Slashdot Mirror
Why the RIAA Doesn't Want Defendants Exonerated
RageAgainsttheBears writes "The RIAA is beginning to find itself in an awkward position. A few of its many, many lawsuits don't manage to end in success for the organization. Typically, when they decide a case isn't worth pursuing (due to targeting the wrong person or not having sufficient evidence), they simply move to drop the case. Counterclaims are usually dropped in turn, and everyone goes separate ways. But recently, judges have been deciding to allow the RIAA to drop the case, but still allowing the defendant's counterclaim through. According to the Ars Technica article: 'If Judge Miles-LaGrange issues a ruling exonerating Tallie Stubbs of infringement, it would be a worrisome trend for the RIAA. The music industry has become accustomed to having its way with those it accuses of file-sharing, quietly dropping cases it believes it can't win. It looks as though the courts may be ready to stop the record labels from just walking away from litigation when it doesn't like the direction it is taking and give defendants justice by fully exonerating them of any wrongdoing.'"
fucking extortionists
Our court system should punish frivolous lawsuits for how much it is costing the government.
Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
Lets hope that the trend continues. I think the RIAA publicized their lawsuits so much (in an effort to scare "Pirates") that even the judges are aware of their shady tactics, and resent the RIAA for attempting to turn the court system into their own private extortionists.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
IANAL, but it seems that if the court rules in favor of any one of the defendants, it would set a precedent that would pave the route for all previous defendants to come together and file a class action lawsuit for wrongful accusations.
The RIAA doesn't care if a few individuals keep them in court for whatever liability they open themselves up to.
Individuals won't have enough money to diminish the environment of fear the RIAA is trying to establish.
The goal is to establish an environment of fear, such that most users are afraid to anything other than what the media conglomerates say is okay. Better still, what's okay today can be wrong tomorrow.
The RIAA end game is good. Stories like this just help it along.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
This is an example of how corporate legal personhood is selectively interpreted to grant the positive benefits of being a person under the law while evading the negative consequences.
For example, if an actual person filed frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, eventually a judge would tell them that they have to quit wasting the court system's time with any more nonsense. If the RIAA were a real person, rather than a legal "person", this would have happened to it long ago.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Surely in these cases the RIAA has admitted that they do not believe that they can secure a verdict against the defendant, so why should they be allowed to cease litigation while leaving the matter unsettled and the defendant out of pocket for legal and other expenses?
I hope this ensures that the RIAA ensures that in future cases they have valid and sufficient evidence to proceed rather than filing such frivolous suits that waste time and money for all concerned.
ah, mod points
If a frivolous lawsuit is filed, the filing attorney and any other attorneys who willfully worked on the case, get disbarred. Some permanently others for a few weeks (as a 6 month suspension is functionally equivalent to disbarment as it make s you unemployable and kills your practice).
There needs to be a sliding scale, as I don't want the 1st year associate who's boss told him "do this work" to have his career ruined. The 1st year (and mostly no one below partner) has no power in the firm, and has the only option of doing the work or quiting.
Whether or not this is a frivolous lawsuit is a question of fact; therefore the jury decides. Not the judge (unless they are acting as the trier of fact in that instance.)
You start threatening attorneys livelihood, especially when that livelihood is such a huge investment, you will see these cases go away.
It's probably safe to presume that these new cases finding counterclaims allowed are of the same merit (or lack) as the ones that just totally dropped, and even found the defendants liable.
What has changed? The laws are the same. The actions are the same.
Maybe the judges are a little smarter now. Maybe the lawyers are a little smarter. But if I didn't get the same results as a defendant in the same circumstances a year or more ago, I'd want a new trial. It's not supposed to be my problem if the administrators of justice are too stupid to leave me alone with laws they don't understand.
That's the new development I want to see: a retrial on the basis that maybe the courts aren't as stupid as they were when they decided against me.
--
make install -not war
And while the defendants are at it, how long until someone calls the RIAA on their illegal joinder of John Doe defendants in the beginnings of these suits. Two years ago a judge told the RIAA to stop that, they they can't simply join unrelated defendants to save on their litigation costs, and the RIAA has blithely ignored that ruling and continued on their merry ways.
And did anyone see The Bay City Rollers (60's/70's band) lawsuit against Sony for not paying royalties today? Sony's excuse: We lost your contract and didn't know how much to pay you, so we've given you nothing! Puts to lie the claim that filesharers are ripping off the artists. The record companies appear to be doing that just fine on their own.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is business at its worst. Someone should go after these guys with a class action suit or set up a fake file sharing site to lure them into a case they will lose.
"Never say Never."