Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Trying To Avoid a Jury Trial
Joe Elliot writes "Faced with a jury trial set to begin on October 1, the RIAA has filed a motion for summary adjudication of specific facts: that the RIAA owns the copyrights to the songs in a file-sharing case; that the registration is proper; and that the defendant wasn't authorized to copy or distribute the recordings. If the judge rules in their favor, Ars notes that it may turn into a Novell v SCO situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages. There are some significant problems with the copyright registrations — they don't match up. 'Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to conduct a thorough examination of the ownership history (e.g., track the ownership of "Hysteria" from Mercury to UMG) for the songs she is accused of infringing the copyright to, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is either via discovery or cross-examination at trial.' Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
Hm. Another article deserving of the tag 'wishfulthinking'.
According to TFA, the defendent *still* doesn't have the copyrights to the songs, even if the registrations are wrong - in that case, the registered copyright is still to record companies. Who are probably RIAA members. If this case fails, the defendent can just be sued again by the registered rights holders. I don't see then name "Jammie Thomas" as the rights holder under either columns in TFA.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
With so many lawsuits filed, surely the the RIAA knew it was going to hit someone who'd fight back? Wont they of considered this possibility and have a defence ready?
It is wrong, that's true.
But the RIAA is not interested in teaching people the difference between wrong and right, they are interested in using the legal system to extract far more money than they deserve from them.
And that too is wrong. No one has the moral high ground here, but I think the RIAA is standing on lower ground, personally.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
no one can predict how a jury will vote. it's a 50/50 shot.
some jurors may empathize with the defendant while at the same time, another handful of jurors sympathize with the plaintiff.
the truth is that you just don't know. i think that some of these cases should go before a jury and let's see what happens.
the riaa's arguments may be solid but the question of what constitutes copyright infringement and what constitutes fair-use needs to be codified.
my question has always been, "why was it okay for my to make copies of my vinyl albums, put them on cassette, and give it to a friend but it's not okay for me to make a copy of a cd and give that cd copy to the same friend?"
the end result is the same. my friend gets the music that i paid for.
could it be that only now the record labels are panicking because people are not gathering in herds to buy the latest stuff put out by seemingly talent-less hacks like kelly osbourne or britney spears?
so many computers are used in producing pop music now that it would indeed make the world's largest beowulf cluster.
Is it 5:30 yet?
"But it sounds like in this case she did have the files in question, just trying to find a loophole out of it."
It matters a great deal from a legal standpoint. If Universal doesn't actually own the copyrights to the material, then they have no standing to sue, regardless of what the defendant is alledged to have done. And given the history of the music business regarding copyright and royalty abuse with artists, it is a legitimate question to raise - if it is discovered that Universal never really took ownership of the copyright, then
a) the suit gets dismissed
b) someone elses lawyers start knocking on Universal's door, looking for "misdirected" royalties (maybe they won't be able to find their address, just like Stevie Nicks)
Of course, the suit could be re-filed by the actual copyright holder.
From a tactical standpoint, getting Universal's people up on a stand to walk a jury through a byzantine recording contract to explain just how it is that they own the copyright and are owed a kajillion dollars in damages when the original artist gets a pittance is almost certain to dispose a jury toward the defendant.
If we can bleat about "due process" and "competent defense" for murderer's, rapists, thugs, petty theives, and Gitmo detainess, surely this person deserves that same support?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Hmm, destruction of your whole business model, financially costly? Really?
Not if your business model is fatally flawed and/or obsolete.
The fact is that the labels' current business model is untenable. Fifty years ago it took LOTS of money to make a record. Today it only takes a couple thousand; just about every local band (link is to friends of mine) in Springfield has at least one CD recorded in a studio and professionally duplicated.
They don't HAVE to sell a million to make a profit - the things only cost a buck or two apiece, anything above that is profit, so long as they're sold at the bands' shows.
The RIAA labels' only current hold on music is that they still control radio and empty-v. THAT is why they killed internet radio and are trying to kill P2P - they can't control it and keep the indies off. These two outlets are the indies' meal tickets and the labels' worst nightmare.
If you're trying to find, say, a live version of The Station's song The Fog on Kazaa (say someone told you about them), you're likely to find a Radiohead song by the same name, and get yourself sued. But the labels' fear is that you'll be looking for Radiohead's tune and find The Station by mistake. You buy their two CDs (or downloads from iTunes) and you no longer have the money you spent on those two CDs and now can afford one less RIAA CD, since they cost twice as much as most indie CDs sold as shows.
This isn't about "piracy", it's about destroying the competetion.
-mcgrew
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful