Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment 154

Posted by samzenpus from the make-it-slow-and-painful dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Boston case, Capitol v. Alaujan, the defendant is representing herself, without a lawyer. Nevertheless, the Judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, which the RIAA had based upon the defendant's alleged failure to respond to the RIAA's Request for Admissions. The Court's decision (pdf) held that the RIAA had served its requests for admission prematurely, prior to the conduct of any discovery conference. The Court also noted that the RIAA had upped the ante quite a bit, trying to get a judgment based on 41 song files, even though it had originally been asking for judgment based on 9 song files. This would have increased the size of the judgment from about $7,000 to about $31,000. The Judge scheduled a discovery conference for October 23rd, at 2:30 P.M. and ordered everybody to attend. Such conferences are open to the public."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment More

Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment

Comments Filter:

  • Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Highlighting every abuse of judicial power as a good thing because it stymies the RIAA is just the geek version of invoking "the children" to justify similar abuses of the system.

    • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:01PM (#20245279) Journal
      No, judges do not enforce, police and prosecutors do the enforcing. But that would be criminal law, and this is civil.

      The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.

      I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.

      • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lockejaw ( 955650 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:08PM (#20245321)
        And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty. If all they did was interpret laws, every case would be essentially a summary judgment.

        • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:4, Informative)

          by E++99 ( 880734 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:35PM (#20245489) Homepage
          And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.

          • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:5, Informative)

            by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:53PM (#20245615)
            There were other swings and misses in both that comment and elsewhere in this thread. I haven't read any other comment threads attached to this story but I rest assured they are mostly as bad.

            What law are judges presiding over the RIAA cases supposedly making? What precedents are they ignoring or going against? Can anyone articulate these things or are we just jumping on a "judicial activism is bad and every judge is a judicial activist" bandwagon lately?

            As to summary judgment and interpreting the laws - these are orthogonal concepts. Summary judgment is simply the judge deciding that the case must come down a certain way according to the law, because there is no material fact in good-faith dispute. A material fact is one that actually matters to the case. For instance, if I have to prove that you sold me a car in order to win, it is immaterial whether the car was made in Japan.

            The idea that judges "interpret" the laws is mostly a creature of high school civics classes. Judges apply the laws to disputes between parties. The judge may do some interpreting in the process, but that is neither the judge's whole job or is it solely the judge's job.

            The criminal vs. civil issue will be dealt with in 30 other comments to this story. I'm not overly concerned about covering it here, as a result.

            The judge vs. jury divide is worth discussing. Juries decide issues of fact. That's their only real job. When a judge denies a motion for summary judgment, he is essentially saying that there is enough of a factual dispute to send the case to a jury. It won't go to a jury immediately, of course, but it hasn't lost that possibility in the future. That's what happened here.

          • And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty.
            And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.
            I said courts, not judges.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by E++99 ( 880734 )

        The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.

        I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.

        If a judge's job were to interpret the law "based on past case histories," he would be doing nothing but turning past judgments into legislation! And power being what it is, many are happy to do so.

        A judge's job is to apply the law, as written, to the case. Insofar as it's possible within that man

    • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:4, Informative)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:42PM (#20245525)
      Wrong Wrong Wrong.

      the judicial system's very purpose is to interperate the law, and to test it in court. You have ZERO understanding of how the legal systems works if you think all judges do is rubberstamp the law.

      open your damn ears, haven't you ever heard of laws being thrown out on account of them failing to hold up in court on a consitutional challenge?

    • Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @04:39AM (#20246867)
      Judges should not ENFORCE the law. That's the job of the police. Judges should not MAKE the law. That's the job of the government. Judges should INTERPRET the law.

      That's how the system works. Government makes laws. They decide what is legal and illegal, what procedures are to be followed and how the other two powers are to behave in the context of the law. Under perfect circumstances, those laws are created with a balance in mind that aims at upholding the order and create a fair and balanced playing field for everyone.

      Police (or the executive in general) enforces the law. They are granted rights and privileges above those of a normal person who they are to employ within the borders of legality to enforce the laws created by the government, to enforce order and to hunt down and arrest people who break the law.

      The courts, finally, have a rather heavy load to bear. They are on one hand a safeguard for the other powers, especially the executive (so they don't overstep their rights), on the other hand it's on the court to make sure that procedures are followed and the orderly flow of the system is observed. And finally it's the court's position to decide in ambigious cases which side should be "winning". Guilty or not.

      They're not making law. They are using the laws present to interpret them in such a way that the fairness and balance created through the legislative are observed and upheld.

      At least that's the theory. That reality often doesn't match it is a given. But generally, those are the reasons those three parts exist. No single power should have all the power in its hands.
  • some tips for the slashdot crowd:

    welcome the outdoors! yes the bright thing up there is called the sun. no you can't turn it off. the other people you see around you you can't just point and click on to communicate with, nor should you strafe them

    1. bathe. it is customary for members of the public to bathe, at least more than once a month
    2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants
    3. shave, if you are male. not a requirement, but a good idea if you don't have groomed facial hair. and if you are reading this and you aren't male... well, who are we kidding

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )
      Shaving, I never did get why it is so necessary to look like a pre-pubescent child, perhaps the mass media 'in' crowd could explain that one too me, I would have thought it was indicative of some seriously disturbed shared sexual preferences, but then the hollywood and MTV crowd will sell anything.

      Are you, or are you not, part of the Slashdot crowd (you read, you post, you are), as such I really don't see the need for you to share your obviously disturbed grooming and dress habits ;).

      • women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

        again, considering the forum, i am not surprised you don't know this

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by andphi ( 899406 )
          circletimessquare has it right, at least as far as female preference. Women prefer it (though my wife oscillates periodically on this subject), it apparently looks more professional, and the average adult male has enough angular bone structure in his face to make it readily apparent that he isn't 14.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          Hmm, are they born this way, or is this sexual perversion just driven by mass media, it would seem rather illogical that men and women naturally evolved this way over hundreds of thousands of years, I mean why do you consider the natural appearance of men and women so disgusting, is there something you see in the mirror that so disturbs you in the mornings.

          Considering the reply, I would not be surprised that you cant' tell the difference between you making a choice and somepne marking your choices for you

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by sumdumass ( 711423 )
            It used to be common for a man to shave in order to continue to look young to attract a mate. After they got their mate, they signified it by growing a beard. Some Amish still practice this. It was sort of a off the market thing.

            Of course some people cannot grow a decent beard and not everyone does this for other reasons like looks. Some people lacking facial feature like strong chins and stuff grow beards to hide their percieved imperfections. A lot of things (like jobs) require people to be clean shaved t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Splab ( 574204 )
              Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts.
              • Agreed...getting out of a hot shower and then taking a fresh sharp razor to 3 day old stubble covered in soft foam is one of the simple pleasures in life.
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts.
                Also they can tickle, which I have found quite positive for the female interest.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )
              you kinda left out legs, armpits and crotches, hmm. Still as a supposedly intelligent species attempting to look like a sexually immature version of the species has to be psychologically questionable and in today's age, with regard to the threats to children in society, that attempt and the desirability of those features surely sets questionable moral precedence and provides very poor subconscious life lessons for children growing up in that environment.

              Of course I'm slack and idle, I don't grow a beard s

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Sancho ( 17056 )
                A good straight razor will last you a lifetime and give you a better shave than those crappy Gilettes. And it's something you can pass on to your children.

                As for your nature argument, it's bollucks. There are great biological reasons to choose a younger mate. Young men are more likely to be able to kill and protect the tribe than old men. Young women will produce healthier children, and will live longer to produce more children so that the species has a higher chance of survival.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by rtb61 ( 674572 )
                  Evolutionary speaking, bullocks boy, if that were true, then men would not grow beards, and women would not get hairy legs, evolution takes tens of thousands of years it does not happen overnight. You have even confused social with biological evolution.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Sancho ( 17056 )
                    I haven't confused social with biological evolution. I've suggested that they're somewhat entwined.

                    Someone earlier in the thread asked why we would shave, making ourselves appear younger. I posit that we do so because on an unconscious level, we seek younger mates because evolutionarily, they were healthier and more capable. I don't suggest that this was the reason that someone initially took a razor to his face--rather, I suggest that it's the reason that this tradition has stuck around. People who sha

            • unless your in a profession that would need it

              Bluegrass band?
          • it's called secondary sexual characteristics. it's a way for mother nature to announce that this person is ready for sex and procreation. women grow breasts, men grow beards. later, the beard grows white, the breasts sag. before puberty, there are no breasts, and there is no beard. this is the way homo sapiens has evolved to tell the other sex that we, as sexually mature pieces of fruit or not are either: not ripe/ too young, ripe/ ready for action, over ripe/ past our prime

            these are of course biological co

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )
              Oh Crap. In the 1920 Mr Gillette wanted to get really really rich selling razors, and initiated a marketing campaign to achieve that goal. To imply that human evolution has been driven by what has occurred in the last century is stupid, behaviour driven by mass marketing and obeying the marketing fed to you since birth either directly or indirectly via your parents or peers who are just parroting the marketing B$ they have been fed, points to the gullibility and stupidity of the human race. Fortunately that
              • since 3000 BC at least, and in all cultures

                your ignorance is deafening

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by rtb61 ( 674572 )
                  On Deaf and dumb one. Actually look at history and prevalent cultures. Actually look at the 18th century outside of the rich and greedy un-noble nobility. Here is why did the un-noble pursued the pre-pubusecent look, veneral deasease, and an absence of morals (want to be sure thaey don't have venereal disease, then take them young). You watchy TV old stuff, only see rich not poor, the majority driver evolution, as for breeding, all pursue the strongest, those that actually have matured, that's why the pubes

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jamstar7 ( 694492 )

          women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

          My fiance' LOVES my beard. It's long enough to be soft to tickle her in all the right spots.

        • It has nothing to do directly with sex appeal.

          Warriors shave their beard and cut their hair short so that, in hand-to-hand combat, it is hard for opponents to grab their hair.

          (Of course, many chicks go for warriors... or the warrior "look.")
        • I shave as denial of my shameful ape ancestry.
        • Not where I'm from. A short bit of facial hair is actually quite nice at concealing small blemishes, adjusting age, or in general filling out ones face or appearing more rugged.

          My girlfriend actually likes the way I look with some facial hair, though more of the under-the-nose variety as opposed to the full-face beard. I prefer shaving because beards, and goatees etc, just tend to be itchy, sweaty, and harder to maintain properly. At the moment I'm holding on to some of the fuzz, but we have an agreement

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by E++99 ( 880734 )
        I'm with you. For an adult male to shave is essentially to dress in drag. Hey, men have done worse things through history as societal norms than removing their facial hair to look like women. But the way that masculinity is feared by most modern Western men and women alike is disturbing.
      • Men like women who like fast cars. So men like fast cars.

        Apply to other areas of male life as you will.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Kineticabstract ( 814395 )
          Nah, men like fast cars, period. Men also like women who like men with fast cars, but if there were no women who liked men with fast cars, men would still like fast cars.

          I concede that much of what we do centers around whether women like it, but not everything. I present as my proof the following word:

          "Golf"

          • I concede that much of what we do centers around whether women like it, but not everything. I present as my proof the following word:

            "Golf"

            A game where the object is to deposit a white object into holes using thursts from a long stick 18 times in a row ?-)

    • 2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants
      Translation required for us Brits please
    • I shave regularely, what are you ... oh, you mean the face, right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Weezul ( 52464 )
      Yes, it'd be nice if people showed up & expressed support, even the smelly kind. It might help her emotionally if nothing else.
    • Being Santa Claus I generally consider shaving to be pointless for 2 reasons.

      1. The kids love me with my fuzzy beard, without it I am nothing to them, nothing!!!
      2. When I shave my beard it grows back within minutes, as depicted in the awesome succesful funny christmas film Santa Claus featured with Tim Alles as me.

      However I do tend to shave my lower regions cause misses santa claus likes it that way.

  • yay boston (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ystar ( 898731 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @10:55PM (#20245247)
    This only shows that the legal system takes notice when a Big Bad Association acts extra evil. Reporting on little wins here and there is fun, but what's needed is more serious legal action against the RIAA for extortionist practices in the first place. Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.
    • Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.

      NYCountryLawyer and his firm are gaining lots of good publicity and notoriety for mounting successful defenses of ordinary people against a widely reviled group of corporate big money plaintiffs and their trade organization. You cannot buy this type of good will and press publicity at any price. This David and Goliath (think Erin Brockovich) kind of thing is what lawyers, particularly smaller independent firms, live for be

  • Self-defense? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:43PM (#20245529) Homepage Journal
    I've noticed that a number of these RIAA cases have some people who are choosing to defend themselves. More than I would have imagined. I don't know the specifics of each individual motivation, but I always felt that representing yourself was somehow risky. Perhaps it's lawyers seeking to defend their business by planting the meme that 'a lawyer who represents themself has a fool for a client' -- that you can't separate your emotions from the case well enough to adequately represent yourself? If a lawyer can't represent themself, what hope does a common person have? I can understand representing yourself in a small-claims case, but against a corporation with actual lawyers?

    But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win. I don't know, maybe I'm getting the wrong idea from these cases, but it gives me hope that if I'm ever summoned to court against a giant corporation, I might actually stand a chance instead of going broke even if I come out a winner.

    Does anyone else sense that a surprising number of these cases are being won by people who are defending themself? Why would it be that people are choosing to do so ( are the RIAA cases that easy to knock down ), and is it more than typical for average cases?

    • Re:Self-defense? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:14AM (#20245705)
      Yes people will get screwed if they represent themselves. No the system isn't fair, especially in the USA where lawyers cost a fortune. Thats the reason why people defend themselves. They basically have no choice because they have no money.
    • I've noticed that a number of these RIAA cases have some people who are choosing to defend themselves. More than I would have imagined. I don't know the specifics of each individual motivation, but I always felt that representing yourself was somehow risky.

      The trail has been blazed now, and mounting a defense is getting easier and easier thanks to NYCountryLawyer and others. I'd still want to hire a lawyer, but I think in this case not doing so is less risky than usual.

    • Re:Self-defense? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:07AM (#20246217)
      It is risky, but they may feel it is worth it. Can't afford to pay the extortion money, can't afford a lawyer so go for broke. Also if the lose the judgement there is the possibility that the court will consider their financial means and set up a payment plan.

      Also the RIAA isn't what I'd call "well lawyered". They may have a lot, but the guys in these cases seem like rookies. They do some DUMB shit. Maybe the first time in the courtroom for some of them. In that case, a smart respondent might not be at such a disadvantage, especially if the judge feels sympathy for them and helps them out a bit in legal matters.

      Finally, the RIAA has really, really weak cases here. I know it's civil court and reasonable doubt isn't the standard, but even still. Their evidence is extremely shaky and their declarations full of holes. Still not a great idea to defend yourself, but you aren't up against solid evidence.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )
        Maybe the idea was "He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one".
        • He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one

          Interesting. I didn't know that multiple-personality disorder was an advantage in the courtroom.

    • Re:Self-defense? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:39AM (#20246367) Journal
      But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win.

      What's important to remember is that the legal system is a political system, not a technical one. When push comes to shove, all the laws, case decisions, and procedures of law boil down to establishing agreement between members of a political body. (EG: a state or jurisdiction)

      When people represent themselves, a powerful force comes to play, depending on the judge - that of sympathy.

      The judge knows that people who represent themselves are disadvantaged. They are often (usually?) poor or at least, of insufficient means for their current circumstances. They are usually rather ignorant of the nuances of law and established procedure. (which, maddeningly enough, is subtly different for each jurisdiction, even within the same state)

      So, you'll typically get one of two reactions from your judge:

      1) They either pay no attention to the "pro per" status of the party, typically with a bit of annoyance that "you didn't file form 10-W at least 10 days in advance of the hearing".

      2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.

      In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. And, from a position of power, why not feel like the "good guy" when it costs you nothing?

      • In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1.
        Not surprising, as in neighboring Pea County there is a much stronger tendency towards #1.

  • Bottom line (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stox ( 131684 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:50PM (#20245589) Homepage
    Since the defendant is Pro Se, the judge forbid the plaintiff from rolling over the defendant on a technicality, and sited another technicality to make sure. This sounds like a great judge, who believes in the spirit and not just the word of the law. I wish we had more like her.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Threni ( 635302 )
      > "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? All the rest of you, just rattle your jewelry." - John Lennon

      "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? All the rest of us can just rattle our jewelry." - John "working class hero" Lennon

      Fixed it.

  • RIAA is desperate for cash, and bad at math (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:51PM (#20245601)
    Bumping up the amount in this case is not even
    enough to pay the $68K they owe in an earlier case.

    Going from 9 to 41 songs is just bad math.

  • No big. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2007 @11:57PM (#20245637) Homepage

    This is no big deal. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment prematurely, and the motion was denied. The case is still alive, and the parties have to meet and confer on scheduling and discovery issues. The idea is to take care of any issues on which the parties are not in disagreement before the judge has to deal with them. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 [cornell.edu].

  • huh ? there has piled up enough cases to clearly indicate that they are exploiting justice for personal profit.

  • OUTCH (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crashelite ( 882844 )
    i heard the RIAA was hurting for $$ but over 9 songs? damn i wonder what they would do about the 13k my friend has
    • ...or the thousands of songs that EVERYBODY has. The only result of all these lawsuits is more pissed off customers. Its like a dying action movie moment... the hero (or villian in this case) is going down taking shots left and right, but is still managing to fire his gun in all directions as a last resort to take down as many enemies/customers as he possibly can.
  • Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently. She either doesn't understand the legal niceties and the rules that she *must* play by, or chose to ignore them - and she just dodged a bullet. If the judge hadn't pulled her irons out of the fire this time by pointing to an apparent failure on the RIAA side to follow the rules as well, she'd already be toast.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SomeoneGotMyNick ( 200685 )

      Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently.

      Yes, and she needs to hire a full time driver, too. Because she shouldn't be behind the wheel because someone may think she's always doing something illegal while doing her daily driving.

      Maybe the judge is well aware of RIAA tactics and initiated the PUBLICLY PRESENTABLE discovery conference. It's one thing he can do to expose the RIAA to some degree without jeopardizing any impartiality.

  • someone should go and take pictures (Score:4, Funny)

    by flyneye ( 84093 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @07:03AM (#20247435) Homepage
    Someone should go and take pictures of the RIAA people.
    That way we could find out more about them.
    Maybe make note of some of their personal habits.
    Pick up any papers they discard.
    Follow them to the parking garage and make note of make,model and tag number.
    Fein interest and start a conversation to see what personal info they give up.
    Then share it with Slashdot so we can get to know them on a too personal level.
    That way we can call or go over some sleepless night and let the RIAA share the publics lack of privacy.Or get sex.Or valuables.Or......

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close