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.'"
I'm not sure as IANAL, but if you owned a physical copy of a CD/Record/8-Track/phonograph of a song, you are legally able to make a copy of it, correct? So, would sending someone else a copy of a song you ripped from your recording be legal if they also owned a copy? ie. I own a CD, a friend owns the same CD. He doesn't have a CD-ROM on his computer so I rip it for him and send it to him so he has it on his MP3 player.
I see this more as a "can I legally 'help' people backup their music" and "is it my fault that others can't follow the law."
From how I see it, it isn't their fault someone else downloaded the song; they didn't force anyone to do anything illegal. If they own the recording, shouldn't they be able to let others download it to have a personal, digital, copy? If not, why?
-SaNo
In any case, don't both sides often attempt to get summary judgement on some issues? It makes trials go faster.
The article makes it sound like RIAA is running scared, it sounds to me like they understand it's a big deal and are doing everything they can to win the case. I would expect anyone involved in a court case to, you know, actually try and win it.
Actually, two of the records are listed as having an original copyright holder as being CBS Records. CBS Records is not an RIAA member, according to their website. Also, many of the companies listed on that link aren't RIAA members, either, they just report to the RIAA. I think among those is Geffen, which is also listed in TFA, but I'm not sure.
My blog
Americans anyway have the specific right under the Home Recording Act to copy any and all broadcast media that they like. You don't need a license, you simply need blank media. This is why the RIAA is fucked and knows it. They already lost. This whole thing has been a sham from the beginning.
In fact, I suspect many of the early tracks you saw on Kazaa and the like were obviously just stream rips that people had posted back up as P2P file transfers. Yes, that uploading part is technically a violation of copyright, but barely so and only in very questionable legislative form because of the highly shady last minute amendments tacked onto Clinton era No Electronic Theft Act. Moreover, this shady amended legislation only applies within the United States and clearly the Internet exists beyond the United States.
Even if it wasn't, it's still all academic because all of that same media can legally be copied for free and completely with the protection of the law of the United States through the Home Recording Act.
See Wikipedia "Audio Home Recording Act" for a summary.
Here's some key excerpts on the digital amendment to that act that clearly make it acceptable to digitally record digital streams for personal use.
===
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) amended the United States copyright law by adding chapter 10 "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media." The act enabled the release of recordable digital formats such as Sony and Phillips' Digital Audio Tape without fear of contributory infringement lawsuits.
. . .
The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording device
===
If it were illegal to make free copies of digital media then you wouldn't be able to buy DVD burners and blanks. It's that simple.
Maybe my thinking is a little wacky. However, how about someone scan through the files that RIAA say that they "own" and look for any infected by viruses. Wouldn't RIAA be responsible for that? I think establishing ownership for data could be very expensive in secondary consequences.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Is there a defense fund we can donate to?
[Insert pithy quote here]
"There may be some irregularity in the copyright ownership. But noone seriously contends that the defendant owns the copyright."
Absolutely right, but it is important. Otherwise, you or I could sue this person for copyright violation. But that doesn't make sense. I can't ask the police to arrest you for trespassing on my neighbor's property. And I can't enforce somebody else's copyright.
And assuming the person were to lose the copyright infringement case, wouldn't they have to award damages to the copyright holder? What if it turns out the copyright holder had no interest in suing widows and orphans?
I think this is not trivial.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That's irrelevant. *Only* the copyright holder has standing to sue over the copyrights. If the plaintiff doesn't own the copyrights, the suit will be dismissed.
If this case fails, the defendent can just be sued again by the registered rights holders.Assuming it fails only on the copyright ownership grounds, probably. It's also entirely possible that the copyrights fell through the cracks at some point and that it's not possible to clearly establish the ownership, or that the ownership ended with some other company or individual that isn't interested in suing Thomas, since it will be much more profitable to sue the company who has been illegally distributing the material for profit.
Actually, even if the ownership did turn out to rest with another RIAA member, I'd still expect a lawsuit against the current distributor, seeking restitution of all profits related to the song (less expenses related to the song, of course, meaning that a bunch of auditors will make millions).
Finally, as another poster pointed out, this may well establish a precedent that the labels are required to exhaustively trace the ownership of the songs over which they sue, adding significant cost and complexity to already-expensive cases. It's a good legal tactic and it's also quite proper -- companies *should* have to ensure they truly hold copyrights before they sue over them. Think how much pain that would have saved in the SCO case.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I agree with what you're saying, but wouldn't that be grounds for a re-trial/mistrial or at least getting the juror removed from the jury? I thought jurors were supposed to be impartial and should decide a verdict based on the merits of the arguments.
However, being a slashdotter, you'd know that most of the evidence is bullshit and does not prove who infringed the copyright in most cases.
Awww.. now my brain hurts.
Ray Beckerman has the first post on a legal topic and it gets modded down as redundant? It may not be insightful enough to warrant being modded up... but modding an early post by an expert on the subject as redundant is just stupid. Good thing for metamodding.
To make this comment not a gripe in whole, it does seem quite possible that the RIAA could avoid the trial by jury silver bullet in this case, if the defendant was in fact file sharing and they have "good" proof. Not all the defendants are dead, children, or too old to own/know how to use a computer.
Still, the writing is on the wall. They won't get away with extortion forever.
Bingo!
The RIAA 'sues' over $3,000. A half-decent law firm won't even answer the phone for that. Litigation (and preparation for litigation) is *extremely* expensive. The RIAA has been able to extort money from people by threats of litigation, without actually doing any of the real work of preparing for litigation.
People are finally getting the idea that the RIAA is weak in prepartion. Suing someone over something you don't own is a bad thing. If other lawyers start doing this kind of research, all of the sudden you may find that Tonya Anderson's class action lawsuit is a lot closer to reality....
Uploading copyrighted files is illegal, but there isn't a single person alive that does not upload and download ideas that they didn't create, whether the ideas are copyrighted or not.
Wasn't there a case of some bloke who named his vacation movies similar to an RIAA or MPAA copyrighted work, and received a lawsuit? Taking screen shots of file titles is not proof of anything. And such a possibility for similar titles of files being mistaken for copyrighted works should serve as a huge warning to the aggressive unchecked tactics of an out of control legal extortion racket.
There's no difference at all between recording something played on the radio, and "downloading" the same thing.
There is nothing intuitive or obvious about the difference between all the ways to listen to music free about which the general consensus is "Not wrong" and the several ways the RIAA thinks are so wrong that you should have to go to court and pay thousands and thousands in fines and attorney fees. For someone far inside a particular culture's arbitrary distinctions, those distinctions can look to be plain, obvious, and simple. That's an illusion, a distortion of perspective. What the RIAA wants us to accept as "wrong" depends on a very fine legalistic parsing of differences.
Basically the RIAA wants to find a loophole among all the ways that listening to music is "not wrong" by which to make a few instances so wrong as to deserve massive punishment and rewards to them. To respond legalistically to the RIAA's legalistic claims is not wrong; it's response in kind. If being legalistic is wrong, the RIAA has no case to begin with.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
If they can't get "summary adjudication" -- which I predict they can't because I think the judge is much too smart for that -- they will move to voluntarily dismiss their own case, as they did in Capitol v. Foster, Interscope v. Leadbetter, Priority Records v. Candy Chan, Elektra v. Santangelo, and others.
A voluntary dismissal once or twice might simply indicate a genuine mistake, but that's clearly not the case with the RIAA --- they're abusing the legal process for strategic commercial gain. Doesn't this kind of thing (when repeated systematically) carry any penalty at law?
From 34 years of experience in litigation, I don't think I've ever seen a judge say no to someone wanting to withdraw their own case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful