RIAA Loses Case Against Launch Media 86
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's claim that personalized internet radio stations were 'interactive services' was flatly rejected 'as a matter of law' by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Arista Records v. Launch Media. In affirming the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant, Launch Media — acquired during the lawsuit by Yahoo! — the Court said it did not even need to concern itself with possible errors in the jury instructions, since the trial judge should have directed a verdict for defendant 'as a matter of law' on the question of whether the radio stations were 'interactive services.' At pages 23-42 of its 42-page opinion (PDF), the appeals court carefully analyzed how Launch Media's personalized internet radio stations worked, and noted that the users could neither obtain and play on demand a particular song, nor obtain the transmission of a particular program, thus rendering the RIAA's claim of 'interactivity' meritless."
Re:It is interactive... (Score:3, Informative)
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
For instance, "responsibility" may have different meanings in civil and criminal law, and both are different from what is meant in normal English. Every field has specific technical jargon.
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:4, Informative)
What does "as a matter of law" really mean?
How does it differ from "as a matter of fact"?
IANAL - nor can I afford one to answer this question.
:) It means that there is no factual "issue" for the jury to resolve. I.e., that based upon the known facts, it is automatic that this is not "interactive" within the meaning of the statute.
No charge.
Re:Court Costs Paid? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but note that "costs" are not the same as "fees". Court costs are quite minimal -- filing fees and such -- it's not the same as attorney's fees and the other expenses related to litigation.
Incidentally, to clarify the question above, "as a matter of law" means that the question could have been resolved by the judge on a motion to dismiss (without reference to the facts and assuming all facts to be true as alleged in the complaint), rather than on a motion for summary judgment (which relies on statements of "undisputed fact") or at trail by the finder of fact.IAAL; IANYL.
Irrelevant -- service already defunct (Score:3, Informative)
This may or may not impact Pandora, but the service at the center of this dispute was eliminated [wikipedia.org] last spring by Yahoo.
Re:Court Costs Paid? (Score:4, Informative)
The last line of the ruling says: The district court's judgment of May 16, 2007 in favor 15 of Appellee is hereby AFFIRMED with costs. Does this mean the RIAA pays the victim's court costs?
In that context, it just referred to certain costs incurred in connection with the appeal. But under the Copyright Act the plaintiffs may indeed be liable for defendant's attorneys fees.
Re:What does "as a matter of law" really mean? (Score:5, Informative)
I am not an lawyer either, but the concept between a "matter of law" and a "matter of fact" is pretty basic. Matters of fact: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did." Matters of law: "Of course I did it; it ain't against the law, bub!" "Yes it is". In this case, the fact that internet radio stations were broadcasting copyrighted material (for which they had the proper licenses) was not in doubt. The question was one of law: is that an "interactive service" or not, which has additional restrictions on it?
In the context in which it was said in this case, it meant simply that there was no factual issue, that under the conceded undisputed facts, it was not interactive, no matter how you slice it.
Re:"RIAA loses" (Score:1, Informative)
not quite (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you get your legal advice here, you may as well just sign away your house, children, and car now and savve on legal fees . . .
Anyway . . .
That's not quite right; the facts as alleged by that party do matter. "As a matter of law" means that the evidence doesn't matter. Such a ruling means that even if they could prove everything that they alleged, they would still lose.
In this case, they found that the judge did indeed err--but not by giving the wrong instructions, as the RIAA alleged, but by even letting the jury hear the case, as no reasonable jury could have found for the RIAA. (Yeah, and here we get a bit murky with two overlapping "as a matter of law" usages, one on the allegations, and one on the strength of the evidence. Life's rough :)
hawk, esq
Re:Grooveshark (Score:3, Informative)
Only if they argue that they should be paying the statutory fees instead of the per-song licensing.
If they're happily/unhappily ponying up the per-song license fees, they're in the clear.
Re:"RIAA loses" (Score:3, Informative)
If they stop winning, they won't keep throwing cash at the lawyers.
I wouldn't say they keep "winning". They've had 2 trials, in 1 of which the defendant admitted liability. In most contested cases they've discontinued the case, scurrying away with their tails between their legs.