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
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!!!!
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. "
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.
Peace sells, but who's buying?
It is risky, but they may feel it is worth it. Can't afford to pay the extortion money, can't afford a lawyer so go for broke. Also if the lose the judgement there is the possibility that the court will consider their financial means and set up a payment plan.
Also the RIAA isn't what I'd call "well lawyered". They may have a lot, but the guys in these cases seem like rookies. They do some DUMB shit. Maybe the first time in the courtroom for some of them. In that case, a smart respondent might not be at such a disadvantage, especially if the judge feels sympathy for them and helps them out a bit in legal matters.
Finally, the RIAA has really, really weak cases here. I know it's civil court and reasonable doubt isn't the standard, but even still. Their evidence is extremely shaky and their declarations full of holes. Still not a great idea to defend yourself, but you aren't up against solid evidence.