RIAA Wants To Bar Jammie From Making Objections 306
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Duluth, Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed a motion seeking to bar the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she got married recently), from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents. To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections. I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team. A few days earlier, the RIAA lawyers filed a similarly ludicrous motion trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset's expert witness from testifying; that too is doomed."
Sorry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...
Sorry but they've filed a motion to keep me from telling you that their motion is frivolous.
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Simpsons quote, when Principal Skinner shows up in court to prove that Bart did not kill him:
Prosecutor: "Your honor, I move that Principal Skinner's entire testimony be stricken from the record."
Judge: "Denied!"
What I want to know is (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
Re:What I want to know is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
It's not who you know as much as it is how much money you have( for "contributions")... My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
Re:What I want to know is (Score:5, Funny)
My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
Yeah, but their balance sheet is probably looking more and more like mine every day.
serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:3, Insightful)
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:5, Informative)
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Every state has an organization which has the power to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct, up to and including disbarment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:serious question for a not so serious thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me a cynic but I think their line is more like "hey you're embarrassing us by drawing attention to your serious pattern of malpractice. Either stop it or be more subtle."
Re: (Score:2)
it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently?
Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently? Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Their motion opposing the defense expert seemed to me to be incompetant. They don't seem to understand Daubert and to be able to distinguish between "speculation" and presentation of scientifically plausible alternative scenarios.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Funny)
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?
"So, do you know that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?"
There, fixed that for you. The answer is yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why weren't they able to obtain competent representation? With all due respect to lawyers, there certainly seem to be competent lawyers who will take on very dubious cases if paid enough, e.g. David Boies representing SCO.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Competent lawyers, would, at some point, stop acting the fool. That's why the RIAA refuses to hire them. They need, to put it nicely, uncouth slavering attack dogs. If they could abuse a bulldog into wearing a suit, they wouldn't even need human lawyers.
Come on. Asking the judge to bar your opponent from participating in the court? What kind of sheep-brained idiocy is this? How could they even think that was a valid tactic to use? The only possible conclusion is that the RIAA lawyers are the victims of a full frontal lobotomy.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Funny)
It is easy to get a bulldog to wear a suit. They don't work for the RIAA on moral principals.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a very comforting assessment, given how many of them have been appointed by the Obama administration to positions of authority!
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Funny)
Asking the judge to bar your opponent from participating in the court? What kind of sheep-brained idiocy is this? How could they even think that was a valid tactic to use? The only possible conclusion is that the RIAA lawyers are the victims of a full frontal lobotomy.
Well I doubt it was a full frontal lobotomy, because all the viciousness is intact.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The good news is, the RIAA is suffering now. The bad news is, many people may be suffering later.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
"So, do you know that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?"
There, fixed that for you. The answer is yes.
Is it possible that the RIAA lawyers are competent, but are also whores who will do any little silly thing because their pay masters keep the cash-ola flowing? Or maybe not...
Ooh, ooh! I know this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a professional and a laborer is that the professional practices his profession to the best of his ability in the interest of his client, and the laborer puts the ditch where he's told to put the ditch.
Re:Ooh, ooh! I know this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed. That's not cynicism, it's actually the only ethical position and is a typical requirement for membership of a professional body.
An agent acts to the best of his ability in the interest of his client. Perhaps the confusion arises because people who act as agents in a commercial capacity are usually also professionals.
True professions are governed by a professional body that the professional is required to be qualified for, subscribed to and supervised by. The body may have a Charter [wikipedia.org] and have authority to set by laws [wikipedia.org] (legally enforceable rules) over their members. A substantial part of the rules for the professional body surrounds the potential for conflict of interest. They almost universally require that where any conflict arises, the professional must default to the position that is in the interest of, in order, his profession, his client and himself.
Admittedly, that is a little simplistic. Consider that prioritising the interests of the profession is often a tool for prioritising the interests of clients as a whole - if a profession is brought into disrepute it impacts everybody who relies on the profession. If the conflict is between two clients, prioritising the profession is an objective way for treating both of them fairly and evenly.
(I use British terms but the set up is broadly the same in most Western countries.)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.
Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.
Let's put it this way: the RIAA has the representation it deserves .
Not incompetence, arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is often likeneded to the mafia, and just as the mafia, they are used to the world behaving in a certain way. These lawyers might be high priced, but something tells me they grew up on cases where money talks. Not the real law of criminal cases or the bitterly fought battles of family court but corporate law. Where you often win just because you got the bigger team and the other side just settles because that is what everyone does.
They are now fighting a real battle against a real lawyer who is as far as I know backed by an extreme heavy weight from harvard and his students. All the bullshit that used to work to get a settlement doesn't work. They didn't pull this motion not because they thought it would work in court but because it worked for them before as bargaining chip in the settlement deal.
There is a real difference between a criminal type lawyer we see in on TV and the far more common business lawyers that draw up contacts and settle disputes.
I don't believe in incompetence, sorry, but these guys ain't that dumb and you would make a grave mistake thinking they are. I do believe in arrogance and the RIAA shows all the signs of it. They think there way works (and lets be honest, it has worked until now).
Also don't forget this, if they are cynical, then they might just be throwing things and see what sticks. Pretty much their tactics with prosecuting John Doe's in the first place. File every motion you can think off, you never know what the judge is crazy enough to accept or the opposition lawyer lets slip by. Because one thing this motion has achieved. More work for a lawyer working for free, more fugde for the judge to get lost in.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Funny)
Just how badly does a lawyer have to behave in the US to be disbarred?
Well, keep your eye on the RIAA's lawyer handling this case; I think he's trying to find out. He'll probably have an answer for you one of these days.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The moment a RIAA/MPIAA lawyer is publicly named and
Re: (Score:2)
Stipulated, counselor; does this mean that the RIAA and its individual lawyers can be sanctioned - by the court, the bar, or both?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.
I think it would bounce off their money umbrella and never reach their head at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You just might want to read the summary...
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a second trial. As Ray points out, there's no chance of the motion succeeding, but to play Devil's advocate: I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ("making available"). In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
...unless of course you were following the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In many legal systems, appeals are limited to matters of law, not matters of fact. At least in certain levels of the legal system. The highest courts don't want to bother themselves with deciding the facts, they want to spend their precious time on examining the law. Whether the RIAA has their paperwork in order is a matter of fact.
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Which does not apply here as this is not an appeal. The original trial was negated due to inappropriate jury instructions. That makes this effectively a new first trial (sort of like in football where you can get a new first down).
Re:it flies in the face of common sense (Score:4, Informative)
This is not an appeal. It is a new trial.
Gimmee a break (Score:4, Insightful)
a. You are not allowed to defend yourself
b. You can not attack back
c. You can not yell for help
d. And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.
Re:Gimmee a break (Score:5, Funny)
So you're a cop and I'm a black man?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well; actually; no. The cop does it to the black man because he knows he can. He knows he can because he knows that the judicial system in the US is stacked against the black man. The judicial system is stacked against the black man because it's set up to only work for the rich and big corporates and the black man, especially in the areas where the cops hang out, is mostly often neither of these (look at the outrage when it turned out that OJ got off because he was rich). The RIAA can go around suing co
Hmmh (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmmh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, the legal profession has rules such that, if you can show that a motion is frivolous, you can make the other side pay for your time spent arguing against it.
Is it a trap? (Score:2)
I wonder if they're intentionally calling attention to the documents, and have something in mind to try when the defense objects to the documents. Or am I on drugs?
estoppel? (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA's main argument is essentially judicial estoppel.The problem is that since the verdict in the first trial was overturned, matters implicit in that verdict were also overturned, so that there is effectively no previous determination. As I understand it, if the court in the first trial had made a separate determination of the validity of the copyrights, then reversal of the verdict on other grounds might let that determination stand and therefore prevent the defense from making the argument in the second trail, but since there was no such separate determination, overturning the verdict throws out everything.
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
Re:estoppel? (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with? Here in King County Superior Court of Washington State, you just go in to the records department, look up the case, click a checkbox and print and say "yes, certified copies plz"
If I were doing it pro se, it would be about $15 parking, then $5 per document + $1 for each additional page. Or about that. If it were a paralegal doing it, it would be about an hour of his pay, plus the fees... if a lawyer were doing it themselves? I would think most lawyers have more to do, but then some of them like to touch the dirty stuff themselves, I suppose.
Although, as a matter of copyright law, this would be Federal District Court... so all my notions are silly... still, I can't imagine a Federal District Court having less accessibility than a state superior court...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office [copyright.gov] in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office [copyright.gov] in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Well, even in the district court you don't make certified copies yourself... the clerks do it. In fact, in King County Superior Court, the only documents that you copy/print yourself are those on microfilm and only if they're uncertified.
Anyways, I read later down the line that they're interested in certified copyright records, which is entirely different. But when you just read "concerns about expenses of expedited certified copies" it lacks the sufficient context of "copyright records".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis....
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with?
They already have all the copies. In fact, even I have a set of all the copies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you in for any other form of "nasty beating"? ;))
Due to the legal policy of "Volenti non fit injuria" (that consent nullifies any claim of injury or damages), I must unequivocally state that that I do not consent to any "nasty beatings" of any kind, unless my words or actions should explicitly override this statement at a later date during private interactions...
To put it in layman's terms, "let's get to know each other first."
What the... (Score:4, Interesting)
Better yet, do they have a song on their list which the artist didn't assign the copyright to the label?
Re:What the... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go with yes, no and yes, but the result is much the same.
Obscuring justice? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Judge scheduled a June 8th telephone conference regarding the RIAA's motion to preclude objections.
The in limine motions are scheduled for June 10th.
Plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendants from making objections at trial
Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to suppress MediaSentry materials
Notice of hearing scheduling plaintiffs' motion to preclude objections
Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion to foreclose fair use defense
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to preclude reference to cases
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to exclude defendant's expert witness's testimony
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves? Yeah I guess that seems fair considering they (RIAA) are like totally only doing this to defend the rights of Artists. I wonder how much further they can push these strategies upon people and the courts before a angry mob with pitchforks try to storm their office buildings (remind me to invest stock in pitchfork companies at the earliest opportunity).
Re:Obscuring justice? (Score:5, Funny)
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
Re:Obscuring justice? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
Responding to my own post...
I just read through the Response from the Defendants in this matter. Wow... case law, and other stuff. Plus the point that, "THEY HAD 3 YEARS TO GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW!"
Honestly, the first thing I would have done once starting a trial is get certified copies of any public records that I think might be important... and proving that you own the copyright is pretty damn important!
I especially like the part where her lawyer states "hey, they wanted to stick strictly to the rules, so STICK IT TO THEM!" I totally agree with that.
If I were the RIAA's lawyer in this situation, I would be all, "ok, they made a good argument, I have to agree." And move forward... I'd rather ask for an continuance in order to get the certified copies, but that would probably be blocked, because she couldn't get an continuance even when she had to change counsel.
Being a pedantic bitch generates two situations, my arguments are really difficult to attack, and it requires the other party to follow the rules very strictly, however it also requires ME to follow the rules super strictly at all times as well. :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But if this were English, I'd think the RIAA had filed a motion to prevent the defense from citing precedents set in other cases. Is that seriously what this is?
Their motion is to prevent defendant from introducing "evidence of other copyright lawsuits involving Plaintiffs".
What I find interesting about it is that they did that themselves in this very case, in Trial #1. So they are trying to preclude the defendant from doing what they themselves did.
What does the Judge think of these tactics? (Score:4, Insightful)
If NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks a motion is ludicrous and doomed what does the judge think?
Doesn't this sort of telegraph to the judge the tactics being employed?
Is it really smart to effectively tell the whole court that you intend to grasp at every straw that comes your way?
They can't possibly be that stupid (Score:5, Funny)
To file a motion to bar objections on something that hasn't been the subject of exhaustive motion and discovery practice?
Correct me if I'm wrong (IANAL) you file a motion like that when the other side has been relentlessly arguing a point beyond all sense and reason and you are just trying to get them to knock it off and acknowledge - a la a request for admissions, that reality is what it is. Or perhaps you are asking the judge to compel them to acknowledge that reality is real.
In any event, you don't file this cold on something that hasn't been a bone of contention. That's just painting a target on it, right?
Counsel for Ms Thomas: "Oh wait? you don't want me to ask about your copyright registrations? really? oh? Your Honor, I'd like to see proof that the parties are actual the valid holders of the copyrights at issue in this lawsuit."
Judge: "So ordered"
RIAA counsel: "How could a 7 foot Wookie live on Endor? That... does not make sense. I... do not make sense."
NY Country Lawyer: "Oh no, they're using the Chewbacca defense again!"
What a non-story (Score:5, Informative)
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that. Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time & money to get to the important parts of the case.
Another thing to note is that this appears to be a new trial, which is not the same thing as an appeal. Despite what many people think, an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case. Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial. So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal. An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well, and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders (usually the jury) determined during the trial, and will only overturn or (more commonly) vacate a lower court's factfinding if the jury reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. In fact, there is actually no constitutional right of appeal. By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they weren't dismissed with prejudice (for something like a patently frivolous claim, or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God).
Since this case is a brand new trial, there is likely little that cannot be brought back into play, for what little that's worth.
Re:What a non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendent, since actual damages would be about $10.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.
It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendant, since actual damages would be about $10.
Quite right! Yes YDRC.
Re: (Score:2)
But these works are not works-for-hire and plaintiffs are not natural persons, so the entities suing are not necessarily the originators of the appropriate copyrights. They should be the assignees (that's what royalties are all about) but that's not the same thing and is NOT an unfair question to ask them to prove that they have the appropriate assignments of copyright from the original creators.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that. Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time & money to get to the important parts of the case.
I would assume that when a record company owns the copyright to a work then they would have some paperwork proving it. Either the copyright registration, or some document where the previous copyright owner assigns the copyright to them. Record companies are big companies with excellent lawyers who would never lose that kind of paperwork. The conclusion is that if a record company doesn't have any paperwork demonstrating the ownership of a copyright, then it is most likely that they don't own the copyright.
Re:What a non-story (Score:5, Interesting)
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
Legal S&M (Score:3, Interesting)
Newsflash from hell... (Score:3, Funny)
A snowball insulated with enough money lasts quite awhile here.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that the judge has been bribed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Newsflash from hell... (Score:5, Interesting)
or D) setting somebody up for a really hard fall. I'm thinking of Judge Kimball, in the SCOX files, who seemed to be bending over backwards to give time and attention to SCO's every little move, only to thoroughly trash them later. Judges who've got an idea of where the case is going (or who don't particularly like one side, regardless of the merits of the case) will sometimes play out as much rope as one side wants, and whistle jauntily while that side puts their head in the noose. It's a way of making your judgment appeal-proof. If the appeal court looks at your judgment and the proceedings, and saw that you gave the loser every chance to present their side before cutting them down, the court will be more favourable to your judgment.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written. I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.
And let you guys have all the fun? NFW.
I'm confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
In legal matters, never ascribe to stupidity what can be ascribed to willfully amoral conduct. (Which is not necessarily malice, although malice would comprise a large portion there of.)
I've been dealing legally with a person, from whom I have never gotten the same story from twice. Every time we talk, I hear a different story from him. He broke into my house, and stole exclusively my laptop, my briefcase holding most of my legal material, and a folder stamped all over with "CONFIDENTIAL" that contained my work product. He was witnessed coming into the house, and then attempted to bribe and coerce that witness into lying to the police, and as well, obtained a letter from his work stating that he had been working the entire day.
One would naturally first start off with, "how stupid can this guy be?" and the answer is, he's not stupid at all, he's just at his wits end, because I had him painted deeply into a corner. His only last option was to commit multiple felonies in order to attempt ducking the problem. Now, you and I would look at the situation and go, "before this incident, he was only facing civil liability, but now he's facing criminal liability", however when you back a badger into a corner, stupid or intelligent, they're going to lash out in any way that they feel justified in doing.
So, I'm betting the lawyers knew exactly how stupid this motion was, but it's simply a pawn in a strategy... it's attempting attrition...
if the jedge has any good sense (Score:2)
Panic. Oh yeah. Panic. Oh yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial. If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection. If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).
It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object. HA!
Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document. It's really easy and relatively cheap. But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.
They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!
It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove. They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.
I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard. Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law. HA!
Sand in eyes (Score:2)
Since NewYorkCountryLawyer writes there is no ground for the motions of the RIAA, the question is why do they want to waste the defendant's time?
Perhaps it's a distraction from something more serious that they don't want them to notice?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they're just being proactive. If she's busy being sued, she'll have less time for piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why *wouldn't* they want to waste the opposition's time? A better question is why do they want to waste the judge's time? (and their own.)
Umm... do I get this right? (Score:4, Funny)
Is this essentially:
"Your honor, we ask that the defendant is not allowed to make any statement in her defense"
"What? Why?"
"'cause else we'd lose the case, duh!"
Reminds me of "Encounter at far point" (Score:2)
Picard's trial by Q for the crimes of humanity...
Q: Court is now in session. How do you plead?
Picard: Not guilty.
Q: This court hereby finds you guilty.
Picard: Of what?
Q: Of pleading not guilty.
.
.
.
Q: If he utters any other word but "Guilty" kill him.
--
My rights don't need management.
EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
You are correct that it's those 4 corporations hiding behind the RIAA as a front. I use "RIAA" as shorthand. But knowing those 4 names doesn't really help because most of the records are sold under their affiliated labels. So the best way to know which are the real bad guys is to go to my Index of Litigation Documents [beckermanlegal.com] and look at the plaintiffs' names. And the best way to avoid patronizing any RIAA label is to check them out on RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com].
Barratry (Score:3, Interesting)
She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry. To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking.
Further RIAA motions (Score:3, Funny)
The defendant shall be required to bring a parrot to trial each day and answer all inquiries with the phrase "Yar, I be a salty sea dog".
There is a great idea hidden in the summary! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team.
Ok, here's the idea this phrase gave me.
We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
Look at what's happened here. The RIAA had their team look at it, they found a problem, and tried to sidestep it. In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden.
Well...we could do that too. Right?
If there were a place where all the info were made available, and some sort of public campaign to let "us geeks" know about it...we would read it. "Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time. Click this link." That kind of a thing. A little bit here, a little bit there. If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case (a few high level moderators, lots of low level contributors)...who knows what other red flags the community might find? There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community, and I'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break, for instance.
If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah, we're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much. Maybe something might come of it.
Anyways, it's just an idea. Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one. Fans and Flames to follow, see below. =)
Re:don't you just love... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:don't you just love... (Score:5, Funny)
I've hardly ever had to visit his blog due to the marvelous quality of his summaries. Maybe if he cut down on the quality of his summaries he could up the traffic to his blog.
Now you tell me.
Re:don't you just love... (Score:4, Funny)
But if he starts making his summaries vague and misleading, then he might get tapped to become an editor for Slashdot.
Re:don't you just love... (Score:5, Funny)
But if he starts making his summaries vague and misleading, then he might get tapped to become an editor for Slashdot.
That would be great. Then I would be respected and admired by all, instead of being reviled, mocked, ridiculed, and derided on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly, hes not got an account.. why else would he post anonymously.
*whisper*
What's that? Under a bridge you say? Oh, a troll! well nevermind then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
some people like to get kinky and like to put on masks... just for the fun of it.
Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b (Score:4, Informative)
I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher
from Salon article in January 2000:Courtney Love does the math [salon.com]
Last November [2000], a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act. He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That Mitch Glazier, the congresional aide? now an RIAA lobbyist [digitalmed...erence.com] It certainly wasn't an accident. I've never understood why they just didn't fix that.
Re:Finally challenging 'work for hire' copyright b (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not really the whole story, though, and the article is misleading in parts.
The fundamental reason why
Authors of books write the books, and use publishers for marketing and printing. Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.
Music, on the other hand, is more complex. You have a copyright on the composition, on the lyrics, and on the sound recording. In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label, you have to contract with them, and though you are performing the song, it is the studio and its employees providing the lion's share of the work--sound designers, studio staff, technical people, etc. The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright, as the studios were the "authors" of the recording, and the artists merely "performers". (In the same way, a film screenplay copyright doesn't become the actors' when they perform it for money.) The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.
Music artists who do, in fact, write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work (unless they've traded or sold them). The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording, which is not a musical work. If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs, the copyright would likely be a different entity. Many popular acts, however, are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers, lyricists, and performers. The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.
The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more like book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing, and accordingly, with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well, the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that. When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings, they can't extort the artists quite as badly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?
Didn't you read my second sentence:
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
Boy some people are so predictable.