RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation 267
JeffreysTube writes "The RIAA's legal fight against a divorced mother has run into trouble, with the judge now telling the RIAA that its only two options are to proceed with a jury trial against Patty Santangelo or dismiss the case with prejudice. If the latter happens, Santangelo officially "wins" and could collect attorneys' fees. The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty. 'This case is two years old,' wrote Judge McMahon. 'There has been extensive fact discovery. After taking this discovery, either plaintiffs want to make their case that Mrs. Santangelo is guilty of contributory copyright infringement or they do not.'"
Is that your final comment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow, I don't think Mrs. Santangelo is in this to be declared guilty. But hey, I'm just a dazed onlooker - what would I know about the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, definitely misworded. Still, these failed lawsuits are fun to watch. Like a flan collapsing in a cupboard.
Here's hoping the RIAA member companies wise up, stop the lawsuits, drop the DRM, and maybe get a good artist or two.
Stopping the lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stopping the lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, don't underestimate how risk-averse a large and established organization can be.
Re:Stopping the lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on any contested cases.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:4, Insightful)
[+] mafiaa, haha (tagging beta)
You didn't have to wait long. Am I the only one who finds these damn tags redundant and asinine?
Let me be the one to start a beowulf cluster of them:
[+] haha, fud, defectivebydesign, mafiaaaa, microsoftsucks, itsatrap...
Hmmm, better stop there, otherwise that lameness filter might start earning its keep for once.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[+] yes, no, maybe
Well, that clears it right up. Thanks Slashdot!
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:5, Informative)
Any sane person in a sane world probably thinks the same way, and of course the woman would not want to be found guilty. The RIAA sees that they are (probably) going to lose, and wants to try again from a different angle.
The key words are with or without prejudice. The RIAA right now is trying to have the case dismissed without prejudice, which basically is asking the judge to wipe out the last two years and allow them to start the process all over again.
If the case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the court will not entertain this and the woman can then (most likely) recoup her attorney's fees from the RIAA. Dismissed with prejudice is the next best thing to "Not Guilty".
This would set precedent that if the RIAA bullies you, and you win, you get to collect from them whatever costs you spent on your legal defense. The RIAA does not want this to happen.
So either they have to win the case on merit, or dismiss with prejudice. Its very (very) doubtful that they will win the case. If they lose (yep, you guessed it) the woman can sue to recoup legal expenses and will most likely win after long drawn out appeals and doors open to civil harassment suits.
Either way, precedent is about to be set that will help people fight off RIAA bullies, which of course they don't want to happen.
They need to stop harassing people who can't hope to match their legal resources. This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked.
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:5, Funny)
Little too much detail on your final point there bud
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:5, Funny)
Give us a youtube link, and we'll decide. Or is that covered by an RIAA copyright as well?
No Win, No Knee (Score:5, Funny)
If only all cases could be settled this way!
Look for the new adverts ... "No win, no knee"!
LOVE IT!
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:5, Funny)
That would come under the MPAA's jurisdiction. For it to come under the RIAA, both entities would have to complete their merger and transformation into the Music And Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA).
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is that your final comment? (Score:4, Funny)
Spaceballs Salute, anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
Why am I picturing the RIAA lawyers all standing there with their hands over their nads while a diminutive lady dressed in black with asthma and a bouffant [sp?] eyeing them up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, I just came across this [freeinternetpress.com]: Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice:
"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration.
So, whatever we think we know, there's always someone who knows better...
Declared guilty? (Score:5, Interesting)
Were that to happen, I wonder if there would be any scope in pursuing a claim for defamation? (No, I don't think I would in that position, but it would almost certainly cross my mind...)
Re:Declared guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
What the Judge is telling the RIAA here is that, having completed discovery, they can either go to a jury trial and pursue a guilty verdict, or have the case dismissed with prejudice. See, the way everything has worked out for them in this case so far, they've got a snowball's cahnce in hell of winning, and they don't want to lose and set some nasty precedents (like the having to pay court fees for indiscriminately suing people with shitty evidence). What they want to do is back out of the case by dropping it and then suing her again for the same thing, in a different court with different tactics to try to get a better likelihood of winning. The Judge is telling them to either take it to a Jury and lose or be dismissed with prejudice and be unable to sue her again for the same thing. They're fucked either way.
Re:Declared guilty? (Score:5, Interesting)
They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.
In Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com] it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision [ilrweb.com]. (pdf)
Re:Declared guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
The riaa uses money to stuff their mattress pad. They could care less about paying one person's attourney's fees. The problem here is if they end up paying THIS woman's attourney, this will send a very loud message to all the other future victims that yes you really can win against the riaa and engaging in a court battle is not going to make you lose your house and your job, as the riaa is trying to scare everyone into believing. Once we get a couple Not Guilty chalked up, the riaa will find there are a lot fewer victims willing to just roll over when the lawyers come calling. Then it will not be a matter of paying one woman's attourney - if they sue 100 ppl a year then they will be paying 95 of them attourney fees, and THIS is going to bust their groove. This is the scenario the riaa is desperately trying to avoid by having this case dropped without prejudice.
Re:Declared guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just attorneys fees, don't you get it?
If the judge awards the defendant $100k in legal fees on the most highly publicized RIAA case, that will
encourage lawyers to jump into the fight helping the defendants and
encourage defendants to fight back.
Plus the attorneys fees awards will wind up being a huge sum if more people are fighting back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul
Re:Declared guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a civil [wikipedia.org] suit (it's a poor reference, sorry). It is not 'guilt' in the criminal sense so much as factual and legal causation, on a "balance of probabilities" (i.e. 50%+1 chance), and unlike criminal law its purpose is not punishment. Rather, as I understand it, common law civil suits (less punitive damages for what's known as first-party breach of fiduciary duties) are compensatory, designed to put the person suing in one of three positions
1. as good a position as they were in before the wrong, had the wrong had not happened;
2. as good a position as they would have been in now, had the wrong had not happened;
3. the position of receiving the unjust benefit that has gone to the person who committed the wrong. (i.e. unjustly enriched [wikipedia.org])
I believe these are the three forms of damages generally arising in common law.
In the case of the RIAA, #1 means undoing the infringement and the intangible benefits arising from those having listened to it. This is hard, nigh impossible, to calculate and undo. Had the lady sold the songs, it'd be different.
Under #2, they can claim they lost income from the loss of sale, and demand that it be paid, now.
Under #3, they can claim that that the woman's benefits from the claim were unjust, but this is more an economic argument. (i.e. if she stole the song and re-sold it for $1 million- if it is not a sale the RIAA would ever have made then the RIAA cannot claim the $1 million under #1 or #2, but can under #3)
However, this is all modified by the copyright legislation, which essentially provides a statutory value to #2, and effectively at punitive rates (thus, in effect constructing the legal inference that an individual has a duty of utmost good faith to the copyright holder). Thus, when the RIAA sues under #1, they can sue at exorbitant, punitive rates, way beyond any actual loss. This is designed as a deterrent to copyright infringement (like criminal law's punitive damages), except it doesn't have the checks and balances of criminal law (insofar as they exist) because a private individual can bring a copyright infringement claim and the standard of proof is only 50%+1 (i.e. 'balance of probabilities'- best highlighted by OJ Simpson being not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but guilty on a balance of probabilities, making him not-liable in punitive criminal law, but guilty in civil compensation).
However, in the end, this case isn't about damages. The issue in this case seems to have been the lack of evidence brought by the RIAA. In many (virtually all) jurisdictions, this results in an adverse 'cost' award, where you have to pay the fees of the defendant (a compensatory deterrent to frivolous actions, precisely like the RIAA barratry [wikipedia.org]).
Hope that's food for thought.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIR that's still the law in this country. You're innocent until proven guilty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not clear to me how much truth there is to that in civil cases, though. They're decided on the "preponderance of evidence".
Frankly, I think civil cases and criminal cases should both be decided based on "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". Why? Because while a civil case doesn't strip an individual of their freedom, it does strip them of their assets. Those assets were usually acquired through a lot of hard wor
Only in a Criminal trial... (Score:2)
Re: It's worse than the RIAA walking away (Score:2)
"from the catch-22 dept" (Score:4, Insightful)
So who's gonna extend a helping hand and get the RIAA out of the corner? I guess it's time for another metaphor. The metaphor of the drowning man.
Re:"from the catch-22 dept" (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine the effect if future victims of the RIAA know that if they try to defend themselves in court, they'll lose money no matter what.
If that isn't a chilling effect, then I don't know what is.
Re:"from the catch-22 dept" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I take this statement from the judge to mean, "You just can't drag this poor woman through 2 years of hell and expect to just walk away from it." I applaude the judge for his stand.
Re: (Score:2)
A: Throw him a rock.
If there's an out-of-court settlement now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if merely providing internet access facilities to others makes one guilty of the uses / activities done on that IP, then many IT firms have reasons to be seriously worried. Malware and Service Packs are downloaded over the same IP and the same protocols. It will be almost impossible to operate any net-enabled firm at all.
Re: (Score:2)
She's a fool to go for an out-of-court settlement now. Not unless RIAA gives her some huge sum of money (> her attorney fees + $100000), and that's a whole different kind of precedent.
Re:If there's an out-of-court settlement now... (Score:5, Insightful)
You could add a coupla' zeroes to that figure, and the RIAA might still settle outside court, if it precludes case-law being made. This case will make the law that the mere possession or proviioning of an ip-address does not mkae one guilty of copyright violations over that ip-address. Many IT firms and ISPs will breathe easy once the case-law is made.
I would love it but for other reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every new sued person is a potential new job for a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL, but I watched several friends destroy their souls in law school - from what I understand, you're completely correct. If the RIAA starts bleeding in the water, lawyers all over will start taking the cases pro bono or nearly so. They usually ask for a small (30-40%) portion of the settlement, should you win.
pro bono (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term is pro bono publico. There is irony in that term, thanks to an Irish rock star. Funny that, eh? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Dr.Evil, $100,000 isn't that much money any more. Anything less than $10 million is beans with this kind of publicity. She should ride it out to a legal precedent, then write a book and do some talk show appearences.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, of course. But as I understand it, this wouldn't do much to create an anti-RIAA "case law" anyway, even if she flat-out wins.
Simply put, the RIAA has squat while she has an overwhelming abundance of evidence in her favor. While we may suspect the same conditions apply in at least a few of the other RIAA suits, I really have little doubt that th
Not case law, but copycat defense example (Score:2)
And that kills the RIAA's backup business plan - "if you can't hold the product hostage, hold the customer hostage".
Fighting the last war (Score:5, Interesting)
It is very hard to see how they get around this one. Prosecuting people will not take care of the move to singles. They probably cannot raise the price of the singles. It is hard to see how they ever reinstate the album purchase to where it was.
Yes, its tough. And they are not helping themselves by focussing on a completely different problem from the real one.
That's why they want iTunes to sell 99 tracks (Score:5, Informative)
I download albums (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer to download whole albums, either legally or through dubious means (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*). I think it gives a better indication of the artist and the art they perform.
I hear a song I like via a friend or the radio (I'm on Oz so we have tripleJ/classicFm/Digg
I would happily pay for all my music album downloads if I could choose my bit rate, the files were DRM free and the price was reasonable lower than the cost of a CD (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*).
eMusic.com (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
For years and even decades, music companies have managed to milk the talent of skilled performers while at the same time overpumping and burning out mediocre ones. However, those days are gone, and the market has changed. Gone are the days when you needed to buy three tapes if you wanted a proper-quality v
Vexatious litigation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ruling against the tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
INAL but really I regard this as a ruling against RIAA's bullying tactics.
It appears to me they are trying to draw out the costs of the case through two years of pre-trial discovery. The idea appears to be simply to bankrupt the defense and/or intimidate potential future defendants (i.e. the public) by showing that they don't have to go to trial in order to financially ruin their victim. Seems to occur commonly enough whenever one party in a case has especially deep pockets and the other doesn't.
What the judge is saying is, the RIAA can't just run up a huge legal bill and walk away. Score one for the little guy.
Re:Ruling against the tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
That should be the case as a matter of law. That it's not is a travesty of justice, and makes it obvious that the U.S. legal system is not designed to serve the people, but to serve the lawyers and moneyed interests.
There should be no option of dropping a case without prejudice unless the defense agrees. If you were stupid enough to bring a case against someone else before the court without significant evidence, you should by law be forced to suffer the consequences, either by losing the case entirely or by being forced to pay for their defense, if your case is weak and the defendant is willing to fight to the finish.
And yes, I realize the consequences regarding suing a well-financed opponent. That's why I think any civil judgment rendered, whether it's against the plaintiff or the defendant, should be limited by law to a maximum of some large percentage of that entity's total assets. That way, if an individual sues a corporation and loses, it'll hurt a lot but it won't completely bankrupt the individual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately your ideas are worse than the status quo.
There is nothing "obvious" about how the law is constructed in the U.S. The law is, essentially, our ongoing attempt to define what American life is supposed to be like. This is because in the U.S. we do not have a single localized ethnic tribal tradition to guide our behavior, we're a mishmash of lots of those, so we need to rely on law to figure out how we want to behave toward each other. (As other countries experience this move toward "mishmashines
I'd love to be buying albums again (Score:2)
I eagerly await the day when
1) DRM-free files or CDs cost less than DVD movies (around $5 US would be just fine for an album)
2) The mafiaa isn't insulting/threatening/suing us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'd love to be buying albums again (Score:4, Informative)
Even with $40/CD the artist gets less than $0.10/CD
Re: (Score:2)
Since you have, perhaps you care to comment on the advisability of switching over to the DVD format instead. It looks like they can be profitably made for less. At least evidence would seem to suggest that.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4 [youtube.com]
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
Re: (Score:2)
so why cant CDs be cheaper than DVDs again? please explain...
Critical Court procedural detail (Score:3, Informative)
The usual American solution is to cross-file, wherein defendant becomes cross-plantiff. Then plantiff might well withdraw their suit, but cross action proceeds. Most often, both are cleared in a settlement agreement.
Here, it appears the crossfile was not done, so the Judge has to unfortunately step in.
RIAA Steamroller (Score:2)
Re:RIAA Steamroller (Score:5, Insightful)
In each case they were asking for more time because they had too many briefs to write in other cases.
I've been practicing litigation law for more than 28 years, and have never in my career requested additional time for such an asinine reason. They have hundreds of lawyers working for them. These people are losing it.
Enough with the Ad Hominem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA has their choice of whom they sue. The have the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each case after their John Doe suit that they will drop (that's fraud on the Court, if anything is IMHO) once they have personally identifying informat
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. Now I see why the CDs don't contain profanity or violent lyrics. There's plenty right there in the store.
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your grief, but "it's that simple" is a dead give away that your solution is kinda too easy to work.
And if you read what you wrote couple of times, you may realize the irony of the situation. You refused to sell a CD to a buying customer. Sure, he was going to put the CD on the Internet, and that sucks. But he was there to buy that CD.
In the end, before your intervention you had 1 CD sold, after your intervention you had 0 CD sold. Where do you believe this "punk" will get this album from now? Either another store, or the Internet. You lose, either way.
It takes *one* to copy his CD to the Internet for the entire world to have. You have to simply accept that blacklisting people that talk about copying CD-s *in the store* is a wildly inaccurate way to blacklist all pirates.
Even if you "decide to play safe" and blacklist every single person in US (assuming you're in US), someone will buy this CD in another country and upload it, and adapt your business to this, and you'll be out of customers since you blacklisted them all. It's a lose-lose situation.
Violence against the customers just causes lost customers and bad word spreading about your shop. You can be sure this guy told all his friends about this event, and they told their friends. You'll likely not see then buying from you any more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
BBQ?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
BYO.
--- the lameness filter is deadly accurate --
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio has the benefit of a large captive market - radio isn't going anywhere.
There are millions of commuters who spend hours in their cars every day. Aside from yakking on the phone, most listen to the radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Create an unenforcable, uncreatable blacklist of pirates. Dude, you should be on letterman.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice one. Way to fuck your own "self made from the ground up business" right up in the ass!
So what if people are putting the crap you sell on the net, all you heard is hearsay in the store. If I was one of those kids, I'd be dragging you through both the papers and the courts, then see how you like the plummet into bankrupcy rather than just a gentle slide.
The only thing more fun than vigilante justice, is watching the person who led t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Witness:
"They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"
"I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. 'I don't know, Jenny. I don't know.'"
And just take the time to read the final paragraph, for cryin' out loud! I've seen some pretty terrible attempts at sarcasm online (dig
Outmoded business model (Score:3, Insightful)
Cut and paste post alert (Score:5, Informative)
Alert: The parent is a cut and paste post. This usually indicates a troll.
Other instances of this post are here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HA!
Re: (Score:2)
What did you do before you sold records, run a buggy-whip factory?
I'm sorry that things aren't going well for you in record business, but should the rest of the world put progress on hold so you can refuse to change with the times?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
How very christian of you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
lets take this point by point
"It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family marke
Re: (Score:2)
I got it.
You brilliantly illuminated the sort of thinking and false assumptions that are holding back progress, and kept a straight face all the way through. Its well done. Writing a good troll is a true art these days, and a well written one makes people think
Right up there with JerryLeeCooper's best.
Thx
This is an OLD Troll (Score:3, Informative)
Your sales are going across the street. (Score:2)
I get a lot of my books over the Internet these days, from Fictionwise and Baen Webscriptions. None of them are DRMed, they're more convenient to carry around and read on the go, I can fit a hundred paperbacks into a flash card the size of my thumbnail and read them on a PDA that fits in my pocket... and costs less than
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats like saying Catholics have good sex.
Well, Madonna [wikipedia.org] was raised Catholic, and baptised her children in a catholic church. I don't know if she's been offical excommunicated from the church like Sinéad O'Connor, but if she has not she's likely still a Catholic. I can't say for a fact that she has good sex, but she does have alot of it and has published a couple of books on the subject of her sex life. I am not a fan of Madonna... and in fact use her as an example of how unhealthy attitudes imposed by the Cathlic church really are. It would seem that people, men and women alike, who were raised full blown Catholics from my observation tend to end up either prudish or hyper-sexual. While I would have serious reservations having a serious relationship with someone raised Catholic, I can say I have had great sex with Catholics.
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I know you hate the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
isn't it more fun... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is the RIAA's case record? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not know of a single case having gone to trial.
(I'm not saying it's never happened; only the RIAA knows for sure. But of all the cases mentioned on my blog, which are all the contested cases I know about, there is not a single fully contested case.)