Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands
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primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms.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.
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.
(IANAL)
Maybe I missed it, but if the RIAA complied with the order to show their attorney's fees, does that mean they're available in some accessible court document somewhere?
Revoke RIAA member's corporate charter? Invalidate their predatory contracts with artists. Thile we're at it, eliminate Ticketmaster. This leaves room for a non-profit system for promoting and desseminating music. We need a blue-collar musician class.
... but politicians can. How much does a Senator or Representative go for, these days?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
We need a reform whereby when litigants have dramatically unequal net worth, the plaintiff is required to reimburse defendant's lawyers up to the amount that they themselves spend on legal services. The plaintiff can then argue for whatever damages they can convince jury the defendant can pay based on their income level. The same should hold true in criminal cases. When prosecutor feels the crime is grave enough to justify calling dozens of expensive expert witnesses, surely the suspect should be given a chance to prove themselves innocent. Justice shouldn't depend on your bank account, especially since we all know how many rich guys are crooks.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The RIAA is a cure that is worse than the disease, piracy, that it fights. Frankly, I hope they do end up paying out the ass for their McLawsuit business model. That said, it always seems that arguing fairness on digital media is like arguing abortion: It is difficult to find middle ground, let alone win, an argument with a true believer.
.doc, .avi, .mp3, or other format and choose the correct interpreter in addition to the language barrier.
My own stance is often conflicted on digital media. I've never deluded myself into thinking I'm striking a blow for justice by downloading a game, software, song, show, etc. gratis. But the often clumsy DRM does sometimes make me regret a legitimate purchase. With BT games, I can take my machine to a LAN party without bringing a single disc. With a legitimate game, I'd either have to bring the discs or patch it as if I had obtained an illegal copy. Hell, I wanted a few songs right away to exercise with, so I downloaded the MSN service and bought a few bucks worth of songs: Easy as pie...until I restore my system, or until MSN folded into URGE without properly supporting legacy customers.
Even this far into the Internet age we still haven't developed proper analogues to physical media. You can loan a book to a friend; the only DRM is the security sticker removed at the store. How do you easily loan an audio book to a friend, without making it easy to endlessly provide perfect copies? The business model needs updating, but to what? As it stands, we are buying encrypted paper books that can only be read with a cipher key licensed to an individual.
But even that metaphor breaks down easily, since paper books employ near-universal formats that anyone literate in the language can read. Since the format is interpreted by the human mind, not a computer, any irregularities in the format (i.e. manga style graphic novels) can be adapted on the fly. We don't have to consider if a book comes in
Ease of use is key to adoption, but what is the balance between business and consumer? Is it fair that iTunes limits players or is it fair to demand that iTunes support an open format? Damned if I know the answer.
Also remember that both the movie & record distributors have been caught repeatedly doing some very funny accounting in reguards to what makes a 'profit'. Most of the contracts issue an advance followed by royalties after a net-profit has been gained.
ISTR that a producers new Ferrari was once considered an 'expense' in calculating net profits. For a modern example of this look no farther than New Line Cinema & Peter Jackson - LOTR1 is showing $100M+ discrepency in the audit. That's a lot of money to be 'disputed' as an expense - like 2 more movies. Worse, although it's in the contract, NL is trying to bar Jackson from auditing the books on the other 2 movies. We are talking potentially 1/2 of $1B in profits being swept under the table & hidden from the 'Artists'.
The RIAA and MPAA individual members have all, without one single exception, lost at least one suit, filed by an artist or multiple artists, where the corporations were caught concealing the true status of profits, under-reporting gross or net take, and/or over-reporting expenses, billing for expenses not actually incurred, double, triple, and even quadruple billing. In several of these cases they have committed such large numbers of 'convenient mistakes all just happening to fall their way' that the judges deciding those cases have freely used terms such as "egregious", "willful" and even "rising to a level that is undoubtedly criminal" in their decisions. Last I heard how the law is supposed to work, contract fraud is supposed to be illegal, even with no armed force involved.
Yes, you could possibly justify an anti-trust argument, but how about this broader one. If artists are still entering into contracts with a group of companies that have all been caught cheating on contracts, there must be some unfair advantage to keep them doing it. Whether it's a monopolistic trust that leaves them no better options, or the group otherwise enjoys selective immunity from paying the full price of their contract violations is irrelevant. The government could vigorously prosecute where conduct crosses the line to criminal accounting practices, lieing under oath, and so on, and this would help a great deal whether there is a proven monopoly or not.
Sure, some of it, at least a little, can be blamed on various artist's stupidity. Put a clause in your recording contract that says there will be bowls of all green M&Ms available at all times on the soundstage, and you can expect to pay very dearly for it. Fair enough, but not nearly all the artists are that stupid. Which seems more likely, that there are so many artists too stupid to realize the risks, or that many of them do know they are going to get screwed, but feel like all better alternatives are closed off to them, and hope to be the one who isn't screwed too badly.
Prior post amounts to saying "show me a successful white collar criminal who turned to blue collar methods when they didn't have to, or agree I'm right!" I'm rather surprised you're rebutting only one part of it and letting the rest stand.
Who is John Cabal?
Correct, but as someone a few posts up said, politicians can take on this role. Lessig demonstrated in Free Culture that, throughout history and today, industries will seek to artificially preserve their irrelevant business models via the courtroom and our Congress.
And for the past decade or so, they've been succeeding.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.