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."
Sorry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...
estoppel? (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA's main argument is essentially judicial estoppel.The problem is that since the verdict in the first trial was overturned, matters implicit in that verdict were also overturned, so that there is effectively no previous determination. As I understand it, if the court in the first trial had made a separate determination of the validity of the copyrights, then reversal of the verdict on other grounds might let that determination stand and therefore prevent the defense from making the argument in the second trail, but since there was no such separate determination, overturning the verdict throws out everything.
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Better yet, do they have a song on their list which the artist didn't assign the copyright to the label?
Obscuring justice? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Judge scheduled a June 8th telephone conference regarding the RIAA's motion to preclude objections.
The in limine motions are scheduled for June 10th.
Plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendants from making objections at trial
Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to suppress MediaSentry materials
Notice of hearing scheduling plaintiffs' motion to preclude objections
Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion to foreclose fair use defense
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to preclude reference to cases
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to exclude defendant's expert witness's testimony
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves? Yeah I guess that seems fair considering they (RIAA) are like totally only doing this to defend the rights of Artists. I wonder how much further they can push these strategies upon people and the courts before a angry mob with pitchforks try to storm their office buildings (remind me to invest stock in pitchfork companies at the earliest opportunity).
Legal S&M (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What the... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a second trial. As Ray points out, there's no chance of the motion succeeding, but to play Devil's advocate: I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ("making available"). In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Their motion opposing the defense expert seemed to me to be incompetant. They don't seem to understand Daubert and to be able to distinguish between "speculation" and presentation of scientifically plausible alternative scenarios.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
Panic. Oh yeah. Panic. Oh yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial. If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection. If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).
It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object. HA!
Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document. It's really easy and relatively cheap. But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.
They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!
It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove. They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.
I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard. Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law. HA!
Re:What a non-story (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I would assume that when a record company owns the copyright to a work then they would have some paperwork proving it. Either the copyright registration, or some document where the previous copyright owner assigns the copyright to them. Record companies are big companies with excellent lawyers who would never lose that kind of paperwork. The conclusion is that if a record company doesn't have any paperwork demonstrating the ownership of a copyright, then it is most likely that they don't own the copyright.
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute? Of course, we don't have any evidence that the RIAA lawyers are lying, but in a case where they already tried to get $200,000 off Mrs. Thomas, I think the defendant shouldn't have to take their word for it when they claim copyright ownership.
Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not really the whole story, though, and the article is misleading in parts.
The fundamental reason why
Authors of books write the books, and use publishers for marketing and printing. Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.
Music, on the other hand, is more complex. You have a copyright on the composition, on the lyrics, and on the sound recording. In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label, you have to contract with them, and though you are performing the song, it is the studio and its employees providing the lion's share of the work--sound designers, studio staff, technical people, etc. The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright, as the studios were the "authors" of the recording, and the artists merely "performers". (In the same way, a film screenplay copyright doesn't become the actors' when they perform it for money.) The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.
Music artists who do, in fact, write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work (unless they've traded or sold them). The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording, which is not a musical work. If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs, the copyright would likely be a different entity. Many popular acts, however, are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers, lyricists, and performers. The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.
The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more like book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing, and accordingly, with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well, the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that. When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings, they can't extort the artists quite as badly.
The representation it deserves (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:estoppel? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
In legal matters, never ascribe to stupidity what can be ascribed to willfully amoral conduct. (Which is not necessarily malice, although malice would comprise a large portion there of.)
I've been dealing legally with a person, from whom I have never gotten the same story from twice. Every time we talk, I hear a different story from him. He broke into my house, and stole exclusively my laptop, my briefcase holding most of my legal material, and a folder stamped all over with "CONFIDENTIAL" that contained my work product. He was witnessed coming into the house, and then attempted to bribe and coerce that witness into lying to the police, and as well, obtained a letter from his work stating that he had been working the entire day.
One would naturally first start off with, "how stupid can this guy be?" and the answer is, he's not stupid at all, he's just at his wits end, because I had him painted deeply into a corner. His only last option was to commit multiple felonies in order to attempt ducking the problem. Now, you and I would look at the situation and go, "before this incident, he was only facing civil liability, but now he's facing criminal liability", however when you back a badger into a corner, stupid or intelligent, they're going to lash out in any way that they feel justified in doing.
So, I'm betting the lawyers knew exactly how stupid this motion was, but it's simply a pawn in a strategy... it's attempting attrition...
Barratry (Score:3, Interesting)
She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry. To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking.
Re:Newsflash from hell... (Score:5, Interesting)
or D) setting somebody up for a really hard fall. I'm thinking of Judge Kimball, in the SCOX files, who seemed to be bending over backwards to give time and attention to SCO's every little move, only to thoroughly trash them later. Judges who've got an idea of where the case is going (or who don't particularly like one side, regardless of the merits of the case) will sometimes play out as much rope as one side wants, and whistle jauntily while that side puts their head in the noose. It's a way of making your judgment appeal-proof. If the appeal court looks at your judgment and the proceedings, and saw that you gave the loser every chance to present their side before cutting them down, the court will be more favourable to your judgment.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a very comforting assessment, given how many of them have been appointed by the Obama administration to positions of authority!
Re:What a non-story (Score:5, Interesting)
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
Re:Obscuring justice? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
Responding to my own post...
I just read through the Response from the Defendants in this matter. Wow... case law, and other stuff. Plus the point that, "THEY HAD 3 YEARS TO GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW!"
Honestly, the first thing I would have done once starting a trial is get certified copies of any public records that I think might be important... and proving that you own the copyright is pretty damn important!
I especially like the part where her lawyer states "hey, they wanted to stick strictly to the rules, so STICK IT TO THEM!" I totally agree with that.
If I were the RIAA's lawyer in this situation, I would be all, "ok, they made a good argument, I have to agree." And move forward... I'd rather ask for an continuance in order to get the certified copies, but that would probably be blocked, because she couldn't get an continuance even when she had to change counsel.
Being a pedantic bitch generates two situations, my arguments are really difficult to attack, and it requires the other party to follow the rules very strictly, however it also requires ME to follow the rules super strictly at all times as well. :(
Re:Obscuring justice? (Score:3, Interesting)
But if this were English, I'd think the RIAA had filed a motion to prevent the defense from citing precedents set in other cases. Is that seriously what this is?
Their motion is to prevent defendant from introducing "evidence of other copyright lawsuits involving Plaintiffs".
What I find interesting about it is that they did that themselves in this very case, in Trial #1. So they are trying to preclude the defendant from doing what they themselves did.
Re:estoppel? (Score:3, Interesting)
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....
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with?
They already have all the copies. In fact, even I have a set of all the copies.
There is a great idea hidden in the summary! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Ok, here's the idea this phrase gave me.
We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
Look at what's happened here. The RIAA had their team look at it, they found a problem, and tried to sidestep it. In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden.
Well...we could do that too. Right?
If there were a place where all the info were made available, and some sort of public campaign to let "us geeks" know about it...we would read it. "Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time. Click this link." That kind of a thing. A little bit here, a little bit there. If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case (a few high level moderators, lots of low level contributors)...who knows what other red flags the community might find? There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community, and I'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break, for instance.
If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah, we're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much. Maybe something might come of it.
Anyways, it's just an idea. Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one. Fans and Flames to follow, see below. =)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gimmee a break (Score:3, Interesting)
Well; actually; no. The cop does it to the black man because he knows he can. He knows he can because he knows that the judicial system in the US is stacked against the black man. The judicial system is stacked against the black man because it's set up to only work for the rich and big corporates and the black man, especially in the areas where the cops hang out, is mostly often neither of these (look at the outrage when it turned out that OJ got off because he was rich). The RIAA can go around suing computer illiterate, disabled, grandmothers because they're a big corporate. The RIAA and their lawyers are the original topic of discussion.
It's all pretty close to on topic and has even has a legitimate chain of posting back to the original summary.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
The moment a RIAA/MPIAA lawyer is publicly named and shamed he is fired. There are plenty of morally bankrupt people with a law degree ready to take his/her place when offered the money, no offence to NYCL or other decent lawyers.
The reason RIAA lawyers are refereed to as a nameless faceless mass is because they are, each individual lawyer is just a cog in the greater machine and each cog is readily interchangeable. I'm certain that NYCL and the EFF lawyers know the names of the lawyers involved, I suspect they know a lot more about these lawyers then just their names so it's important not to go on a public name and shame campaign, so the good lawyers can fight the devil they already know.
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:3, Interesting)