Slashdot Mirror
US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."
IANAL. However, I don't believe that this should be unexpected. The Department of Justice occasionally intervenes in cases when someone challenges a federal law in a civil lawsuit. Federal law in some cases requires a party to notify the Attorney General when they intend to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. The defendant, having challenged the law, has a burden to show that the law is unconstitutional, and then the government has the burden to defend the law.
While on one hand this is a case where the government is defending a law that helps the RIAA, the intervention would have happened regardless of whether the record companies were involved because the government has a duty to defend its laws.
Just as the Plaintiff is required to notify the court and the DoJ
from the Plaintiff's answer and counterclaim:
"Rule 24(c) further provides that "[a] party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should call the attention of the court to its consequential duty" to notify the Attorney General of the United Sates under 28 U.S.C. 2403. Defendant Boggs therefore is submitting concurrently with this Answer a Notification to call the attention of this Court to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c)."
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Simple. It's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Translated another way, those who pay the most in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions and protection money^W^Wtaxes get the most protection.
*sigh*
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If you read the motion in question, you'll see one thing this is not is Big Evil Government joining forces with Big Evil Recording Industry.
/. editors), that this is utterly routine and has about zero bearing on whether or not he'll win the case.
The background is that, as part of his defence (and a counterclaim), the defendant in the RIAA suit has said that (1) not only is he innocent, but (2) the act of Congress establishing the basis under which he was sued is unconstitutional. That's certainly going for the Moon.
In any case in which a Federal law might be declared unconstitutional, not surprisingly the Federal Gov't takes an interest, and might decide to defend the constitutionality of the law. Should they succeed, that does not mean the defendant loses, of course. It only means he can't get a bye, in the sense that the very law under which he was charged vanishes.
The only thing unique about this case is that the Federal Gov't asserts that it did not previously receive sufficient notice of the case to have time to decide, in the routine way, whether or not to defend the constitutionality of the law in question. So they filed a motion with the Court asking for 60 days to think it over. This motion was unopposed by the defendant, who apparently realizes (at least more so than certain credulous
I mean, unless you're so naive as to think that the argument in Court will go like this:
RIAA (pointing skeletal finger): You broke the law, fiend!
Defendant: Did not. And besides, the law's unjust and should not exist.
Judge: Really? What makes you think so?
Defendant: Well, I...
Uncle Sam (interrupting): Hold on thar a gosh-darned minute! I say that law is fair!
Judge (bowing to Uncle Sam): Well, in THAT case, it must be. Defendent, you lose.
Defendant: Curses! If only Uncle Sam hadn't known about this trial...
RIAA (twirls mustache): Ha ha ha!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The federal government can't cruelly or unusually punish you, this doesn't apply to civil situations between individuals.
The language is:
Of course, the sentence is in the passive voice, so it relies on interpretation, but its in the middle of a bunch of laws that spell out limitations of federal power, so this is probably how it gets interpreted. Amendment VII, which guarantees just about every civil respondent a right to a trial by jury, might be more appropriate.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The problem with copyright is NOT the terms... the problem with copyright is the corruption of the Congress via bribery, which subverts the will of the people. If the corruption were removed, there would be no reasonable argument possible that any vote to extend copyright law to a larger, finite period was unconstitutional.
Sadly, the latter problem is much harder to fix.
Around late 1800's was when corporations became legal entities that were responsible to shareholders alone, instead of being responsible to the public at large. This was the slipper slope which we have been tumbling down for quite some time now.
You can blame the industrial revolution for the concentration of wealth and power in our democratic capitalistic society.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"Why do you assume the justice dept will be on the RIAA side or even choose to intervene at all?" Because the site linked to says that the feds will intervene on the side of the RIAA. But really, was anyone expecting otherwise? There seems to be alot of people thinking this is a case of the big bad government teaming up with the big bad RIAA against the little guy. The defendant in this case is claiming a law is unconstitutional. How is the RIAA qualified to defend against such a claim? Does the law get thrown out if the RIAA fails to give a good arguement? That's not how it works, and that's not how it should work. It is the job of the DOJ to defend the law. They should get involved. If the RIAA questioned the constitutionality of a federal law, the DOJ would defend it. As such, the DOJ is not "on the side of the RIAA". They are defending a federal law, written and approved by Congress, and signed into law by the President.