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.'"

Comments

Backups?

[sanosuke001]

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?

Re:Wishful thinking

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

How about this?

[Stormcrow309]

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.

Defense Fund?

[rlp]

Is there a defense fund we can donate to?

But it is important

[tkrotchko]

"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.