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.
But see Capitol v. Foster, where the judge held that the RIAA could not immunize itself from liability for attorneys fees by dropping the case, after first tying the woman up in frivolous litigation for a year and a half.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The Defendant asserts that under 505 of the Copyright Act, "the court may . . . award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." Which is actually a straight quote from the law.
Page 14 of the PDF, Page 11 if you go by the internal #ing is the section of the defense's legal brief which discusses the counterclaim issue.
The brief quotes from a SCOTUS case called Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
The Question: Do federal courts have discretion over whether or not to force a loosing party to pay all or part of the victorious party's attorney's fees?
The (Short) Answer: Yes
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Well since you've started it, you might as well finish the job by including the 'notfud' 'yes' 'no' and 'maybe' tags.
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.
I think this is exactly what's going on. The RIAA is worried that they'll get locked into mutual litigation. Once that happens, if defendants win, they start stacking up precedents, both binding and persuasive. More importantly, the media publishes every single story where the defendant not only got sued by the bloodthirsty RIAA, but "Look, they won, so they must've been right, and the RIAA must've been wrong!" Suddenly everyone starts asking how many of these lawsuits are actually valid.
However, the original poster seems to be spinning this. Take whatever I say with a grain of salt because I'm only a first-year law student, but a 12(b)(6) objection is not merely technical. It's the most basic defense in federal Court to frivolous claims. If I give you a dirty look, for example, that's not nice, but it's not a crime or even an offense for which you can sue. I don't know the case law on point and (again) I'm only a first-year, but it doesn't look like this clause of the Copyright Act is something for which you can directly sue. It looks like exactly what the RIAA says it is...a cost-shifting provision the Court may impose as part of a final decision. If the defendant really thinks the RIAA is making a frivolous claim, they shouldn't be filing a counterclaim, they should be filing a Rule 11 motion, which allows the Court to punish frivolous claims.
However, I can understand why they're reluctant to do this. Some commentaries believe Rule 11 has been eviscerated over the years. In its current form, it allows the party being accused under it to simply withdraw the claim, motion, etc. within a specified safe harbor period and face no repercussions. It's supposed to encourage more civilized litigation, open discourse between the parties, etc., but some think it's swung too far in the direction of letting people throw out whatever ridiculous thing they want. Again, my analysis of the whole thing may be way off, but I hope it's not (or my civ pro grades may not be as good as I hope they will be.) Hope it helps.
Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has read the federal laws and the constitution as allowing judges wide discretion over whether or not the partys before the court can request that the other side pay all the costs incurred in pursing the suit.
You want to sue me? I'm innocent!
"Yeah, but you can't pay for your legal defense, so you'll lose and have to pay anyway"
That's not fair, your Honor, if I win, will you make them pay for my fees?
seems fair to me.
"gulp"
"Can we drop the suit?"
Sure, but you have to pay the fees she's already incurred.
"Uhm.. let me try to change your mind"
it's your dime
And that's where it is now
-GiH
If you read the record carefully you will see that we offered to withdraw the counterclaim if the RIAA could show us legal authority for their position that the counterclaim was improper, specifically saying to them "I certainly wouldn't want to get into motion practice over a mere formality." They could find no such authority, and never even got back to us, but simply went ahead with their motion. That sounds like frivolous litigation to me.
As to your comment that we should have made a Rule 11 motion, that can be done at any time in the case, and one that may not be necessary, since the Copyright Act gives Ms. Schwartz a right to attorneys fees, on a much lesser showing than would be needed under Rule 11. Rule 11 motions should never be undertaken lightly.
If you're really a first year law student, please don't -- when you get out there -- practice law like these guys do.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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
If you don't think that compassion and decency have a place in the law, I feel sorry for you.
I don't share that outlook. I wouldn't have gone into the legal profession I did. I came here to help make the world a better place, not a worse place.
Ms. Schwartz is a very sick woman who didn't infringe anyone's copyrights. The RIAA's lawyers are aware of both of those facts. They should have dropped this case, but they and their lawyers are ghouls. In my view anyone who doesn't get that it's wrong to persecute helpless people this way isn't my kind of people.
I suggest you read what Jordan Glass had to say about these lawsuits in an excellent article on p2pnet.net.
Sorry if you feel I "weaseled" out of answering the question. I think I did answer it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful