Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


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

LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed 67

Posted by Zonk from the two-steps-forward-two-steps-back dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The antitrust counterclaims imposed by Lime Wire against the RIAA record companies have been dismissed. In a 45-page decision (pdf), the Court relied principally upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly that 'A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Ironically, the Twombly decision was the authority upon which the RIAA's copyright infringement complaint was dismissed in Interscope v. Rodriguez."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed More

LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed

Comments Filter:

  • pjwalen sez... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 )
    stay off my side? I agree with that LimeWire is saying, and I like LimeWire, but their business model is based off illegally downloading music, for the most part. I don't feel like I want this business model fighting fo rour rights. It doesn't give legitimacy to our side.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Except that LimeWire is and can be used for indie music thats creators WISH to be heard. Indies don't have radio; until recently they had Internet Radio and P2P, but now don't even have Internet Radio, now that the RIAA and its labels have bought legislation from "your" representatives that effectively killed any US based Internat Radio stations.

      I, for one, wish that people would STOP putting the RIAA's crap in their "share" lists. But of course, so long as the average clueless computer user doesn't even kn
    • Then take the source code for LimeWire (since they do offer it,) change a couple flags, and then you have the PRO LimeWire for free. No need to pay them anything. I don't understand that particular little loophole of theirs, but hey, It certainly kills the nag screen and does make my downloads a bit speedier, so I won't complain.
  • 'A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Anyone have an English translation? Maybe I just need my coffee.
    • you aren't the only one. It strikes me that can cover the bulk of evidence in some cases, or at least making it useful.

      Reading that increased my desire to take a nap. I need to talk to my boss about getting a cot installed in my cubicle.

    • Re:English Please. (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @09:11AM (#21571057) Homepage Journal
      That means, basically, that the party that's suing or countersuing (LimeWire) has to show reasons why they should get relief (usually money) and that those reason need to be more than just name calling and saying "you owe me money, you owe me money!"

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tbg58 ( 942837 )
      Means that the plaintiff can't use boilerplate (form letter) verbiage as a complaint. In other words, the complaint is too generic or abstract and fails to state specifics, and is therefore not actionable. At least that's how it sounds to this layperson - IANAL.

    • Re:English Please. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Arnoud Engelfriet ( 566876 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @09:24AM (#21571179) Homepage
      When you accuse someone of violating a law, you have to show where and how he did that. You usually do this by copy&pasting the text of the statute and explaining how each element applies to what your opponent did. For example, for the cause of action "copyright infringement" you need to prove three elements: (1) your copyright ownership to the work, (2) defendant's access to the work, and (3) similarity with your original. What the court here says is that you have to do more than say "I own the copyright in the work. Defendant had access to it, and what he has published is very similar to my work." That's a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Arnoud

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MathFox ( 686808 )
        Furthermore, You can not just say "work", you have to specify the work like in "Slashdot comment #21571179"
    • A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Anyone have an English translation?

      The geek in court cobbles together words and phrases he half-remembers from reading the Wikipedia and thinks that is enough. The court has its own dictionaries and encyclopedias, what it needs from you is a clearly reasoned and fully-formed argument for legal relief.

    • from the order (Score:4, Informative)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @10:29AM (#21571975) Homepage

      The notion of "antitrust injury" grew from the recognition that a competitor may be injured not only by prohibited anticompetitive activity, but also by competition itself, and that the antitrust laws were not intended to afford the latter injuries a remedy. See Balaklaw v. Lovell, 14 F.3d 793, 797 (2d Cir. 1994). Antitrust injury, then, simply means "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful." Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977); accord Paycom, 467 F.3d at 290. To demonstrate antitrust injury, "a plaintiff must show (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) that has been caused by the violation; and (3) that is the type of injury contemplated by the statute." Blue Tree Hotels Inv., Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 220 (2d Cir. 2004). The antitrust injury requirement thus ensures that a "plaintiff can recover only if the loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant's behavior." Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 344 (1990).
      ...
      As described above, Lime Wire alleges a conspiracy among counter-defendants to fix prices for licenses at both the wholesale and retail levels. At the wholesale level, Lime Wire alleges that counter-defendants used their joint ventures, MusicNet and pressplay, "to effect a price-fixing arrangement among horizontal competitors" (FAC 36) -- i.e., among the record companies themselves.14 Although such a horizontal price-fixing arrangement is per se unlawful under 1 of the Sherman Act, see Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., ___ U.S. ___,Lime Wire has not established that it suffered injury-in-fact as a Case 1:06-cv-05936-GEL Document 51 Filed 12/03/2007 Page 14 of 45 omitted). "Restraints that are per se unlawful include horizontal agreements among competitors to fix prices or to divide markets." Id. (citations omitted). Although Lime Wire asserts in 16 its memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss that counter-defendants have "all refused to grant [Lime Wire] licenses to their catalogs of recorded music even at . . . artificially high prices" (Counter-P. Mem. 6), this allegation does not appear in the FAC itself, and thus cannot be considered by the Court in evaluating counterdefendants' motion to dismiss. See Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993) (noting that on motion to dismiss, consideration of factual allegations is limited to those allegations contained in complaint). 15 result of counter-defendants' purported arrangement. See Atlantic Richfield, 495 U.S. at 342 (noting that the "per se rule is a method of determining whether 1 of the Sherman Act has been violated, but it does not indicate whether a private plaintiff has suffered antitrust injury").

      Although Lime Wire "actively solicited licensed content" from "independent labels and artists" and "independent retailers/distributors" (FAC 44), the FAC contains no allegation that Lime Wire ever attempted to obtain or purchase a license from any of the counter-defendants or their respective joint ventures.16 Lime Wire's retail competitors may have "faced excessive wholesale prices" for licenses as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme (id. 36), but Lime Wire itself has not alleged any facts demonstrating that it suffered such harm. Although Lime Wire's attempt to obtain hashes from counter-defendants suggests that it intended eventually to obtain licenses from them, nothing in Lime Wire's pleading indicates that it has, in fact, sought (or imminently will seek) such licenses from counter-defendants. Accordingly, Lime Wire cannot claim that it has suffered injury-in-fact as a result of counter-defendants' wholesale pricefixing scheme.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Maybe I just need my coffee

      No, it's just like my saying to my friend Mike that if he adds RAM and defragments his hard drive his computer may run faster and he says "huh? What's a "hard drive? And what do I have to ram it with"?

      And like my cluelessly expecting Mike to know what RAM is, what a hard drive is (I used to talk about someone's hard drive and they'd pull out a floppy and say "this?") and about file fragmentation and seeing their eyes glaze over when I explained it, a lawyer will expect us to under
    • Money...lawyer...money....lawyer....

          'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
      tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
      less.'
      Lewis Carroll Through the Lookign Glass

    • For the life of me (and believe me, I know about needing more coffee, so you hae my utter sympathy on that score) that's a normal English sentence. Some of these words may have technical legal nuances, but 'relief' and 'action' are the only words there that I would not have used in everyday speech in roughly these senses; and these two exceptions are ones that are found in almost every discussion of these matters here on slashdot, so presumably the readership has some familiarity with them by now!

      Then agai

  • A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

    Maybe it's the lack of coffee this morning, maybe it's the fact that I didn't get a degree in Legalese Obfuscation, but: What on Earth is this sentence trying to say? Of all the things to say about this motion dismissal, why include this in the summary?

    A little further research seems to indicate that the anti-tru

    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @09:47AM (#21571455)
      Here's a basic legal summary of why Twombly is the active issue here:

      Before Twombly, a case called Conley was the dominant SCOTUS case explaining exactly what standards a Plaintiff's court pleadings must satisfy in order to, in our parlance, "state a claim". In truth, Conley was extremely ambiguous, and for years the courts had decried it as a waste of time and money.

      Twombly has now established that pleadings must, as a bare minimum, describe enough alleged facts so that - when the court assumes all of them to be true for the sake of a Motion to Dismiss - the pleadings allege a "plausible" claim. This means it has to be slightly more than "possible": for example, it's possible that I am in fact Bill Gates, but it's simply not plausible

      Now, the most practical effect of Twombly in district courts around the country so far (it's an August 2007 decision) has been that it is no longer sufficient to simply say "The defendant did X to me", and then simply list the alleged components of X as defined by law. Instead, plaintiffs now have to allege sufficient facts that move it across that fine line.

      Here, the Judge has simply stated that the Plaintiff has filed to properly allege his complaint; this is no different than if the Plaintiff had alleged rape but failed to allege forceful sexual assault.

      • Here's a basic legal summary of why Twombly is the active issue here: Before Twombly, a case called Conley was the dominant SCOTUS case explaining exactly what standards a Plaintiff's court pleadings must satisfy in order to, in our parlance, "state a claim". In truth, Conley was extremely ambiguous, and for years the courts had decried it as a waste of time and money. Twombly has now established that pleadings must, as a bare minimum, describe enough alleged facts so that - when the court assumes all of them to be true for the sake of a Motion to Dismiss - the pleadings allege a "plausible" claim. This means it has to be slightly more than "possible": for example, it's possible that I am in fact Bill Gates, but it's simply not plausible Now, the most practical effect of Twombly in district courts around the country so far (it's an August 2007 decision) has been that it is no longer sufficient to simply say "The defendant did X to me", and then simply list the alleged components of X as defined by law. Instead, plaintiffs now have to allege sufficient facts that move it across that fine line. Here, the Judge has simply stated that the Plaintiff has filed to properly allege his complaint; this is no different than if the Plaintiff had alleged rape but failed to allege forceful sexual assault.

        And what is most fascinating is that it was this same Twombly decision that led to the demise [blogspot.com] of the RIAA's own, now deceased, boilerplate "making available" complaint.

      • Here, the Judge has simply stated that the Plaintiff has filed to properly allege his complaint; this is no different than if the Plaintiff had alleged rape but failed to allege forceful sexual assault.

        Presuming that rape were, in the jurisdicition applicable to the analogy, defined as, say, "a sexual assault committed through use or threat of force", its more like the Judge saying that the problem is that the Plaintiff alleged "rape" and merely stated in his complaint "On such and such date, Defendant sexu

    • I'll give it a shot,

      Basically, before Bell Atlantic, the bar for filing a lawsuit(1) was very low. If you could outline the factors for a 'cause of action' (e.g., for, say, a tort battery claim, you'd say that the Defendant 1) intentionally 2) made contact which 3) caused harm--for the antitrust claim, I'm sure they're much more complicated), that would be sufficient to at least allow the suit to continue. If you fail to assert that those factors were met, or if there was no factual basis for what you st

    • A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

      Maybe it's the lack of coffee this morning, maybe it's the fact that I didn't get a degree in Legalese Obfuscation, but: What on Earth is this sentence trying to say? Of all the things to say about this motion dismissal, why include this in the summary? A little further research seems to indicate that the anti-trust charges were kicked out not because the judge ruled that the RIAA isn't an anti-trust organization - the argument didn't get that far. Instead, the judge ruled that Limewire hadn't really given much cause (i.e., hadn't provided enough factual argument) to investigate the matter further. Any lawyers on the group want to delve deeper?

      Exactly. The Court is saying that the initial claim -- the pleading -- did not have enough meat on its bones. The Court is also saying that, now that Lime Wire has gotten some evidence, if it feels it now has enough meat to put in a good amended pleading, it can make a motion for permission to do so, showing the Judge the new evidence it would be using.

  • LOL, Limewire! (Score:3, Funny)

    by autophile ( 640621 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @11:27AM (#21572781)
    LOL, Limewire [cristgaming.com]
  • I don't think so. Let me check again...
     
    ... nope, no "haha" tag. Funny that.
  • Dam, people still use Limewire, well in that case I fell sorry for those who still use limewire! NOT!

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close