Slashdot Mirror
LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.
How about a quick explanation?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.
Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.
P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.
"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts" ...if a member of the jury decided to act thusly.
I was on a jury in a drug case.
Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound believable. A couple of years later, he was indicted for fraud.
Jury nullification works.
The purpose of Rule 11 is to prevent parties from engaging in abusive litigation. In the most general terms, Rule 11 means that if a party brings a suit, they need a minimal basis for that suit. Rule 11 is a court adopted rule and as such, it should be expected that courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying it. Remember, court procedure is merely about creating a fair forum so that a fact finder (judge or jury) can decide the ultimate issues. Shotgunning the court with baseless claims is detrimental to a fair process. Because it is the court's duty to provide a fair process, it must be able to step in when things get out of hand.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.
As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.
In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.
Read Pynchon.
I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If what you said was true, then I would agree, but the truth is more complicated--often downloading results in very little or no monetary damage to the actual artists. It is fairly well known that most artists make the majority (but not all) of their true earnings on proceeds from concerts and tours--not from cd sales. Several artists have tested this, and are doing well enough.
I have a great deal of respect for artists that are willing/able to break with the RIAA, and allow their music to be downloaded, secure that they have a great product and people will come to their concerts and support them.
I still feel that copyright infringement is technically different from theft. Furthermore, I am also uncertain that downloading is technically illegal. I think that it is a valid reading of the law, but I am also valid to say that downloading falls under fair-use technically. In other words, I feel that the law is ambiguous on this point, the DMCA not withstanding.
I will say that with the advent of iTunes, I have certainly decreased the rate at which I download songs--because iTunes makes it easy to get what I want at a reasonable price. That said, when I see that a band is directly selling their songs (Bare Naked Ladies being a good example of this) or concert recordings, I will buy direct from the artist rather than some other distribution channel, because that way the artist gets (hopefully) a larger chunk of the proceeds.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)