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."
some tips for the slashdot crowd:
welcome the outdoors! yes the bright thing up there is called the sun. no you can't turn it off. the other people you see around you you can't just point and click on to communicate with, nor should you strafe them
1. bathe. it is customary for members of the public to bathe, at least more than once a month
2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants
3. shave, if you are male. not a requirement, but a good idea if you don't have groomed facial hair. and if you are reading this and you aren't male... well, who are we kidding
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This only shows that the legal system takes notice when a Big Bad Association acts extra evil. Reporting on little wins here and there is fun, but what's needed is more serious legal action against the RIAA for extortionist practices in the first place. Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.
No, judges do not enforce, police and prosecutors do the enforcing. But that would be criminal law, and this is civil.
The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.
I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty. If all they did was interpret laws, every case would be essentially a summary judgment.
(IANAL)
women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest
again, considering the forum, i am not surprised you don't know this
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.
Actually, people in that situation would be locked away for failing to pay off ASCAP, not the RIAA.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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....
I've noticed that a number of these RIAA cases have some people who are choosing to defend themselves. More than I would have imagined. I don't know the specifics of each individual motivation, but I always felt that representing yourself was somehow risky. Perhaps it's lawyers seeking to defend their business by planting the meme that 'a lawyer who represents themself has a fool for a client' -- that you can't separate your emotions from the case well enough to adequately represent yourself? If a lawyer can't represent themself, what hope does a common person have? I can understand representing yourself in a small-claims case, but against a corporation with actual lawyers?
But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win. I don't know, maybe I'm getting the wrong idea from these cases, but it gives me hope that if I'm ever summoned to court against a giant corporation, I might actually stand a chance instead of going broke even if I come out a winner.
Does anyone else sense that a surprising number of these cases are being won by people who are defending themself? Why would it be that people are choosing to do so ( are the RIAA cases that easy to knock down ), and is it more than typical for average cases?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Since the defendant is Pro Se, the judge forbid the plaintiff from rolling over the defendant on a technicality, and sited another technicality to make sure. This sounds like a great judge, who believes in the spirit and not just the word of the law. I wish we had more like her.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Bumping up the amount in this case is not even
enough to pay the $68K they owe in an earlier case.
Going from 9 to 41 songs is just bad math.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
This is no big deal. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment prematurely, and the motion was denied. The case is still alive, and the parties have to meet and confer on scheduling and discovery issues. The idea is to take care of any issues on which the parties are not in disagreement before the judge has to deal with them. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
Any particular frequency? (sorry, couldn't resist :-).
Insert
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
Now that I have fed the troll a bit, time for me to go feed myself something more bodily nutritious then words.
Not only do I see this as promising, I see it as a possible assault to the RIAA style tactics. Most people wouldn't have the money to pay the settlement or the full fine so why not fight it even if you have to learn how to in the process. Worst case scenario, you have lost some time which seems to be a commodity poor people could afford as easily as rich people. If you gave up, your still losing so sweat equity is the best way around. Especially if you have the truth on your side.
Anyways, If RIAA continues picking on people with dirty handed tactics and they keep standing up to them, The costs they cannot recover will mount and maybe even be owed to whoever they are going after. Then maybe they will stop the dirty handed tactics and some rational sense will prevail from the situation.
i heard the RIAA was hurting for $$ but over 9 songs? damn i wonder what they would do about the 13k my friend has
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
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.
Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently. She either doesn't understand the legal niceties and the rules that she *must* play by, or chose to ignore them - and she just dodged a bullet. If the judge hadn't pulled her irons out of the fire this time by pointing to an apparent failure on the RIAA side to follow the rules as well, she'd already be toast.
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
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Someone should go and take pictures of the RIAA people.
That way we could find out more about them.
Maybe make note of some of their personal habits.
Pick up any papers they discard.
Follow them to the parking garage and make note of make,model and tag number.
Fein interest and start a conversation to see what personal info they give up.
Then share it with Slashdot so we can get to know them on a too personal level.
That way we can call or go over some sleepless night and let the RIAA share the publics lack of privacy.Or get sex.Or valuables.Or......
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Personally, even though I don't feel particularly at risk from an RIAA suit, I find it somewhat comforting to know what they're up to, and how the various suits that they've filed are faring. I continue to hope that our legal system decides not to give in to the RIAA's tactic of sue-first-and-ask-questions later, and that seems to be the case of late. I also appreciate what Ray Beckerman is doing, both with his blog and his submissions to Slashdot. Being informed is a good thing.
Ray: Thank you for your efforts in raising awareness of these issues, you're a credit to your profession. Keep at it!
it's called secondary sexual characteristics. it's a way for mother nature to announce that this person is ready for sex and procreation. women grow breasts, men grow beards. later, the beard grows white, the breasts sag. before puberty, there are no breasts, and there is no beard. this is the way homo sapiens has evolved to tell the other sex that we, as sexually mature pieces of fruit or not are either: not ripe/ too young, ripe/ ready for action, over ripe/ past our prime
these are of course biological communication devices, not overt forms of human-to-human communication. as such, they bypass all of the higher faculties of the brain and communicate at a very primitive level, beyond the person's conscious control. so if one were to consciously manipulate biological sexual cues, they would be manipulating their communication with the opposite sex in a way the opposite sex has no conscious defense against. it's a power play
women wear lipstick and rouge because women (well both men and women) flush in the lips and cheeks when they are sexually aroused. it is a way to manipulate men's interest artificially
likewise, a sexually mature male is threatening to females, because it implies her social interaction with him will be of a sexual agenda, which she doesn't necessarily want. women are more fickle about when they want sex, as they have a more complex reproductive cycle than men, and have more to consider in terms of the implications of sexual activity (ie, having children)
therefore, by shaving your beard, you as a male communicate to a woman's primitive mind that you are nonthreatening sexually. she lets her guard down, and lets you get closer. this is of course a primitive, subconscious manipulation, not an overt verbal one. it's subtle, but it helps, because a woman's first reaction to you upon seeing a beard is automatic sexual aversion if she is sexually uninterested, which with women is usually automatic and most of the time because of her more complex preconditions than men when it comes to sex. unless she is reproductively attached to you, then she might actually prefer a beard, as you are signally your sexual potency to her, which if you are her mate, and she felt comfortable as to her current resources and potential to have children, she would probably desire a beard on you instead
shaving your beard is sort of like a visual castration, neutering and infantilizing yourself in the eyes of women. but that actually works as a psychosexual and social manipulation, because it allows you to get closer to women without them feeling threatened. and since it is only a trick, you are not actually sexually immature, and you buy yourself some time for the woman to get to know you, then you have a leg up on the male competition if the competition doesn't shave
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It has nothing to do directly with sex appeal.
Warriors shave their beard and cut their hair short so that, in hand-to-hand combat, it is hard for opponents to grab their hair.
(Of course, many chicks go for warriors... or the warrior "look.")
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!