RIAA Wants To Bar Jammie From Making Objections 306
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Duluth, Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed a motion seeking to bar the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she got married recently), from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents. To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections. I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team. A few days earlier, the RIAA lawyers filed a similarly ludicrous motion trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset's expert witness from testifying; that too is doomed."
What a non-story (Score:5, Informative)
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that. Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time & money to get to the important parts of the case.
Another thing to note is that this appears to be a new trial, which is not the same thing as an appeal. Despite what many people think, an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case. Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial. So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal. An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well, and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders (usually the jury) determined during the trial, and will only overturn or (more commonly) vacate a lower court's factfinding if the jury reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. In fact, there is actually no constitutional right of appeal. By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they weren't dismissed with prejudice (for something like a patently frivolous claim, or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God).
Since this case is a brand new trial, there is likely little that cannot be brought back into play, for what little that's worth.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:3, Informative)
In many legal systems, appeals are limited to matters of law, not matters of fact. At least in certain levels of the legal system. The highest courts don't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts, they want to spend their precious time on examining the law. Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Which does not apply here as this is not an appeal. The original trial was negated due to inappropriate jury instructions. That makes this effectively a new first trial (sort of like in football where you can get a new first down).
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Informative)
This is not an appeal. It is a new trial.
Re:What a non-story (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendant, since actual damages would be about $10.
Quite right! Yes YDRC.
Re:Hmmh (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, the legal profession has rules such that, if you can show that a motion is frivolous, you can make the other side pay for your time spent arguing against it.
Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b (Score:4, Informative)
I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher
from Salon article in January 2000:Courtney Love does the math [salon.com]
Last November [2000], a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act. He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That Mitch Glazier, the congresional aide? now an RIAA lobbyist [digitalmed...erence.com] It certainly wasn't an accident. I've never understood why they just didn't fix that.
Re:estoppel? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with? Here in King County Superior Court of Washington State, you just go in to the records department, look up the case, click a checkbox and print and say "yes, certified copies plz"
If I were doing it pro se, it would be about $15 parking, then $5 per document + $1 for each additional page. Or about that. If it were a paralegal doing it, it would be about an hour of his pay, plus the fees... if a lawyer were doing it themselves? I would think most lawyers have more to do, but then some of them like to touch the dirty stuff themselves, I suppose.
Although, as a matter of copyright law, this would be Federal District Court... so all my notions are silly... still, I can't imagine a Federal District Court having less accessibility than a state superior court...
Re:estoppel? (Score:3, Informative)
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office [copyright.gov] in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Well, even in the district court you don't make certified copies yourself... the clerks do it. In fact, in King County Superior Court, the only documents that you copy/print yourself are those on microfilm and only if they're uncertified.
Anyways, I read later down the line that they're interested in certified copyright records, which is entirely different. But when you just read "concerns about expenses of expedited certified copies" it lacks the sufficient context of "copyright records".
This is not a criminal trial (Score:2, Informative)
In a criminal trial the prosecutor would need to prove she stole a song.
In a civil trial the plaintiff must prove not only that she violated a copyright, but that she violated theirs before they can claim they were harmed and so are due relief.
Re:EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
You are correct that it's those 4 corporations hiding behind the RIAA as a front. I use "RIAA" as shorthand. But knowing those 4 names doesn't really help because most of the records are sold under their affiliated labels. So the best way to know which are the real bad guys is to go to my Index of Litigation Documents [beckermanlegal.com] and look at the plaintiffs' names. And the best way to avoid patronizing any RIAA label is to check them out on RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com].
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:5, Informative)
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Every state has an organization which has the power to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct, up to and including disbarment.
Shame on you, /.'er! (Score:2, Informative)
Research the career, or ending of, 'Jack Thompson'.
Your /. UID leads me to think you might be trolling, but I will give you the benefit of doubt here.
Long story>short:
Jack got himself dis-barred from practicing as a lawyer for his ass-clown behavior in court, and with presiding judges.
Check it out for yourself, maybe start with a wiki search for 'dis-barred lawyers+USA[or insert relative terms/countries]'...use your imagination.
Damn, 'preview' is cool. :-)
Sorry if I came off as harsh...that was not my intention at all.
I tend to be terse, and try for precise.
Add a 'fuzzy bunny' filter to the above, and my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding.
Re:Kill all the lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?
Didn't you read my second sentence:
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
Boy some people are so predictable.