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).

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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!

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:"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.

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:"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: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.