Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Most extortionists do.
The RIAA has always had the backup power to just drop a case that they think they're going to lose.
If people start filing counter claims, then the RIAA has no chance of dropping the case without getting dinged for lawyers fees.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I'm still trying to work out the story here. The submission appears to be saying that the RIAA doesn't like being countersued. Which presumably means that most people who sue actually love being countersued, or at least don't mind. Or perhaps the submitter thinks that people generally aren't aware of the fact that those who sue don't like being countersued.
Either way, this actually seems, well, blindingly obvious to me.
Perhaps it's the submitter that's surprised (in which case why did the editor post it? I mean, if I submit "Would you believe it? I just found the way to compile a Java class is with "javac". Wow!", I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get posted.
If the submitter really is a lawyer, rather than a shill for the RIAA who's trying to make all those in favour of meaningful copyright reform look like freeloader-apologists, then this story is yet another good reason why I wouldn't ever hire the guy.
I've tagged this "FUD" (because it tries to sow uncertainty, fear, and doubt, by using negative language to make the usual look unusual), "troll" (because I'm more and more convinced that's what this guy is. How can you not read the submission and want to flame the hell out of it?), and "blindinglyobvious", because, well, it's that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
i eagerly await someone, lawyer or not, who is willing to explain this in plain english - i read a bunch of the links and i still don't understand it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
My "single-mom with multiple sclerosis" beats your "starving artists".
If they just stuck with a straightforward legal approach, they might fare better. ie. Just because you're a single mom with multiple sclerosis does not give you a right to steal music/software any more than it gives you a right to deal drugs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
What they are afraid of is the legal concept of "non-mutual collateral estoppel."
Take for example, "Is the IP log showing the IP assigned to you by your ISP was involved in sharing enough for a copyright violation?" If the RIAA litigates this question, and wins, they win that case. They will have to litigate that issue against with the next defendant, and so on, because the next defendant may have different arguments.
But if the RIAA loses, they can not get a second bite at the apple by tring the same argument on a different defendant. They have litigated that issue, and lost. They are "estopped" from relitigating that particular issue.
This is common in the patent litigation, where just becuase you won 10 patent infringment suits, the 11th defendant can still beat you, but once ANYONE has beaten you, you lose from then on on that legal issue.
If the RIAA ever loses, you can bet that 1) they will appeal, and 2) while the appeal is pending, they will pay the defndnat a bazillion bucks to "settle" with vacation order, which will nullify the decision. And if you think they won't or can't, the insurance industry has been using this exact tactic for decades.
... reading the Times of India.
You understand quite a lot of the individual words, but once they're put together into sentences you (or, more precisely I, as a native English speaker, YMMV of course) end up without the remotest clue what the overal paragraph means.
I appreciate NewYorkCountryLawyer's insight into many of the legal issues discussed here, but the summary seems misdirected.
The summary describes a "case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis," and the lede of the P2PNet article is, "RaeJ Schwartz is a mother in Queen's [sic], New York, who's been seriously disabled by multiple sclerosis, a chronic, crippling disease of the central nervous system." Neither makes any further mention of her disease or disability, or any mention of how either affects the case, so we're left to guess: Is the implication 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? This leaves unanswered the basic question of why her disease should affect our analysis of the situation. My best guess: MS can severely limit mobility, so the implication is that her disease prevented her from downloading. (How likely is this? I'm ignorant of the practical specifics of the disease.) If this is the implication, it should have been included in the summary.
Instead of name-dropping her disability and saying no more, the summary ought to have included something more relevant, like "a case against a woman who has a severe medical condition preventing her from conventional computer use" or "a case against a woman who likely never downloaded any music" (as was suggested in the P2PNet article, though this would deserve more explanation, too).
I may be waaay off base. Feel free to correct (like you needed permission).
The whole point of copyright is money. Shouldn't anyone suing over a copyright issue have to show that their client suffered financial loss right up front before anything else?
Just my thoughts.
.... Fears anything that will stop their monopolization of the music industry.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/clahm/clahm-child
Parents or legal guardians (other than foster parents) can be liable for up to $5,000 in damages for the willful and malicious damage, destruction, concealment, or theft of property (whether publicly or privately owned) by their child, if between 10 and 18 years old. This also includes the actual monetary damages suffered by a school or other public or private victim in responding to the false reporting of an "incident" or placing a "false bomb" by a minor. If damages awarded by the court exceed $500, the parent can ask to have damages limited to that amount they can actually afford to pay, up to $5000, but not less than $500, because of financial hardship.
this would seem to indicate, parents CAN in fact be liable for child actions.. can you resolve please, this difference of opinion?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
In the federal system only 2% of tort cases end in a trial. Additional Federal Civil Justice Facts at a Glance The plaintiff tends to win, but the odds are little better than a coin toss.
What they "consider" isn't worth shit in law... or at least, it shouldn't be.
No matter how much people yell murder at someone stealing a car, it doesn't change the fact stealing a car != murder.
The only people who consider copyright infringement "theft" are ether the bias ones who say it is for the sake of emotional appeal or those who don't understand the concept of copyright in the first place. Though I will give you that many in the government tend to belong to both groups.
Great Intellect...
Nn no, he is welcome, now we can lose all those posts that start with 'IANAL but'.