RIAA Backs Down In Texas Case 221
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."
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?
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: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.
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (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. Nothing that they can possibly produce is worth giving up on our freedoms.
Re:What about the financial harm caused? (Score:1, Interesting)
No, they dismissed with prejudice. So, defendant was prevailing party, and thus, under the provisions of copyright law, is presumtively entitled to her fees and costs, if I understand the rules correctly...
I sure hope her attourney files, and the judge uses a significant multiplier on the fees...
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?
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?
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
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?
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.
.
Re:So they can still walk away from this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:3, Interesting)
I can guarantee that in 15 years, twentysomethings will be playing hits of the past decade (meaning 2000-2010), saying "Man, music was good back then, now it's all crap!".
As Volante pointed out, you don't remember the truly horrifying music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, because it's not memorable.
My grandfather thought my dad's music was crap; he preferred to listen to Dean Martin. My dad thought my music was crap; he preferred to listen to Led Zeppelin. I think the music of today is crap; I prefer to listen to old Metallica.
Everyone loves the music they grew up with. In most cases, that's always been the popular bands on the radio, MTV, or the school dance (how many middle-aged people worship at the altar of "Stairway to Heaven"?)
Notice also that with the exception of public domain, almost all music made outside the past 5 years is owned by an RIAA label. If anything, it's in their best interest for young people to be more interested in discovering "their parents' music" than in finding new, up-and-coming bands, who may not be signed to one of their labels.
I love my old music, but there's quite a lot of good music still being made, in every genre. It just so happens that the radio music is drifting towards a more "metal" sound at the moment, which likely isn't your thing. But if you're trying to get away from RIAA-produced music, you actually need to find new material.
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.
Re:They don't need the litigation anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA radar [riaaradar.com] is your friend. Look for the labels not on the MAFIAA's payroll and support them for doing something right.
You are so right esocid. I consult that site every day.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:3, Interesting)
It does seem that the shovelware is growing in proportion to the rest of late. That could be a sign that I'm getting older and I'm just not into the newer music, but I don't think that's it. It takes me a lot longer to hear about something good than it used to, but it's not as if 'good' is defined to be something that sounds like what I used to listen to.