Does the RIAA Fear Counterclaims?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA seems to have a fear of counterclaims. In Elektra v. Schwartz, a case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA is protesting on technical grounds Ms. Schwartz's inclusion of a counterclaim against them for attorneys fees. This counterclaim includes as an exhibit the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen brief in Capitol v. Foster, which decried the RIAA's tactics as a 'driftnet.' In prior email correspondence between the lawyers Ms. Schwartz's attorney had offered to withdraw the counterclaim if the RIAA's lawyer could show him legal authority that its assertion was impermissible, saying 'I wouldn't want to get into motion practice over a mere formality.' The RIAA lawyer's response was 'I will let you know.'"

Comments

Re:Can you rebut this?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I guess that makes you an expert.

Re:Relevance?

[Strolls]

If you don't think that compassion and decency have a place in the law, I feel sorry for you.

Thank you for making this about me, not about the relevance of Ms Schwartz's illness to your case. Now I KNOW what kind of lawyer you are. I didn't mention my "outlook" - doing so would take a lot more time than I have free right now.

I didn't say that compassion and decency don't have a place in the law... I was just pointing out that you didn't answer the question. You replied to TravisW's question about the relevance of Ms. Schwartz's MS, but you did not answer it.

Certainly "very sick woman sued by RIAA" is a better headline than "person sued by RIAA" - it emphasises her fragility & encourages us to side with her - but her illness has no bearing on her guilt or innocence. It is surely true that there are many disabled people who have found the internet to considerably enhance their ability to communicate & enrich their lives; but I am sure that many of them - intentional or naive of violating copyright - are also delighted that they are able to easily obtain bootleg entertainment, too.

Ms Schwartz's illness is surely a hardship, and may have a bearing on a suitable sentence or reparation should she be found guilty. To me, it does imply (as TravisW suggests) that "the RIAA is particularly unscrupulous for bringing a suit against someone with a severe medical condition, and that it should hence be additionally vilified accordingly", but in the context of TravisW's questions your response "It's a case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis who's never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came after her" is just waffle.

In my view anyone who doesn't get that it's wrong to persecute helpless people this way isn't my kind of people.

So the helpless & infirm should be immune from the law, then? Is that your opinion?

Stroller.

Re:The problem with trolls

[MrResistor]

LOL!

The term "troll" has existed since before you were born.

There is something worse than old people trying to keep up with "The Lingo": it's snot-nosed little brats thinking they invented "The Lingo".