serve as pretty bad evidence towards an attorney malpractice suit or a disbarment hearing.
3. Extremely rarely. It's generally reserved for lawyers acting in very bad faith, and the 21 day safe harbor gives attorneys a way to amend the offending action. Courts are generally willing to give attorneys the benefit of the doubt on whether they did something with a good faith belief that it was true or not. Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.
Parent
I've always wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:5, Funny)
I think you answered your own question.
Parent
Two birds? (Score:5, Funny)
While they're in there, maybe they should check for ibuprofen and save our school administrators some trouble?
Parent
Re:I've always wondered (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason all the twenty somethings are playing the hits of the '70s, '80s, and '90s rock in the bars to the other twentysomething patrons.
Let's not overlook the fact that there's always shovelware music made, we just don't remember it because, simply put, it was forgettable.
Parent
What sanctions..? (Score:3, Informative)
So, no sanctions will actually be enforced. The defendant's threat of Rule 11 sanctions just scared them out of pursuing this particular case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the RIAA is clearly going to lose, i wouldn't mind if NYCL didn't let them off the hook so easy. If possible.
Is the court obligated to accept their dismissal?
Haven't the defendants suffered harm thus far?
I wish there was a way for the defendants to countersue the RIAA for malicious prosecution or something. A few million dollars in punitive damages against the RIAA would send a signal, methinks.
Also, I would rather some legal precedent be established in the defendant's favor so that the RIAA would g
The RIAA needs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA needs (Score:4, Interesting)
In England, there is the possibility of being declared a "vexatious litigant", which severely restricts your ability to bring lawsuits.
Is there an equivalent in the US, and if so, how close are the RIAA to being placed on the list?
Parent
What about the financial harm caused? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just love how RIAA walks-away from a case, with no punishment. How am I... I mean the defendant supposed to recover the 20,000 dollars and 4 years wasted on this case? (At this point a shot to the head of CEO seems like good compensation.)
Re:What about the financial harm caused? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What about the financial harm caused? (Score:4, Interesting)
I sure hope her attourney files, and the judge uses a significant multiplier on the fees...
Perhaps the same multiplier the RIAA uses to calculate damages per mp3?
Parent
Could have been a lot worse (Score:5, Funny)
They could have received a Rule 34 sanction.
Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses (Score:5, Informative)
The defendant has lost time and money on this case and gained nothing. Even if every case is resolved like this, the intimidation strategy will still be effective.
So they can still walk away from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already costed the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions?
Or did I miss something?
Re:So they can still walk away from this? (Score:5, Informative)
So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already cost the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions? Or did I miss something?
No you didn't miss anything.
Parent
From wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
For what it's worth, here is what wikipedia has on Rule 11 Sanctions
Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney (if party is represented). It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1983 version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter.
Basically, it's a federal rule meant to deter abuses of the justice system and the fines can be practically whatever the judge wants them to be. That's a pretty scary prospect if you are concerned that you might have pissed off the judge enough that he would impose the sanctions on you, since you don't know how much money you stand to lose.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Federal rule. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 [cornell.edu] about what an attorney filing a pleading, motion or paper is representing to the court. The key part is that it requires the attorney to represent that the filing is not just to harrass or annoy the other party and that it's not frivolous and has some basis in law and/or evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've misread the summary. Specifically, it is exactly the opposite of what you've surmised.