Slashdot Mirror
Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Boston case, Capitol v. Alaujan, the defendant is representing herself, without a lawyer. Nevertheless, the Judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, which the RIAA had based upon the defendant's alleged failure to respond to the RIAA's Request for Admissions. The Court's decision (pdf) held that the RIAA had served its requests for admission prematurely, prior to the conduct of any discovery conference. The Court also noted that the RIAA had upped the ante quite a bit, trying to get a judgment based on 41 song files, even though it had originally been asking for judgment based on 9 song files. This would have increased the size of the judgment from about $7,000 to about $31,000. The Judge scheduled a discovery conference for October 23rd, at 2:30 P.M. and ordered everybody to attend. Such conferences are open to the public."
And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.
the judicial system's very purpose is to interperate the law, and to test it in court. You have ZERO understanding of how the legal systems works if you think all judges do is rubberstamp the law.
open your damn ears, haven't you ever heard of laws being thrown out on account of them failing to hold up in court on a consitutional challenge?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There were other swings and misses in both that comment and elsewhere in this thread. I haven't read any other comment threads attached to this story but I rest assured they are mostly as bad.
What law are judges presiding over the RIAA cases supposedly making? What precedents are they ignoring or going against? Can anyone articulate these things or are we just jumping on a "judicial activism is bad and every judge is a judicial activist" bandwagon lately?
As to summary judgment and interpreting the laws - these are orthogonal concepts. Summary judgment is simply the judge deciding that the case must come down a certain way according to the law, because there is no material fact in good-faith dispute. A material fact is one that actually matters to the case. For instance, if I have to prove that you sold me a car in order to win, it is immaterial whether the car was made in Japan.
The idea that judges "interpret" the laws is mostly a creature of high school civics classes. Judges apply the laws to disputes between parties. The judge may do some interpreting in the process, but that is neither the judge's whole job or is it solely the judge's job.
The criminal vs. civil issue will be dealt with in 30 other comments to this story. I'm not overly concerned about covering it here, as a result.
The judge vs. jury divide is worth discussing. Juries decide issues of fact. That's their only real job. When a judge denies a motion for summary judgment, he is essentially saying that there is enough of a factual dispute to send the case to a jury. It won't go to a jury immediately, of course, but it hasn't lost that possibility in the future. That's what happened here.
Nice summary. It is worth pointing out that judges can also perform the fact finding function juries do. This would happen when no party demands a jury. If however, one party demands a jury, then the facts will be decided by jury.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
My fiance' LOVES my beard. It's long enough to be soft to tickle her in all the right spots.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Judges should not ENFORCE the law. That's the job of the police. Judges should not MAKE the law. That's the job of the government. Judges should INTERPRET the law.
That's how the system works. Government makes laws. They decide what is legal and illegal, what procedures are to be followed and how the other two powers are to behave in the context of the law. Under perfect circumstances, those laws are created with a balance in mind that aims at upholding the order and create a fair and balanced playing field for everyone.
Police (or the executive in general) enforces the law. They are granted rights and privileges above those of a normal person who they are to employ within the borders of legality to enforce the laws created by the government, to enforce order and to hunt down and arrest people who break the law.
The courts, finally, have a rather heavy load to bear. They are on one hand a safeguard for the other powers, especially the executive (so they don't overstep their rights), on the other hand it's on the court to make sure that procedures are followed and the orderly flow of the system is observed. And finally it's the court's position to decide in ambigious cases which side should be "winning". Guilty or not.
They're not making law. They are using the laws present to interpret them in such a way that the fairness and balance created through the legislative are observed and upheld.
At least that's the theory. That reality often doesn't match it is a given. But generally, those are the reasons those three parts exist. No single power should have all the power in its hands.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Point II of the Warner v. Cassin reply brief (at pages 9-10) briefly discusses the impact the RIAA's theories could have on the internet if they were to be accepted by the courts.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Maybe the judge is well aware of RIAA tactics and initiated the PUBLICLY PRESENTABLE discovery conference. It's one thing he can do to expose the RIAA to some degree without jeopardizing any impartiality.
I concede that much of what we do centers around whether women like it, but not everything. I present as my proof the following word:
"Golf"