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."

Comments

itsatrap

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:itsatrap

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You think the fact that they bring frivolous lawsuits against helpless people is going to help them with Congress?

I respectfully disagree.

Re:itsatrap

[nurb432]

Right, and as soon as its a truely criminal issue, they have the resources of the government behind them. The entire concept of IP will be turned on its head.

Only problem is that it turns into 'reasoable doubt' by a jury to get a conviction, a much harder task then in civil cases.

Re:itsatrap

[supersat]

5 of the largest 50? According to what list?

Warner Music Group is #542 in the Fortune 1000. The rest of the big four are either totally foreign (e.g. EMI, based in London), or owned by foreign companies (e.g. Sony BMG and Universal Music Group).

Besides, we already have the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, and I can't recall any P2P prosecutions based on it. I'm not too surprised either, given that the authorities likely have bigger problems to tackle, and the standard of proof is much high in a criminal case ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). The RIAA is already having trouble proving their cases with the lower, civil standard.

Re:itsatrap

[billcopc]

Congress doesn't need to side with anything. The RIAA doesn't win many lawsuits, it just threatens people into settling for $3750. It's very much a poker bluff, they have no hand to play (no evidence), but they intimidate the defendants into folding to "cut their losses". The fact that lawyers get paid even if they lose is a contributing factor to this abuse, as few people can afford to front the retainer even if they have a chance of winning their attorney fees back in the counter-claim.

I like analogies, so here's a colorful one for everyone: The RIAA is like the schoolyard bully. Either you give him your lunch money and go without food for a day, or you take a chance and try to pound him into submission, but you'll get beat up pretty bad too, and if you lose you'll have to pay anyway.

Re:itsatrap

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA is absolutely a schoolyard bully.

I disagree with your outlook.

Here is mine.

Rule Number 1: All bullies are also cowards.

Rule Number 2: The only way to stop bullies is to beat them.

Rule Number 3: When you draw blood they run away because of Rule Number 1.

Re:itsatrap

[Trailer Trash]

Listen to what these guys are saying, Mr. Beckerman. When the MPAA tried to push the "superdmca" bill here in TN, one of the most egregious provisions was that people who were caught with unauthorized devices connected to their cable service were *required* to be criminally prosecuted. That's the direction this stuff is going: make it a crime so that the government has to foot the bill for what should be a civil matter. These people are slime, as you know better than I do. They will stop at nothing.

Their reputation in Congress will not go down because of these civil suits. They have enough of Congress on the payroll that reputation doesn't matter.

What happened here...

[Runefox]

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.

Re:What happened here...

[Harmonious Botch]

...The more success they have, the more ammunition they have. The more loss they endure, the more ammunition the defendants are given. The law is not like playing football; nobody counts your wins and losses at the end of the season.
What matters is can it hold up under appeal? The RIAA doe not want to let an appelate or SCOTUS decicion go against them. Then it affects all cases. They are choosing their battles carefully.

Re:hang on - *without* prejudice?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Yay

[cyphercell]

"getting a rich guy out of trouble"
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.

Re:All about the money

[miro f]

or they could spend the $500 on purchasing the cds instead of pirating... ;)