Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Receives Stern Letter, Folds
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG v. Merchant, in California, the defendant's lawyer wrote the RIAA a rather stern letter recounting how weak the RIAA's evidence is, referring to the deposition of the RIAA's expert witness (see Slashdot commentary), and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The very same day the RIAA put its tail between its legs and dropped the case, filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. About an hour earlier NYCL had termed the letter a 'model letter'; maybe he was right."
The RIAA are doing these lawsuits with terrible evidence to show that they are not "sufficiently protected" by civil law. This can only help them as they continue to lobby congress for new criminal copyright infringement laws.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What happened here was that the RIAA saw a lawyer who not only knew of the RIAA's tactics, but also knew of how little evidence they actually had. Instead of potentially conceding a loss in court that could be used against them in the future, they withdrew their case to avoid a negative stroke on their record. One of the biggest weapons against them right now is to point out prior losses, while one of theirs is to point out prior success in these cases. The more success they have, the more ammunition they have. The more loss they endure, the more ammunition the defendants are given.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Well, if anything, this is one strong ad for the law firm. He ties together the CA-storm-on-the-horizon RICO, the MediaSecurity fallibility, the driftnet "Smith"-style instigations, and various CA anti-SLAPP and Rule 408 sentiment. Nicely done sir.
The RIAA will change nothing with this. However, they are going find folks spending the money (above and beyond settlement) to get press and dismissals, if possible. I believe the tide is turned.
imo the best bit is actually split into two places in the letter. first theres this part:
'Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople.'
this is followed later by:
'My clients are willing to accept dismissal of the litigation in exchange for
1. Payment of Mr. Merchant's reasonable fees and costs including retainer of $6,880.25. The payment represents good value considering what your own firm's billings will have been to date and use of those billing records as the loadstar rate for Mr. Merchant's award. See Capitol Record v. Foster, Western Dist. Okla No. 5:04-cv-1569-W, Docment 182 filed 3-15-07).'
you gotta love how it says they wont pay the riaa's protection money..., and then asks the riaa to pay them twice as much.
You shall know him by his Sig
In the real world a lawyer has to try to get the case shut down at the earliest possible juncture. There is no guarantee of getting attorneys fees later. The idea is to win, and win as fast as possible. Mr. Ledford did the right thing. And accomplished a great result.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You win some, you lose some.
Posters here respond to the handful of stories that show the rights' agencies at their most vulnerable. But there is no running tally of the thousands - tens of thousands - of settlements which are paid out without much argument or fuss.
You may learn how to win your case here - but you won't learn how to lose your case here.
You might find a lawyer willing to chance an aggressive - and costly defense.
You might be willing to commit to two years of litigation. You might become the next poster child for the EFF. You might recover your costs. You might win the tri-state lottery.
More likely you will resign yourself to a schedule of monthly payments and a diet of mac and cheese. Only 1% of federal civil cases end a bench or jury verdict - which means you can forget about jury nullification. You will never get that far.
Here is an attorney who not only is familiar with and sees through the RIAA's shotgun tactics, and even refers to them as such in his draft, he is admonishing the opposing counsel in beautifully crafted language. While the written words offer to assist said counsel in resolving a filing mistake, a very clear and very different message is conveyed. Mr. Ledford has just told the RIAA to go fuck their collective selves, and he appears to have the case law to back it up (IANAL, and I'm definitely not licensed to practice in California, so that is only my interpretation). He knows he's right, he knows that the RIAA is not willing to appear in court for a showdown after the issues that he's cited - inappropriate venue, lack of probable cause, history of discredited experts, etc. - and he's finally revealed himself as the man with the balls to make the play.
The entire missive can be summed up from a geek's standpoint in eleven characters: "YHBT. HAND."
I don't know whether or not the Merchant family has actually fronted $6,880.25 for the research that culminated in this letter, and I suspect that either settlement or judgement will negate the fees, but those dollars are worth their weight in gold. I've followed the entire RIAA spectacle with mildly detached interest since they first started filing lawsuits, and to be quite frank, this is the most damning coffin-nail yet.
A model letter, indeed.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
You're right he's getting a rich guy out of trouble.
He's also making it simpler for those of lesser standing to take the same course. He made it abundantly clear that there was lots of money available to throw at the case, but he also made this letter public. The letter itself is clearly based on more than just "money" it's based on what someone with money would spend to fight this case, which is based solely on the legal merit of the case, otherwise the settlement would have been paid or the letter would have been more humble.
I agree it sucks that a good lawyer costs an arm and a leg. At the same time I'm sure some lawyers enjoy it when they get to affect real justice. Sometimes legal theory works and for that Mr. Merl Ledford III deserves his kudos.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
>What does that mean? what is it that's "a mid-six to low seven figure piece of computer gear"?
It means he would be perfectly happy to document that the cost of professional data forensics suitable for litigation purposes, particularly for evidence that may be required for a federal case are quite high, and if the plaintiff's experts show up with no case, they will be paying this bill.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
or they could spend the $500 on purchasing the cds instead of pirating... ;)
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...