Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands

Posted by kdawson on from the smackdown dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.

12 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, RIAA by Himring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judges can't fix your flawed business model and/or lack of innovation....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:Hey, RIAA by BeansBaxter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think the RIAA might be a little nervous about paying legal fees to all the wrongfully accused however. It might make their selection of random file sharers a little more difficult. The way it should be handled I think.

  2. Sadly.... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... I suspect that this will not stop the MAFIAA from making the lives of millions of Americans miserable. They'll just blow it off and it will be business as usual for them.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Sadly.... by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would not be so sure about that. If this decision withstands the test of time, many lawyers will be willing to take on at least some of the cases, since the salary will now come out of **AA's pockets. The obvious outcome will be that more people will engage in illegal filesharing (seeing that it is possible to go to court and win), while **IA will have to pay considerably more for its "war on piracy".

    2. Re:Sadly.... by pdboddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite the contrary, this is setting precedence, and there are a number of other cases where RIAA is not only in danger of losing, but also in danger of having to pay lawyer fees. Think of how many cases they have filed, knowing they can't win all of them but hoping the defendants will cave to pressure and settle. Now imagine these defendents standing up for themselves and going to court... RIAA *could* end up losing quite a bit of money, quite a few lawsuits and what remains of their tattered credibility. It will also give pause to other companies pondering this sort of litigation.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    3. Re:Sadly.... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. It's a shame that people are trying to undermine the successful and legitimate efforts by these businessmen to successfully lock up all major distribution channels, radio stations and to have laws passed to extend their copyrights indefinitely or as jack valenti said, "forever plus one day."

      It's just wrong that corporations should not be able to force artists into contracts which deny them any profits after millions of dollars worth of sales. If this goes on, we might see the destruction of copyrighting sequences of notes and see entire new genre's of music like blues which shamelessly infringe on the same set of riffs for different songs.

      A unique combination of generations of producers, lawyers, organized criminals, and the congressmen and senators that they bought have worked hard to create a virtual monopoly. Where is our respect for all that work?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Sadly.... by teflaime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One point...Most bands really do make their money from touring, not from their records. In fact, if you pay attention at all, you hear horror stories from everybody who isn't a corporate rock fuck about how if they had to rely on album sales they would starve to death.

    5. Re:Sadly.... by DarkSarin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there wasn't a gun involved, but there might as well have been.

      If you are trying to make a living by writing and selling music, then you have essentially three choices--market it on your own, make it free and try to make money touring (if you can get noticed); or you might be able to secure an independent label contract, market it essentially on your own, and hope to make money touring; or, if you get lucky, you can get noticed, sign a major label (read: RIAA) contract, and be stuck with whatever terms they offer, because while some people are good enough to have multiple labels clamoring over their stuff, this is unusual. Instead most bands are lucky to have any label be willing to sign them and there are always others willing to take your place.

      The result is that RIAA labels, in effect, have huge amounts of buying power when it comes to negotiating artist contracts. These contracts are typically draconian in nature, and leave most bands actually losing money for a while, although the label is raking in lots of cash.

      Now, if you go with an independent label, you just have to HOPE that you get famous and make money. The same is true of no label deals, and in all cases you are expected to tour relentlessly and hope for the best. NPR did a fluff piece on the Dresden Dolls a while back that talks about how the band was making less money than the people they had to hire to make the tour work! Sad.

      The point is that being an artist isn't easy, and the RIAA does NOTHING to make it easier for the vast majority. Only a very few actually get deals that reward them in line with the amount of CDs they sell relative to the amount of work it requires from the artist.

      I have no expectation of free music, but I DO expect that the price I pay get passed mostly on to the artist with only a small percentage going to the label and distributors (including the retailer). This isn't what happens, and I know why people are pissed.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    6. Re:Sadly.... by MetalPhalanx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you might have missed an important sentence in the GP post... the one that explains how the corporations can hold a gun to a band member's head. I'll point it out: (emphasis mine)

      It's a shame that people are trying to undermine the successful and legitimate efforts by these businessmen to successfully lock up all major distribution channels, radio stations and to have laws passed to extend their copyrights indefinitely or as jack valenti said, "forever plus one day."

      In the days before the internet, the record labels made life for independent artists as hard as they could, to force them into restrictive contracts. Good luck trying to get any air time on a significant radio station as an independent artist. And the strange thing about bands, is that while you can make money touring, you first have to gain a strong following. To do that, people have to hear you. If you can't get any air time the only way to do that is tour with other bands. But chances are, unless you're very original AND very good, most people will not remember your material nearly as well as whatever song that one of the labels has playing on the radio every 20 minutes all day long. NOT accepting a contract with a record label was a death knell for almost any band. Of course, there is always the possibility of arguing for a better contract, but it's not likely to be improved much, unless you really are very good and very original.

      Of course, now with the internet their efforts to lock up the major distribution channels are starting to fail, so they are flailing wildly in an attempt to gain control over this new and unexpected threat. So far, they seem to be having some trouble, and I hope it continues that way.

    7. Re:Sadly.... by ffflala · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're laboring under the assumption that it is in fact, some inherent quality of the music that most greatly influences the music on which you are willing to spend money.

      A few years ago I saw an estimate that around 100 CDs were being created per day, every day. It seems like a fairly conservative estimate. Assuming that's in the ballpark, in the time it takes you to listen to one CD, around 3 others will have been created. And you can't listen to music 24/7.

      Distribution power has tremendous influence on what music will sell. Great distribution power --physical sales and the airplay, good PR, and buzz needed to push those CDs to the register-- requires a lot of capital. It is the exception for heavily marketed product to completely flop: even the worst will go gold if it's crammed down enough throats (thanks, Clear Channel!) I'm not talking postering, I'm talking about pay for play.

      The reason you buy bands --the reason you may even identify with them-- is because you found mention of them in the first place. In a world where you're exposed to thousands of advertisements every day, it is far more likely that you came across them in an ad of some sort; or at least the person who told you about them did.

      So your expectation for all your money to go to the artist, at least in the case of the RIAA label bands, is misplaced. Don't fool yourself -- most of the capital that gave them the huge sales did not, in fact, come from their musical efforts. They simply have the gratification of being the faces of the advertising campaign that is their latest CD.

    8. Re:Sadly.... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you even read the first paragraph of the GP? You know, where he pointed out that the record companies don't just ask for artists to sign contracts that some might consider unfair (arguable whether they are unfair or not, conceded). They ask for this, and then they turn around and commit contract fraud by lying to the artists about how much money is really being brought in, etc. Whether the original contract was fair or not, and whether you think contract fraud is fair or not, the law of the land says that contract fraud is no bueno.

      The fact that people still sign contracts with these companies is very suggestive that perhaps they feel that there are no alternatives. It suggests that people are resigned to getting screwed over, not necessarily on the contracts themselves, but on how closely those contracts are followed. It suggests that people feel like there is no alternative but to idly sit by and watch the law be broken. I say that this is a very bad thing indeed.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  3. Try Thinking Next Time. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't just count the people being sued, you have to also consider the great many Slashdotters who believe that any expectation that you pay anything at all for any media that can be digitized equates to misery.

    It's more like the 125 million US citizens with an ISP connection that might be wrongly accused and threatened with the loss of all their life savings.

    That they be denied the ability to obtain, free of charge, the latest pop music in a format that not only plays on any conceivable device but was also developed by people who share their particular political and philosophical leanings with regard to software....that is truly misery for them.

    Yes, I'd like my music to play on restrictionless devices. If you like having to beg permission to play and copy your files or keep running your OS. I'm not sure why anyone would prefer that but to each his own. Perhaps you would like one of Mr. Gates' bed o'nails and pillow full-o-thorns to sleep on?

    Bands make money from touring. ... blah blah blah

    You don't have a real job do you?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.