RIAA Defendant Moves For Summary Judgment 117
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One thing you don't see too much of in RIAA litigation is a defendant moving for summary judgment, but that is what just occurred in federal court in Westchester, in Lava Records v. Amurao II. The RIAA had brought suit against Rolando Amurao, a middle aged man who knew nothing about file sharing. After haranguing him for 2 years, they dropped the case and sued his daughter, Audrey, who had used LimeWire years ago. When the RIAA moved for summary judgment against Audrey, however, she surprised them with a summary judgment motion of her own, calling for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out on the RIAA's claims. The brief filed by her attorney (PDF) also points out some of the other infirmities in the RIAA's case, such as the inadmissibility of its evidence, the legal nonexistence of a claim for 'making available,' and the unconstitutionality of its damages theory. According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it. Meanwhile, Audrey's father's case, Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao, is on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit over the issue of whether the RIAA should have to reimburse Mr. Amurao for his attorneys fees. Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument."
Re:Alternate summary (Score:0, Informative)
Found here [google.com].
Parent is a nimp.org gnaa troll piece of shit ... not sure how google is resolving that url ...
Re:Alternate summary (Score:0, Informative)
it's actually somewhat impressive how they got google to open the link directly and then how it moves itself to prevent you from exiting. Thank ghu for killall firefox.
Re:About That Letter .. (Score:5, Informative)
I wish we had more info on what this "letter to the judge" thing means.
1. A summary judgment motion "searches the record", which means that the Court can grant summary judgment motion AGAINST the party making the motion. I.e., the judge is supposed to search all of the papers, both for and against, and if the moving party's case should be thrown out, the Court should throw the case out.
2. Sometimes, when a party opposing summary judgment feels the other side's case should be thrown out altogether, the party also files a "notice of cross-motion", sometimes he or she doesn't bother.
3. In this case there had been an agreed extension of the time to file "opposition papers".
4. When the RIAA saw that the opposition papers contained a "notice of cross-motion" they complained, saying that the extension of time did not apply to any "cross-motions", and said they would write to the Judge asking her not to consider the "cross-motion".
5. In my opinion their objection is frivolous, and demonstrates that they are deathly afraid of Audrey Amurao's motion.
Re:Curious interpretation of "the public" (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town
I would say it has the same meaning it has everywhere else, which is that it is available to all -- as, e.g., this comment can be viewed by "the public" -- rather than to a limited network.
By Neruos (Score:3, Informative)
They both will lose and the RIAA will win, this will continue until you get the government to cut its bond with the MPAA/RIAA and its unlawful backing of a capitalist consumer entertainment product via the FBI.
Re:Curious interpretation of "the public" (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming you have a web browser.
And also that the files are available without a private agreement. Having to log in means accepting the EULA and agreeing to be part of a private exchange. Trivial point, perhaps, but the difference between public and private is the difference between a public investigation and a private one. Private investigations are subject to specific laws concerning behavior.
Re:Curious interpretation of "the public" (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town
I would say it has the same meaning it has everywhere else, which is that it is available to all -- as, e.g., this comment can be viewed by "the public" -- rather than to a limited network.
Sorry Ray, but I have to call you on this one. Saying that the files are only "available to people on a particular network" *is* making them available to the public, since potentially anyone can connect to that network. If I were handing out CD's to people here in Tucson, would you say that they weren't available to the public since you'd have to fly down here to get one? Please stick to arguments that will actually hold water, such as that the law be requires the RIAA to show that there was actual distribution to the public (rather than just to their agents).
I'm just going by what the law books say. Sorry you disagree with them. The law books say that for a distribution to be "to the public" it can't be to a limited network. Also, your analogy doesn't "hold water" for about 600 reasons.
By the way, the "to the public" element is just one of the many missing elements. The RIAA has also failed to prove (a) dissemination of copies to the public, and (b) a sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending.
You obviously don't know me. I only make arguments that "hold water". I'm just a country lawyer that wound up in a big city. I don't write the law. I report it.
Re:Copyright term is now three years? (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.
It has nothing to do with the duration of the copyright, just the amount of time you can let pass without filing a lawsuit.
Re:"Not to allow her to make it" (Score:4, Informative)
get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT. what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties. hey ! i have evidence ! but i cant use it - why ? because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.
The judge made a deadline for each lawyer to submit "motions" - letters that say "this case is invalid, because [xxx]". These letters are very common, since there isn't much to lose by trying.
The judge then extended that deadline to later. The defendant sent a letter to the judge objecting to the RIAA's motion, after the first deadline, before the second.
The RIAA then sent a third letter to the judge, pointing out to the judge that the second letter was "too late" (because it was after the first deadline). That's silly, because there was a second deadline, but that's all the letter was. The American legal system may be twisted in other ways, but this is just some asshole lawyer writing a letter to a judge to try to confuse them. There's no "evidence" being denied, and the judge will hopefully ignore the letter.
Re:Curious interpretation of "the public" (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, the "to the public" element is just one of the many missing elements. The RIAA has also failed to prove ... (b) a sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending.
NYCL, you bring up what's always bugged me about this whole mess -- if you aren't distributing a copy for money, how is it any different from lending your friend a book? If you say the RIAA must prove lending, does this mean it's technically illegal for me to share my copy of Harry Potter? Or does it only count if I allow my friend to scan copies of every page? Although I've followed this stuff closely for the last decade or so, I'm still not clear on the fine points of the legal arguments. All I know is what I learn here on /. -- On the plus side, I can spout off plenty of bad analogies!
It's easy. You just go by what the book says. It says that for there to be a distribution there has to be
-a dissemination of copies
-to the public
-by sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending.
All of the above have to have occurred.
Since none of the above occurred, there is no distribution within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
Re:Prosecution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Zombie Movie (Score:3, Informative)
They are immune from RICO because they are not the recording companies themselves. The RIAA is similar to any consortium body like the ISO consortium or the Bluetooth consortium. It's just that their industry standard is to regulate prices and annoy/persecute their customers.