Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers 133
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Angered at the RIAA's 'gamesmanship' in joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case without any basis for doing so, a Magistrate Judge in Maine has suggested to the presiding District Judge in Arista v. Does 1-27 that the record companies and/or their lawyers should be fined under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules, for misrepresenting the facts. In a lengthy footnote to her opinion recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint (PDF, see footnote 5), Judge Kruvchak concluded that 'These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.' She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its 'John Doe' case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names. Arista v. Does 1-27 is the same case in which student attorneys at the University of Maine Law School, "enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance", are representing undergrads targeted by the RIAA."
What if my name REALLY is "John Doe" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if my name REALLY is "John Doe" (Score:5, Funny)
Or if your license plate was NO PLATE [snopes.com]? It would be hell dealing with all the John Doe warrants that will pop up in automated systems whenever you try to do anything.
Sorry to those of you who follow the above link and get Zango adware [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you were the groom and the bride was called Jane.
Re: (Score:2)
It took him a lot of effort to clear his name, but i don't think it deterred the judiciary from continuing to use John Doe's everywhere.
Seems judiciary preaching is for others only. Not for itself. "Do as i say, not as i do."
(Read this incident in an old LIFE magazine my grandpa was having...was too bored on one those nights when just sleeping and doing nothing in bed with
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The fat lady (Score:1)
Re:The fat lady (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The fat lady (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If the costs go up it will be the RIAA who will go hungry not the labels.
The labels might see that the RIAA is losing its effectiveness and form a new super cartel and find new ways of extorting money from copyright infringers. Like associating p2p with child porn.
Re:The fat lady (Score:4, Informative)
Repeat offenders? (Score:2)
IANALANFWSFL (I am not a lawywer and not familiar with sanctions for lawyers), so could someone comment on this who knows more about it?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, even if the court's rules don't have a provision for disbarment, regular concerned citizens could
Re: (Score:1)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an app
Outrage! RIAA blames economic downturn on piracy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Outrage! RIAA blames economic downturn on pirac (Score:4, Informative)
If the trolls were all like you, the internet would be a more fun place
Re: (Score:1)
I was actually thinking of making the idea an Onion-style satire, but I'm hardly clever enough, so it degenerated to this. If someone else can pull it off, though, by all means, go for it
Re: (Score:2)
Respect where it is due
Re:Outrage! RIAA blames economic downturn on pirac (Score:2)
usually trolls piss me off, but you win.
when bad things happen to bad people (Score:2)
tag: suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I misread the headline (Score:5, Funny)
I'd rather not fire them into the Sun right now; it's busy doing the payroll. Would it be OK if I fired them into one of the Dells? None of them are doing anything mission critical.
Not the Dells! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are 100 lawyers up to their necks in shit?
Right. Not enough shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrase Futurama (Score:2)
Re:I misread the headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
...into space, couldn't we? Please? (Score:1)
Perhapse that rail gun [slashdot.org] would do the trick? The excape velocity is quite obtainable these days! ...only the RIAA lawyers head may not quite fit through the opening between the rails at this time. We all well know that with rail guns the density, or mass of the projectile, is everything, so by my calculations with the density of Encephalitis Spongiform required to file these law suites in the first place, it may still make it feasible. After all
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if we did, we'd have to use resources... (Score:2)
Hah, just kidding.
OK, launch the lawyers. And let them keep the Shuttle while you're at it, it will save us a bundle.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A more effective solution might be filing the RIAA's attorneys (under "W" for Weasels, say) and then locking the cabinet. Just make sure it's a particularly sturdy model, and if it so happens that your filing cabinets are inside a bank vault so much the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they qualify as "carbon neutral" fuel though?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you get the feeling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I assume not even a fine like this will slow down the RIAA. They will probably just move on to their next questionable tactic and keep going.
Not really (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA lawyers were bending the law to get names--this was seen as being done in bad faith. Hence the footnote and the news article.
You may now resume your activity of reading further into the judge's remarks.
Cheers.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - Sue the batches of people as a group. This wouldn't stand long as it would be easy to prove that their alleged wrongdoings weren't connected in nature.
2 - Submit the John Doe suits separately. This would backfire as judges wouldn't be too happy to see a giant stack of individual lawsuits being added to their docket. The RIAA would quickly see their lawsuits getting tossed out by judges and perhaps even fines issued for wasting the court's time.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, if you're reading this, can you verify whether I'm reading this right?
Re:Not really (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Informative)
Effects of Rule 11 sanctions? (Score:2)
Apart from the fines, are there any other interesting/useful effects if a firm or its lawyers are sanctioned under rule 11? For example, do cases from the firm attract more scrutiny from the courts? Is it likely to cost them clients because the sanction appears in public records that clients can see?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, is it more of a cost-cutting measure or is it because they know it's easier to slip one faulty lawsuit past the courts than trying to slip 27 past?
Also let me just say how great it is to find a lawyer who's so concerned with preserving the sanity of the law as it is written rather than allowing it to be pilfered senselessly by his contemporaries. Keep up the good work, NewYorkCountryLawyer!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What it would mean is that instead of bringing one "John Doe" suit to get the names and addresses of the 27 people, they would have to bring 27 different "John Doe" suits.
Which they could certainly try, perhaps with "form" litigation where the filing papers are all templated so that the complaints become boilerplate. However, how long could this go on before, as the grand parent suggested, the judges become tired of having their time wasted by the RIAA in "trivial" matters OR as those in the legal profession say, "De minimis non curat lex" (The law does not deal in trifles)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fines get treated as a "business expense". Jailing the lawyers might be far better at hindering the RIAA.
Hold a lit candle under their scrotum instead. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend they be sentenced to Max-Security Prison for 48 hours; and that their cell partner be 'Bubba': a 200 lbs neanderthal who has never and will never see sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 hours, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64...
Re: (Score:2)
This is why disbarment would probably be the best course of action. Fines are not an effective deterrent for these guys because, like you said, they have way too much money for that, and like someone else pointed out earlier they could just pass the fines along to their clients. Disbarment is the ultimate penalty for a lawyer, and seriously hurts them as they are no longer able to make any money because it is illegal at that point for them to be practicing law in whichever state disbars them.
Typical (Score:4, Interesting)
Until we're willing to elect leaders to make a change, until we are willing to demand that the education system educate, until we vote with our pocketbooks and with our protest signs, this will continue. How long are we going to let the law abuse us? How long will our children be tossed in jail among adults to be murdered and sexually abused?
Re: (Score:1)
Uhh...wha? How does going after the most vulnerable members of society result in a big paycheck? Lawyers like to go after the richest, most powerful members of society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? Have you ever been to any of these places? How can you even justify grouping 'europe' as a safe place when it consists of 48 distinct and different countries which all have their own unique issues?
I can only speak of living in the UK and believe me it's not all red telephone boxes and cream teas. I know sometimes children are target
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take a look at a typical UK city, say, Manchester and compare it to a typical US city, say, New York, and a violent city, like Saint Louis. In Saint Louis, crime in 2006 was 14228.6 per one hundred thousand [areaconnect.com]. In Greater Manchester, crime in 2005 was roughly 1110 per one hundred thousand [police.uk], with a population around 2.55 million. (This information might very well be apples to oranges, but is police re
Re:Please cite link for Paul Morrison and 16 yr. o (Score:4, Informative)
So what does Paul Morrison do? He throws the book at an abused 15 year old girl. At 16, she is placed in an adult prison. The 16 year old girl is forced to strip on a weekly basis in front of male guards. She's surrounded by women and transgender men who are in jail for trafficking drugs, violent crimes, prostitution, and other violent crimes. She is not allowed to take college courses. At 15, her life was over, all because she did not want to be abused any longer.
As you know, Paul Morrison is now AG. He used the misery of a little girl to catapult himself to statewide office.
Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
The judge specifically wants to fine them under Rule 11(b)(3), which states:
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery
Re:Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 11 [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not the first time I've heard a claim like that, and -- from the perspective of somebody who doesn't know anything about hands-on practice of law -- it doesn't seem credible. Can you go into more detail?
Is there a blacklist somewhere? How will it interfere with their ability to attract clients? Will people drop them as attorneys? Exactly how will it affect how they're perceived by a judge? By opposing counsel?
Re:Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rule 11 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wowie, indeed.
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to believe the best justice that money can buy if FAR lower than the best justice. Maybe I have too much hope in the judicial system, maybe I am a privileged white male in a racist and misogynist world, but regardless I still believe there are plenty of good judges out there, and their justice is much better than they justice money can buy.
So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So what? MAYBE... (Score:2)
I would think if the joinder is found to be improper, then all the Does after Doe #1 would quickly be severed, meaning only the first Doe would have his/her information subpoenaed, and individual
The lengthy footnote 5 (Score:5, Informative)
I share the Doe Defendants' concern over the absence of individualized allegations, but for a different reason. My concern has to do with the rules of joinder, see Rule 20(a), and whether it is appropriate for the Plaintiffs to join claims against disparate defendants concerning disparate (albeit similar) conduct, even if only for the purpose of gaining the authority to serve subpoenas to obtain the defendants' names and contact information. I assume they have done so in order to limit their filing fees and make their discovery work more manageable, but I am not convinced that it is proper. See, e.g., DirecTV, Inc. v. Adrian, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8922, 2004 WL 1146122 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2004) (involving claims that defendants separately pirated satellite TV services, without any allegation of concerted action, concluding that joinder was improper, and severing all but the first named defendant from the action). In particular, paragraph 20 of the complaint alleges that the claims against all defendants arise from the "same series of transactions or occurrences" because the Doe Defendants have the same ISP (the University of Maine) and all engaged in file-sharing over the Internet using that ISP. The complaint wants, however, any allegation of concerted conduct. The allegation that all of the claims arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences because all of the defendants used the same ISP sounds good, but makes little sense when one appreciates that having a common ISP says nothing about whether the use of that service by two or more people amounts to the same transaction or occurrence. Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. Separately, the Court may sever defendants sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 21, although dismissal of the action is not authorized. I appreciate that increased costs may redound to the defendants' detriment eventually, but it is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here with respect to joinder. Suppose, instead of university students, the record companies chose to target all individuals within the District of Maine who had used these P2P services and had TimeWarner Cable for their ISP. Would all those individuals be properly joined in a single complaint? I think the Plaintiffs know the answer to that question because on May 5, 2007, many of these same plaintiffs filed a very similar lawsuit, Atlantic Recording Corp., et al. v. Does 1-22, 1:07-cv-057-JAW. A procedure similar to the one used in this case was adopted in that case, but no motions to dismiss or motions to quash were filed and presumably the plaintiffs obtained the discovery they sought. The case was voluntarily dismissed on July 16, 2007. Following that dismissal the same counsel filed at least three separate cases in this court: Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. Anna Lenentine, 1:07-cv-133-JAW, on September 4, 2007 (still pending); Capitol Records Inc. v. Cara Laude, 2:07-cv-154-GZS, on September 4, 2007 (settled and dismissed on January 22, 2008); and Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Christopher Leavitt, 2:07-cv-156-DBH, on September 4, 2007 (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on October 16, 2007). The relevant allegations in the respective complaints simply state that the defendants were "identified as the individual[s] responsible for that IP address at that date and hour" without reference to how the identification was made. However, there is certainly a "plausible inference" that the identifications were made as a result of the May lawsuit. It is curious that no attempt was made to join these cases as arising from the same transaction or occurrence if my plausible inference is accura
hmmmm so a judge wants to punish trigger happy (Score:1)
What has this world come to? (Score:1)
RICO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh YES!!! (Score:1)
This Would End Immediately If... (Score:2)
Note also that this common sen
Re:This Would End Immediately If... (Score:4, Informative)
-evidence
-in a form that would be admissible at trial
-sufficient to establish each and every element of
-a legally sufficient claim for copyright infringement.
The RIAA has none of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why is there virtually no judge willing to put a stop to this at the initial John Doe ex parte stage? I can't believe that they all slept through that day of class in judge school.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2. This judge [blogspot.com] did.
Re:The judge (Score:4, Interesting)
More important is the fact someone didn't do their homework. The PDF is dated this year! It admits using Media Sentry. Isn't the legal status of using an unlicensed investigator already in question? This case could have been thrown back with so much holes exposed it could get laughed out of court. They even seem to get away with calling the infringement copyright piracy. Wow. At least they have toned it down and didn't call it outright theft. Dudes.. It's copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only in states where it's illegal to be an unlicensed "investigator".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
re:oops (Score:1)
ed
Re: (Score:2)
You can also take it one step further and set your threshold higher. Something like a setting of 2 or 3 and then changing the modifiers for the the reasons you want to see to include +2 or +3 respective to your threshold values and it would be even harder for them to display.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I should have been more clear in that it wouldn't be fool proof, it was just a way to make posts marked as offtopic harder to see. I would hazard to guess that not seeing as many offtopic posts is just as valuable as not seeing any given offtopic posts given the setup and system we are working with.
Also, the idea that something might be
Re: (Score:3)