RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation

JeffreysTube writes "The RIAA's legal fight against a divorced mother has run into trouble, with the judge now telling the RIAA that its only two options are to proceed with a jury trial against Patty Santangelo or dismiss the case with prejudice. If the latter happens, Santangelo officially "wins" and could collect attorneys' fees. The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty. 'This case is two years old,' wrote Judge McMahon. 'There has been extensive fact discovery. After taking this discovery, either plaintiffs want to make their case that Mrs. Santangelo is guilty of contributory copyright infringement or they do not.'"

Comments

Is that your final comment?

[djupedal]

JeffreysTube wrote" "The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty."

Somehow, I don't think Mrs. Santangelo is in this to be declared guilty. But hey, I'm just a dazed onlooker - what would I know about the law.

Re:Is that your final comment?

[tinkertim]

Somehow, I don't think Mrs. Santangelo is in this to be declared guilty. But hey, I'm just a dazed onlooker - what would I know about the law.

Any sane person in a sane world probably thinks the same way, and of course the woman would not want to be found guilty. The RIAA sees that they are (probably) going to lose, and wants to try again from a different angle.

The key words are with or without prejudice. The RIAA right now is trying to have the case dismissed without prejudice, which basically is asking the judge to wipe out the last two years and allow them to start the process all over again.

If the case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the court will not entertain this and the woman can then (most likely) recoup her attorney's fees from the RIAA. Dismissed with prejudice is the next best thing to "Not Guilty".

This would set precedent that if the RIAA bullies you, and you win, you get to collect from them whatever costs you spent on your legal defense. The RIAA does not want this to happen.

So either they have to win the case on merit, or dismiss with prejudice. Its very (very) doubtful that they will win the case. If they lose (yep, you guessed it) the woman can sue to recoup legal expenses and will most likely win after long drawn out appeals and doors open to civil harassment suits.

Either way, precedent is about to be set that will help people fight off RIAA bullies, which of course they don't want to happen.

They need to stop harassing people who can't hope to match their legal resources. This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked.

Re:Is that your final comment?

[rucs_hack]

This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked

Little too much detail on your final point there bud

Re:Is that your final comment?

[jkrise]

This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked.

Give us a youtube link, and we'll decide. Or is that covered by an RIAA copyright as well?

Re:Is that your final comment?

[BrokenHalo]

*waits for the 'haha' tag to get applied*

[+] mafiaa, haha (tagging beta)

You didn't have to wait long. Am I the only one who finds these damn tags redundant and asinine?

Let me be the one to start a beowulf cluster of them:

[+] haha, fud, defectivebydesign, mafiaaaa, microsoftsucks, itsatrap...

Hmmm, better stop there, otherwise that lameness filter might start earning its keep for once.

Re:Is that your final comment?

[FSWKU]

Give us a youtube link, and we'll decide. Or is that covered by an RIAA copyright as well?

That would come under the MPAA's jurisdiction. For it to come under the RIAA, both entities would have to complete their merger and transformation into the Music And Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA).

Re:Is that your final comment?

[elrous0]

I think I saw this on last night's episode of "Ow, My Balls!" Man, that show KICKS ASS!

Re:Is that your final comment?

[JKConsult]

Wouldn't that show kick balls?

Re:Is that your final comment?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

People joining together and fighting back in court. Colleges and universities and ISP's joining together and fighting back in court, and refusing to act as their enforcers and collections agents. That will enough. No need to go to their headquarters.

Re:Is that your final comment?

[Dmala]

My personal favorite are the tags that invariably get applied to any article where a question is asked:

[+] yes, no, maybe

Well, that clears it right up. Thanks Slashdot!

Declared guilty?

[Tim C]

Somehow I think the judge is upset that the defendant may not have the chance to be declared innocent - that is, that the RIAA appear to be trying to walk away from making a baseless claim without the defendant having the opportunity to have his name cleared officially.

Were that to happen, I wonder if there would be any scope in pursuing a claim for defamation? (No, I don't think I would in that position, but it would almost certainly cross my mind...)

Re:Declared guilty?

[Senjutsu]

No, you're quite incorrect. US courts do not and cannot declare people "innocent", merely "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" which isn't the same thing.

What the Judge is telling the RIAA here is that, having completed discovery, they can either go to a jury trial and pursue a guilty verdict, or have the case dismissed with prejudice. See, the way everything has worked out for them in this case so far, they've got a snowball's cahnce in hell of winning, and they don't want to lose and set some nasty precedents (like the having to pay court fees for indiscriminately suing people with shitty evidence). What they want to do is back out of the case by dropping it and then suing her again for the same thing, in a different court with different tactics to try to get a better likelihood of winning. The Judge is telling them to either take it to a Jury and lose or be dismissed with prejudice and be unable to sue her again for the same thing. They're fucked either way.

Re:Declared guilty?

[spurious cowherd]

She IS innocent

AFAIR that's still the law in this country. You're innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Declared guilty?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They're not really interested in suing her again.

They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.

In Capitol v. Foster it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision. (pdf)

Re:Declared guilty?

[v1]

I get the impression that they are actually not too interested in attourney's fees. I believe they are more concerned about people getting declared innocent. Right now I believe their tactic is to sue people and get them to settle, (basically declaring themselves guilty) 100% of the time. They don't want any "not guilty" verdicts to mar their reputation. So if the victim really puts up a fight, the legal system will most likely work the way it's supposed to, and the court will have to find them not guilty. The riaa wil do whatever it can to avoid this, and wants to have the case dropped since it has become clear now that (A) they cannot really win the case (they already actually knew this from the start) and (B) this victim is willing and able to see this case to the bitter end. They are going to pull anything they can to avoid chalking up a "not guilty" verdict on their record. I believe the judge is pissed off that the riaa has wasted the court's time with a case that they knew they could not win in the first place, trying to use the courts to extort money and PR from the victim, and in this case both the victim and the judge are all for a full drag out see-it-to-the-end case.

The riaa uses money to stuff their mattress pad. They could care less about paying one person's attourney's fees. The problem here is if they end up paying THIS woman's attourney, this will send a very loud message to all the other future victims that yes you really can win against the riaa and engaging in a court battle is not going to make you lose your house and your job, as the riaa is trying to scare everyone into believing. Once we get a couple Not Guilty chalked up, the riaa will find there are a lot fewer victims willing to just roll over when the lawyers come calling. Then it will not be a matter of paying one woman's attourney - if they sue 100 ppl a year then they will be paying 95 of them attourney fees, and THIS is going to bust their groove. This is the scenario the riaa is desperately trying to avoid by having this case dropped without prejudice.

Re:Declared guilty?

[jackbird]

You're innocent until proven guilty. Actually, the law in this country is that she's neither, since it's a civil case. The jury would find either for the plaintiff or the defendant.

Re:Declared guilty?

[kcbrown]

AFAIR that's still the law in this country. You're innocent until proven guilty.

It's not clear to me how much truth there is to that in civil cases, though. They're decided on the "preponderance of evidence".

Frankly, I think civil cases and criminal cases should both be decided based on "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". Why? Because while a civil case doesn't strip an individual of their freedom, it does strip them of their assets. Those assets were usually acquired through a lot of hard work, so in essence taking those assets is the same as forcing that person to do labor for the benefit of the plaintiff. Slavery, in other words. The only difference is that (some of) the work's already been done. In some cases, the amount involved is more than the defendant can pay, which really does make them a slave of the plaintiff.

The bottom line is that in both civil and criminal cases, government coercion is being used to strip someone of something that was once theirs. Government coercion should never be used for that unless the evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt.

That only a "preponderance of evidence" is required to invoke that government power is one of the reasons the system in the U.S. is the "legal system" and not the "justice system".

Re:Declared guilty?

[proberts]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for criminal law. This is a civil case, so it's "A preponderance of the evidence" that's the yardstick. Also, the precedent for having to pay for suing people without merit has already been set, they're not going to generate new caselaw there. More likely, they're trying to weasel out of having to pay costs, which the judge has rightfully blocked- a nice case of the system working as it should, but really nothing all that groundbreaking.

Paul

Re:Declared guilty?

[debrain]

What the Judge is telling the RIAA here is that, having completed discovery, they can either go to a jury trial and pursue a guilty verdict, or have the case dismissed with prejudice.

This is a civil suit (it's a poor reference, sorry). It is not 'guilt' in the criminal sense so much as factual and legal causation, on a "balance of probabilities" (i.e. 50%+1 chance), and unlike criminal law its purpose is not punishment. Rather, as I understand it, common law civil suits (less punitive damages for what's known as first-party breach of fiduciary duties) are compensatory, designed to put the person suing in one of three positions

1. as good a position as they were in before the wrong, had the wrong had not happened;
2. as good a position as they would have been in now, had the wrong had not happened;
3. the position of receiving the unjust benefit that has gone to the person who committed the wrong. (i.e. unjustly enriched)

I believe these are the three forms of damages generally arising in common law.

In the case of the RIAA, #1 means undoing the infringement and the intangible benefits arising from those having listened to it. This is hard, nigh impossible, to calculate and undo. Had the lady sold the songs, it'd be different.

Under #2, they can claim they lost income from the loss of sale, and demand that it be paid, now.

Under #3, they can claim that that the woman's benefits from the claim were unjust, but this is more an economic argument. (i.e. if she stole the song and re-sold it for $1 million- if it is not a sale the RIAA would ever have made then the RIAA cannot claim the $1 million under #1 or #2, but can under #3)

However, this is all modified by the copyright legislation, which essentially provides a statutory value to #2, and effectively at punitive rates (thus, in effect constructing the legal inference that an individual has a duty of utmost good faith to the copyright holder). Thus, when the RIAA sues under #1, they can sue at exorbitant, punitive rates, way beyond any actual loss. This is designed as a deterrent to copyright infringement (like criminal law's punitive damages), except it doesn't have the checks and balances of criminal law (insofar as they exist) because a private individual can bring a copyright infringement claim and the standard of proof is only 50%+1 (i.e. 'balance of probabilities'- best highlighted by OJ Simpson being not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but guilty on a balance of probabilities, making him not-liable in punitive criminal law, but guilty in civil compensation).

However, in the end, this case isn't about damages. The issue in this case seems to have been the lack of evidence brought by the RIAA. In many (virtually all) jurisdictions, this results in an adverse 'cost' award, where you have to pay the fees of the defendant (a compensatory deterrent to frivolous actions, precisely like the RIAA barratry).
Hope that's food for thought.

Re:Declared guilty?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Boy are you wrong. They are desparately afraid of the attorneys fees issue. I guess you haven't been keeping up with Capitol v. Foster.

It's not just attorneys fees, don't you get it?

If the judge awards the defendant $100k in legal fees on the most highly publicized RIAA case, that will
encourage lawyers to jump into the fight helping the defendants and
encourage defendants to fight back.
Plus the attorneys fees awards will wind up being a huge sum if more people are fighting back.

Re:Declared guilty?

[Volante3192]

a nice case of the system working as it should, but really nothing all that groundbreaking.

I thought the system working as it should IS the groundbreaking part of this case...

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Wavicle]

People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics
...I grabbed the little shit by his shirt...
...take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store...

Wow. Now I see why the CDs don't contain profanity or violent lyrics. There's plenty right there in the store.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[phantomflanflinger]

I can't believe someone posted this AGAIN. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/2/103735/275 If more MAFIAA cases made it to court, there'd be more justice. Judges and juries are better than lawyers. I mean morally better, which isn't saying much I know.

"from the catch-22 dept"

[philovivero]

You know, I don't think it's a catch-22 if you jump into the water, insult everyone in earshot, and piss them off so that they all hate you. I think that's called painting yourself in a corner.

So who's gonna extend a helping hand and get the RIAA out of the corner? I guess it's time for another metaphor. The metaphor of the drowning man.

Re:"from the catch-22 dept"

[mwvdlee]

Even moreso, the RIAA seems to be trying to walk away from the case and leaving the defendant poorer due to legal costs.
Imagine the effect if future victims of the RIAA know that if they try to defend themselves in court, they'll lose money no matter what.
If that isn't a chilling effect, then I don't know what is.

Re:"from the catch-22 dept"

[canfirman]

Even moreso, the RIAA seems to be trying to walk away from the case and leaving the defendant poorer due to legal costs. Imagine the effect if future victims of the RIAA know that if they try to defend themselves in court, they'll lose money no matter what. If that isn't a chilling effect, then I don't know what is.

Exactly. I take this statement from the judge to mean, "You just can't drag this poor woman through 2 years of hell and expect to just walk away from it." I applaude the judge for his stand.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[suv4x4]

So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable record store will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the CDS to begin with, then they won't be able to copy them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.

I understand your grief, but "it's that simple" is a dead give away that your solution is kinda too easy to work.

And if you read what you wrote couple of times, you may realize the irony of the situation. You refused to sell a CD to a buying customer. Sure, he was going to put the CD on the Internet, and that sucks. But he was there to buy that CD.

In the end, before your intervention you had 1 CD sold, after your intervention you had 0 CD sold. Where do you believe this "punk" will get this album from now? Either another store, or the Internet. You lose, either way.

It takes *one* to copy his CD to the Internet for the entire world to have. You have to simply accept that blacklisting people that talk about copying CD-s *in the store* is a wildly inaccurate way to blacklist all pirates.

Even if you "decide to play safe" and blacklist every single person in US (assuming you're in US), someone will buy this CD in another country and upload it, and adapt your business to this, and you'll be out of customers since you blacklisted them all. It's a lose-lose situation.

Violence against the customers just causes lost customers and bad word spreading about your shop. You can be sure this guy told all his friends about this event, and they told their friends. You'll likely not see then buying from you any more.

If there's an out-of-court settlement now...

[jkrise]

would case-law still be deemed to have been made? The only reason for dropping cases that aren't going favourably could be to avoid case-law being made.

Also, if merely providing internet access facilities to others makes one guilty of the uses / activities done on that IP, then many IT firms have reasons to be seriously worried. Malware and Service Packs are downloaded over the same IP and the same protocols. It will be almost impossible to operate any net-enabled firm at all.

Re:If there's an out-of-court settlement now...

[jkrise]

Not unless RIAA gives her some huge sum of money (> her attorney fees + $100000), and that's a whole different kind of precedent.

You could add a coupla' zeroes to that figure, and the RIAA might still settle outside court, if it precludes case-law being made. This case will make the law that the mere possession or proviioning of an ip-address does not mkae one guilty of copyright violations over that ip-address. Many IT firms and ISPs will breathe easy once the case-law is made.

Stopping the lawsuits...

[gavink42]

Problem is that the RIAA doesn't have any incentive to stop the lawsuits, as long as they are able to intimidate the majority of their targets into settling. They just happened to pick a determined person (with resources) in this case.

Re:Stopping the lawsuits...

[Fordiman]

One (two actually; she's the second) that set a precedent that the RIAA should at least have some damned evidence before they get all sue-happy - otherwise, they're likely to be out more money than they could have sued the victim for.

Seriously, don't underestimate how risk-averse a large and established organization can be.

Re:Stopping the lawsuits...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's not the majority that get cowed into settling. But it's a substantial minority. Something along the lines of 20%.

The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on any contested cases.

Re:Stopping the lawsuits...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Usually the default judgments are in the $4000 to $7000 range. They are usually for $750 x the number of songs on the exhibit list + court costs.

Re:Stopping the lawsuits...

[twistedcubic]

Indeed. I've done several telemarketing jobs, and a good salesman gets a sale from about one in a hundread calls. Sending letters out gets you a much, much smaller return. The RIAA is making $$$$ just by sending out form letters. Impressive.

Fighting the last war

[Budenny]

They don't realize that the enemy is not file sharing or people getting their content for free. The real enemy is people buying only the tracks they want, and so lowering the average value of a purchase. The great thing about an LP/CD from a company point of view is that it was a bundle at a high price. This is a key difference between movie downloads and music downloads.

It is very hard to see how they get around this one. Prosecuting people will not take care of the move to singles. They probably cannot raise the price of the singles. It is hard to see how they ever reinstate the album purchase to where it was.

Yes, its tough. And they are not helping themselves by focussing on a completely different problem from the real one.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Dr Dodgy]

So... Your clients are going to hear you've been assaulting customers?

Nice one. Way to fuck your own "self made from the ground up business" right up in the ass!

So what if people are putting the crap you sell on the net, all you heard is hearsay in the store. If I was one of those kids, I'd be dragging you through both the papers and the courts, then see how you like the plummet into bankrupcy rather than just a gentle slide.

The only thing more fun than vigilante justice, is watching the person who led the posse be hanged in the town square.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mod this guy down! It's just what he wants. If I had an account, and any kind of cred (karma points, social pull), I would make sure this post got (5, Funny) next to it. It's obviously a joke!
Witness:
"They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"
"I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. 'I don't know, Jenny. I don't know.'"
And just take the time to read the final paragraph, for cryin' out loud! I've seen some pretty terrible attempts at sarcasm online (digg), but to see a truly clever showing get misconstrued is simply tragic.

Vexatious litigation

[gerrysteele]

Surely this fits the bill of Vexatious litigation? The fact that they have done this kind of thing over and over. Should they really not be taken down over this? Are there no US regulatory legal authorities that look out for people's interests?

That's why they want iTunes to sell 99 tracks

[ToastyKen]

I think they DO believe that individual track sales hurts them, and it's public knowledge that they've been trying to convince Apple to let them sell popular singles for more than 99¢ for a while now, but Apple has not been budging because they think that would turn people off of iTunes altogether.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[zakezuke]

I dont think Christians can really Rock.

Thats like saying Catholics have good sex.

Well, Madonna was raised Catholic, and baptised her children in a catholic church. I don't know if she's been offical excommunicated from the church like Sinéad O'Connor, but if she has not she's likely still a Catholic. I can't say for a fact that she has good sex, but she does have alot of it and has published a couple of books on the subject of her sex life. I am not a fan of Madonna... and in fact use her as an example of how unhealthy attitudes imposed by the Cathlic church really are. It would seem that people, men and women alike, who were raised full blown Catholics from my observation tend to end up either prudish or hyper-sexual. While I would have serious reservations having a serious relationship with someone raised Catholic, I can say I have had great sex with Catholics.

Outmoded business model

[symes]

Sorry to say this, but your business model is now outmoded. This is why you are not selling CDs any more. In the same way that horse and cart sellers are few and far between, and email has come to dominate written communications no one is as interested in buying physical copies of their music. You need to diversify and evolve your business, not assault spotty teenagers.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[ampathee]

FYI: YHBT. HTH. HAND :)

Cut and paste post alert

[init100]

Alert: The parent is a cut and paste post. This usually indicates a troll.

Other instances of this post are here and here.

Re:Cut and paste post alert

[boingo82]

The irony, of course, is ranting against piracy in a post that is, itself, pirated.

HA!

No Win, No Knee

[AGMW]

Man, wouldn't that be a hell of a settlement! The RIAA Lawyers, directors, etc have to stand, legs akimbo, whilst the lady walks up the line kicking them each in the tabs! Any flinching means the exec has to move to the end of the line for a second kick!

If only all cases could be settled this way!

Look for the new adverts ... "No win, no knee"!

LOVE IT!

Re:No Win, No Knee

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be "no win, no pee"?

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[suv4x4]

FYI: YHBT. HTH. HAND :)

BBQ?

I download albums

[DuncanE]

Damn I already moded this discussion, but I feel I need to post....

I prefer to download whole albums, either legally or through dubious means (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*). I think it gives a better indication of the artist and the art they perform.

I hear a song I like via a friend or the radio (I'm on Oz so we have tripleJ/classicFm/Digg ... Google if you dont know what I mean). Almost always the album is similar in quality to the single and often I hear songs I love that just would get airplay EVER.

I would happily pay for all my music album downloads if I could choose my bit rate, the files were DRM free and the price was reasonable lower than the cost of a CD (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*).

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[mrshowtime]

How about the fact that the President of Clear Channel radio said yesterday that pretty much the music (radio) industry is on it's way out? How about the fact that the "Hip Hop" rap era is finally over with? How about that 90% of the music released commercially today is CRAP? Really, in ten years are there still going to be cd's sold in shops? Will optical storage in 10 years look as funny as reel to reel? The music industry is scared because their reign of terror is finally over. The movie industry won't be affected as much, even though digital distribution of films is going to finally release that stranglehold that the studios currently have. The movie studios will survive because of their ability to make the big budget films nobody else can. Also 3-D movies will become more of the norm. CD's came out in 1981, 1981!! CD's came out a year before MS. PAC-MAN. The music studios are long overdue for a technology shift.

Ruling against the tactic

[SirGarlon]

INAL but really I regard this as a ruling against RIAA's bullying tactics.

It appears to me they are trying to draw out the costs of the case through two years of pre-trial discovery. The idea appears to be simply to bankrupt the defense and/or intimidate potential future defendants (i.e. the public) by showing that they don't have to go to trial in order to financially ruin their victim. Seems to occur commonly enough whenever one party in a case has especially deep pockets and the other doesn't.

What the judge is saying is, the RIAA can't just run up a huge legal bill and walk away. Score one for the little guy.

Re:Ruling against the tactic

[kcbrown]

What the judge is saying is, the RIAA can't just run up a huge legal bill and walk away. Score one for the little guy.

That should be the case as a matter of law. That it's not is a travesty of justice, and makes it obvious that the U.S. legal system is not designed to serve the people, but to serve the lawyers and moneyed interests.

There should be no option of dropping a case without prejudice unless the defense agrees. If you were stupid enough to bring a case against someone else before the court without significant evidence, you should by law be forced to suffer the consequences, either by losing the case entirely or by being forced to pay for their defense, if your case is weak and the defendant is willing to fight to the finish.

And yes, I realize the consequences regarding suing a well-financed opponent. That's why I think any civil judgment rendered, whether it's against the plaintiff or the defendant, should be limited by law to a maximum of some large percentage of that entity's total assets. That way, if an individual sues a corporation and loses, it'll hurt a lot but it won't completely bankrupt the individual.

Re:Ruling against the tactic

[Wylfing]

Unfortunately your ideas are worse than the status quo.

There is nothing "obvious" about how the law is constructed in the U.S. The law is, essentially, our ongoing attempt to define what American life is supposed to be like. This is because in the U.S. we do not have a single localized ethnic tribal tradition to guide our behavior, we're a mishmash of lots of those, so we need to rely on law to figure out how we want to behave toward each other. (As other countries experience this move toward "mishmashiness" they'll have to do the same work.) Not only ethnicities: also different modes of living, economic strategies, political leanings, heck even psychosocial schemas have to be accommodated. Over time, U.S. law has actually done a pretty marvelous job at accommodation of widely disparate groups of people with competing agendas, despite some short-term failings.

The point of a civil suit is to bring a case before a (hopefully) learned, equitable judge and a small group of peers so that an unclear situation can be sorted out. If the situation was not debatable, there would be no need for the suit! We only have lawsuits when one party thinks A should be the outcome and the other party thinks B should be the outcome.

Imagine that Farmer Ted sues Rancher Bill because Bill's steer are grazing Ted's land without permission. Ted thinks he's totally right, but Bill claims it wasn't him. During the early part of discovery it becomes less clear that it was actually Bill's cattle doing the grazing. It still might have been, but it's just not clear at this time. The proper course of action is for Ted to drop the suit and possibly bring it again later if better evidence arises. Under your system this would be impossible. You would rather have the judge find for Bill, make Ted pay Bill's legal costs, and then later on we find out it was Bill after all. Is that the kind of justice you prefer?

Your solution for suing corporations is even worse. You would have it so that throngs of impoverished, unemployed morons could mass-sue corporations indiscriminately based on shoddy evidence, or even no evidence at all (they can fish for wrongdoing during the trial), just hoping to score in the "corporate lawsuit lottery." What have they got to lose? 70% of zero? Not so great for the corporations trying to bring a product to market and make some money, but can't, because they've had to defend against three thousand lawsuits alleging the CEO used alien mind-control rays to make your dog pee on the carpet.

Yes, there are abusers of the current system, but that is one reason why we bring these cases before a judge and some peers. As others posters here have said, this is an example of the system working appropriately. The system is fine. In fact, it's working great in this example, because the RIAA is terrified of having this argued in front of a jury of ordinary people, who will almost certainly identify them as the abusers they are, and find against them.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[psykl0n3]

Hehe... you would be much better off if you'd kept the original demographic... the people who buy CDs to say they own them even if they don't listen to them :) And start selling that old vinyl, a section of good hip-hop releases, strange electronica and one for metal should do the job... Nowadays every kid got turntables and everyone and their mom is a DJ ;)

I'd love to be buying albums again

[codefrog]

I haven't paid for recorded music in a long time, and will not do so again until things change for the better.
I eagerly await the day when
1) DRM-free files or CDs cost less than DVD movies (around $5 US would be just fine for an album)
2) The mafiaa isn't insulting/threatening/suing us. ... when that happens I'll be happy to go back to the pre-net ways of using available cash to fill my closet or HD with music, and shopping in bricks-or-no-bricks stores for music.

Re:I'd love to be buying albums again

[SharpFang]

Hello astroturfer.
Even with $40/CD the artist gets less than $0.10/CD

Re:I'd love to be buying albums again

[jZnat]

Well, a couple options for you then would be Magnatune ($5/album, downloadable, no DRM, your choice of FLAC, VBR MP3, Vorbis, and/or AAC; also lets you download 128k MP3 files of all the songs gratis so you know what you're buying) or a used CD/anything store or website like Half.com (used CDs). If you know of a used CD store nearby, you could always go there to check out what they've got, and perhaps they have a way for you to sample the CDs like so many of them do.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Jack Sombra]

I honestly don't know if to take your post seriously or not due to your comments that indicate things like the war on drugs is "successful" (it's not and you are living in la la land if you think it is) but I will give you the benefit of doubt

lets take this point by point

"It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market"
Leaving the obscure/rare/independent releases might or might not have been the right idea, really depends on location you are. In the long term though these are the kind of music stores that will last the longest, when all the major music stores are long gone (and they will go within the next 15/20 odd years unless something major happens) these "collectors shops" will still be around. Will they ever make the major money, nope but they will outlast the "digital revolution" for the same reason that some LP stores are around

"CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago....... But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame......."
Internet piracy has been around for years, it has not had any kind of major boom over the last year or two but remained pretty steady. What has increased dramatically in that period is the take up of MP3 players and legal download sites like itunes. These is the number one reason for your recent falling sales. And got bad news for you, there is nothing you can do about it, it is the way the world is going. LP's got pushed out by tapes, tapes by CD's and now CD's will be replaced by digital downloads

"I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of."
While I can admire your principals and that you have tried sticking to them, please don't try to blame the world because you shot yourself in the foot. You decided to limit your market no one else

"A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.

"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."

"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect.""
Sorry but I burst out laughing at this little scenario, not just because I generally find kids who talk like this so stupid thats it funny but because it is supposedly happening in a store that does "not sell sick stuff and that has one of the most extensive Christian rock sections around"

Maybe you should have told told them they would get no "respect" for posting this kind of music?

As to your ideas to deal with the situation, I am sorry but they so are laughable that they lead me to believe that you need psychiatric help

"When my girls ask me questions like that, I feel like my heart is being wrenched out of my chest. But knowing that I'm doing the best I can to save my family and my business is some consolation."
You are not doing your best, you picked a dieing market (the writing was on the wall for CD's 12 years ago for those who cared to look), you then decided to limit your customer base even further and now instead of trying to re-expand your customer base,try new ideas and adapt to the market you just want to cry and set up blacklists.

No wonder you support the RIAA, you have the same short-sighted and blinkered mentality as them

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[clickclickdrone]

I can say I have had great sex with Catholics.

Are you sure you're supposed to be here? It's bad enough a slashdotter claiming to know a woman but actually, you know, touching their toilet parts? Wow!

I would love it but for other reason...

[xtracto]

You see, if lawyers starting realising that it is possible to get fees from RIAA lawsuits they are more likely to accept defending the normal people without asking for payment (what is the term for that?). Lawyers are like sharks and if they see that RIAA (that huge a$$ociation with $hitload$ of ca$h) starts bleeding some cash for lawyers they will be very attracted to defend this people.

Every new sued person is a potential new job for a lawyer.

Re:I would love it but for other reason...

[tsalaroth]

The term you're looking for is "chum".

IANAL, but I watched several friends destroy their souls in law school - from what I understand, you're completely correct. If the RIAA starts bleeding in the water, lawyers all over will start taking the cases pro bono or nearly so. They usually ask for a small (30-40%) portion of the settlement, should you win.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[clickclickdrone]

a whole lot of really strange stuff that even she could barely make sense of

Sounds like all religions to me.

Critical Court procedural detail

[redelm]

This is a not-uncommon problem: plantiff sues but is wrong. How should innocent defendant be protected/compensated and plaintiffs made more cautious? The UK & Commonwealth do this by awarding costs, but this may be against the US Constitution.

The usual American solution is to cross-file, wherein defendant becomes cross-plantiff. Then plantiff might well withdraw their suit, but cross action proceeds. Most often, both are cleared in a settlement agreement.

Here, it appears the crossfile was not done, so the Judge has to unfortunately step in.

This is an OLD Troll

[db32]

I have seen this at least once if not more already. Posted almost verbatim. Always by AC and it shows up in these RIAA related threads.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[ConsistentChaos]

Rabbi? She? I must be a bit behind the times on Judaism.

Spaceballs Salute, anyone?

[R2.0]

"They need to stop harassing people who can't hope to match their legal resources. This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked."

Why am I picturing the RIAA lawyers all standing there with their hands over their nads while a diminutive lady dressed in black with asthma and a bouffant [sp?] eyeing them up?

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that the President of Clear Channel radio said yesterday that pretty much the music (radio) industry is on it's way out?

Radio has the benefit of a large captive market - radio isn't going anywhere.

There are millions of commuters who spend hours in their cars every day. Aside from yakking on the phone, most listen to the radio.

Enough with the Ad Hominem

[sweaterface]

I have as strong a sense of propriety and fairness as most, so, like most, the fact that the RIAA has filed suits against people who have had misfortunes heaped upon them by life's circumstances has aroused in me a sense of moral scorn for the RIAA. But, enough with the ad hominem. It is gratuitous for every story to highlight the adverse circumstances of a defendant, as if the unfortunate circumstances of that defendant is the dispositive feature of the case. Not every headline needs to be of the form: RIAA sues divorced mother (cf. this article); RIAA sues stroke victim (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/17/05 1234); RIAA sues illiterate mother of five (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/21/20 45219); RIAA sues family of two dead men (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/20 23250); RIAA sues woman with multiple sclerosis (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/07/23 51238); etc.

Re:Enough with the Ad Hominem

[Nom du Keyboard]

t is gratuitous for every story to highlight the adverse circumstances of a defendant, as if the unfortunate circumstances of that defendant is the dispositive feature of the case. Not every headline needs to be of the form: RIAA sues divorced mother...

The RIAA has their choice of whom they sue. The have the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each case after their John Doe suit that they will drop (that's fraud on the Court, if anything is IMHO) once they have personally identifying information. They don't have to sue anybody. It's highly relevant therefore when they seek to sue poor, weak, and/or infirm. And there's no excuse for suing the dead. The RIAA could avoid these suits and focus on others, but have chosen not to do so. For this reason, this does need to be pointed out every time.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[Gr8Apes]

I think you're mistaken. Most of the people I know have tuned out of that commercial slop radio and now listen exclusively to what's on their iPods (90% not bought digitally according some survey about the iTunes Store performance and iPods) or NPR.

Radio stations are changing formats to Spanish language because no one's listening to the crap anymore resulting in falling numbers, so they figure hey - there's a 10-15% population that's underserved in the spanish language market, let's get them!!!. It's sad that Spanish language radio appears to have more selection than "regular" radio in my area of the US from the limited listening I did.

Re:RIAA Steamroller

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes they are surprised, perplexed, confused, and worried about the increasing tide of resistance they are encountering. Less people are giving in to the shakedown. More are fighting back. And the RIAA doesn't know how to handle it. Their lawyers are now repeatedly begging the courts for more time. See their request for more time in the Santangelo case and their request for more time in Warner v. Stubbs.

In each case they were asking for more time because they had too many briefs to write in other cases.

I've been practicing litigation law for more than 28 years, and have never in my career requested additional time for such an asinine reason. They have hundreds of lawyers working for them. These people are losing it.

Re:What is the RIAA's case record?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I personally have never heard of a fully contested case they have won. Or lost.

I do not know of a single case having gone to trial.

(I'm not saying it's never happened; only the RIAA knows for sure. But of all the cases mentioned on my blog, which are all the contested cases I know about, there is not a single fully contested case.)

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[delinear]

can't believe someone posted this AGAIN.

He's trying to establish a new meme, you insensitive clod!

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[kosanovich]

"It's sad that Spanish language radio appears to have more selection than "regular" radio in my area of the US from the limited listening I did."

Nah, i listen to a lot of spanish radio and at least in the western states and on XM it's the same quality as english radio. The same songs get played over and over, and it's controlled the same as any other radio station because they're all owned by the same company.

Not really

[phorm]

I think at the moment they're facing many enemies, but overall their greatest is in fact their own incompetence and inability to smoothly transition in a changing market. Their own enemy is simple greed.

For years and even decades, music companies have managed to milk the talent of skilled performers while at the same time overpumping and burning out mediocre ones. However, those days are gone, and the market has changed. Gone are the days when you needed to buy three tapes if you wanted a proper-quality version for your car, home, and office (there was some loss when copying tapes). Gone are the days when customers could not easily replicate music. Gone are the days when they could milk customers for an entire disc/tape/record when only 1-3 songs were worth bothering with. Moreover, while their models have also greatly depending on screwing over good musicians with draconian contracts. Yes, they still have such contracts, and some fools fall into them, but at the same time more and more are realizing that they don't need to RIAA to further themselves, or that it would be a case of 2 steps forward, 3 steps back in many cases. Lastly, customers are starting to turn away from the pop-performer crud that's been pumped for the last 5-8 years, and going back to music that was based on... well... music (and not some guy dancing on stage in fancy MTV duds). I work in a school district, and I'm very very happy to notice that even the kids are starting to turn away from lip-syncing low-talent hacks and go back to the good stuff.

So they've lost their target market. They've lost their baseline products. Heck, they've even lost their longstanding model of suppliers. The biggest part is the greed of it all, as they still expect the same massively-inflated profits. Keep in mind too, that this is not revenues I'm speaking of, but profits. After all the expenses, it's still a massive money they come ahead with. Perhaps that money might be declining in the future, or they might have to spend some of it developing new infrastructures for a time, but it's still a shitload and they've no right to complain at all.

Re:I know you hate the RIAA

[tomz16]

Why do people feel an entitlement to profit? In capitalism, there is no guarantee that you HAVE to make money... So your store isn't working out.. boo hoo... Regardless of the reasons, own up to facts, and for the sake of your family find a realistic way to fix it or another way to put bread on the table. There is no lack of opportunity out there (especially if you are writing this from the USA)

Otherwise, check back in a few years, and let us know how that absurd blacklist idea worked out for you.. ok?