Slashdot Mirror
New Dismissal Motion in File Sharing Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A new motion to dismiss an RIAA peer-to-peer file sharing case has been made, this time in Brooklyn federal court, in Atlantic v. Huggins, reports Recording Industry vs. The People. As in Elektra v. Santangelo, the RIAA had served a boilerplate complaint alleging generally 'downloading' ,uploading', and 'distributing', but without naming any specific acts. Defendants' lawyers argue that "the Complaint alleges in conclusory fashion and upon information and belief that defendant used "an online media distribution system" to download and distribute certain alleged copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make such recordings "available for distribution to others." but "makes no attempt to describe the specific acts of infringement or the dates and times on which they allegedly occurred.""
If this motion is not denied, regardless if he wins or not, at least this may make the extortion process a bit more expensiver per a person for RIAA, assuming this instills enough fear that they attempt to properly develop a case on a per-person basis. It maybe just whishful thinking on the other hand.
Technically, to be a martyr, he'd have to lose. Otherwise he's a hero, which is just about as good. :)
You simply can't decide that you don't have to follow the law because you 1) don't like the law and 2) that technology allows you to violate the law easily.
I hate this line of reasoning. You absolute can violate a law because you don't like it and/or have an easy time doing it. The fact that you can do something doesn't make it morally or legally right, but you can still do it. When a large number of people loose respect for a law, the will of these people being what gives the law validity in the first place, it is time for the law to be reconsidered. When the people want to repel a law, or decide how that law be applied, it is the government's job to accommodate to the extent that the Constitution allows. If the Constitution does not adequately fulfill the needs of its people then it is up to the people to work within their government to modify it.
Laws can be broken. Perhaps laws should be broken. I think everyone should intentionally break a law once and a while, just to remind yourself how thin the line is between order and chaos. And how thin a line order is within the surrounding chaos. Society lacking structure opens itself to rule of the strongest, but the government that too firmly restricts its citizens will fall at their hands.
A balance must be struck. The people must be secure in their ability to control their government, and a government must depend on her citizens to behave in a civilized fashion. For either to overstep their place would be disastrous.
The RIAA won't care if someone wins a dismissal. The defendant had to pay for a lawyer and spend time fighting the case. As long as they sell the tech community on the idea that infringement will cost you something if you refuse to settle they still win, at least idealogically.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
The trouble is there is little risk in these types of lawsuits. The big players sue the little guy all day every day knowing full well their suits will be settled for a net profit, while the little guy with a pro-bono attorney in other cases also have a good shot at settlement. Personally I see no morality in either situation.
If judges were required on the other hand to impose upon a losing plaintiff the defendant's legal fees, the number of frivolous suits on both sides would fall dramatically -- perhaps to 5% of today's levels.
Great post.
I'd like to add, when the populace, in large numbers, chooses to willfully break a law, or thinks they would not be acting *unjustly* if they were to do so, this is often an indication that the law itself does not reflect the actual will of the people. In today's climate, where it is often the wealthy and powerful minority that make or influence the laws, rather than the "will of the people" (in representative form), it's important to note this point.
Of course, the public also sometimes seeks to resist laws that they don't like simply because the laws are designed to benefit society at their individual expense (Social Security, Medicare, smoking bans, taxes in general).
And finally, the public is often so misinformed, easily manipulated, and easily swayed by persuasive (but fallacious) arguments by friends, colleagues, and celebrities, that they form unreasonable beliefs about whether certain laws are just, similar to how the public is so easily manipulated into voting for politicians who promise to serve the public interest if elected/re-elected, despite having prior *public* voting records that demonstrate the emptiness of those promises. My point being, society is often wrong about what's good for itself, so it should always be with a large grain of salt that any particular credence is given to demonstrations by "the will of the people."
However, if the people are in strong opposition against a particular law, that *should* motivate the smarter people to take a hard look at the law and examine whether the law is in fact not in the populace's best interest.