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."
it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently?
Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
Gimmee a break (Score:4, Insightful)
a. You are not allowed to defend yourself
b. You can not attack back
c. You can not yell for help
d. And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.
Re:don't you just love... (Score:4, Insightful)
What does the Judge think of these tactics? (Score:4, Insightful)
If NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks a motion is ludicrous and doomed what does the judge think?
Doesn't this sort of telegraph to the judge the tactics being employed?
Is it really smart to effectively tell the whole court that you intend to grasp at every straw that comes your way?
Re:Hmmh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't you just love... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly, hes not got an account.. why else would he post anonymously.
*whisper*
What's that? Under a bridge you say? Oh, a troll! well nevermind then.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently? Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Why weren't they able to obtain competent representation? With all due respect to lawyers, there certainly seem to be competent lawyers who will take on very dubious cases if paid enough, e.g. David Boies representing SCO.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The good news is, the RIAA is suffering now. The bad news is, many people may be suffering later.
Re:What a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
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 defendent, since actual damages would be about $10.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
...unless of course you were following the law.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Re:Hmmh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Let's put it this way: the RIAA has the representation it deserves .
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Competent lawyers, would, at some point, stop acting the fool. That's why the RIAA refuses to hire them. They need, to put it nicely, uncouth slavering attack dogs. If they could abuse a bulldog into wearing a suit, they wouldn't even need human lawyers.
Come on. Asking the judge to bar your opponent from participating in the court? What kind of sheep-brained idiocy is this? How could they even think that was a valid tactic to use? The only possible conclusion is that the RIAA lawyers are the victims of a full frontal lobotomy.
What I want to know is (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
I think it would bounce off their money umbrella and never reach their head at all.
EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
"So, do you know that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?"
There, fixed that for you. The answer is yes.
Is it possible that the RIAA lawyers are competent, but are also whores who will do any little silly thing because their pay masters keep the cash-ola flowing? Or maybe not...
Re:What I want to know is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
It's not who you know as much as it is how much money you have( for "contributions")... My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
Re:Gimmee a break (Score:1, Insightful)
So you're a cop and I'm a black man?
Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that the parent was modded insightful? Common, the poster is an AC with bad taste.
serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:3, Insightful)
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"?
Ooh, ooh! I know this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a professional and a laborer is that the professional practices his profession to the best of his ability in the interest of his client, and the laborer puts the ditch where he's told to put the ditch.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Why they didn't fix that (Score:2, Insightful)
When the value of the ?IAA's back catalog multiplied by a dozen or more because they stole our commons [wikipedia.org] the entire industry didn't get audited by the IRS. They just get to keep that value, and move it offshore (hello Sony!). Because they stole it fair and square. The same reason applies here.
When the state department pushes globalization of our repressive intellectual property regime, or even worse, it's the same reason: From the courthouse to the statehouse to the Whitehouse, they've sold us out. Every last one. They either know not what they do, or they don't care. We can't do much about it right now because we have bigger fish to fry with issues of security both foreign and domestic.
But eventually these greedy bastards will over reach and then they'll learn that their copyrights can be taken away, by constitutional amendment if necessary, and even monopoly and acts of congress can't save transcontinental rail when its day is done.
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Do they meet once a decade or something? Is it not almost time?
Between the ??AA and the SCO thing I have to believe either that or that their rules are incredibly lax.
Oh, and it's a good thing slashdot karma isn't a 16 bit integer, or you would be in danger of overflowing it.
Not incompetence, arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is often likeneded to the mafia, and just as the mafia, they are used to the world behaving in a certain way. These lawyers might be high priced, but something tells me they grew up on cases where money talks. Not the real law of criminal cases or the bitterly fought battles of family court but corporate law. Where you often win just because you got the bigger team and the other side just settles because that is what everyone does.
They are now fighting a real battle against a real lawyer who is as far as I know backed by an extreme heavy weight from harvard and his students. All the bullshit that used to work to get a settlement doesn't work. They didn't pull this motion not because they thought it would work in court but because it worked for them before as bargaining chip in the settlement deal.
There is a real difference between a criminal type lawyer we see in on TV and the far more common business lawyers that draw up contacts and settle disputes.
I don't believe in incompetence, sorry, but these guys ain't that dumb and you would make a grave mistake thinking they are. I do believe in arrogance and the RIAA shows all the signs of it. They think there way works (and lets be honest, it has worked until now).
Also don't forget this, if they are cynical, then they might just be throwing things and see what sticks. Pretty much their tactics with prosecuting John Doe's in the first place. File every motion you can think off, you never know what the judge is crazy enough to accept or the opposition lawyer lets slip by. Because one thing this motion has achieved. More work for a lawyer working for free, more fugde for the judge to get lost in.
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me a cynic but I think their line is more like "hey you're embarrassing us by drawing attention to your serious pattern of malpractice. Either stop it or be more subtle."
Re:Ooh, ooh! I know this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed. That's not cynicism, it's actually the only ethical position and is a typical requirement for membership of a professional body.
An agent acts to the best of his ability in the interest of his client. Perhaps the confusion arises because people who act as agents in a commercial capacity are usually also professionals.
True professions are governed by a professional body that the professional is required to be qualified for, subscribed to and supervised by. The body may have a Charter [wikipedia.org] and have authority to set by laws [wikipedia.org] (legally enforceable rules) over their members. A substantial part of the rules for the professional body surrounds the potential for conflict of interest. They almost universally require that where any conflict arises, the professional must default to the position that is in the interest of, in order, his profession, his client and himself.
Admittedly, that is a little simplistic. Consider that prioritising the interests of the profession is often a tool for prioritising the interests of clients as a whole - if a profession is brought into disrepute it impacts everybody who relies on the profession. If the conflict is between two clients, prioritising the profession is an objective way for treating both of them fairly and evenly.
(I use British terms but the set up is broadly the same in most Western countries.)