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.'"
Good story by Ars Technica.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Just so everyone knows... I, too, am trying to avoid a jury trial. Heck, I'm trying to avoid ANY trial. Heck, I'm on the run from the police. Heck, I haven't done anything and I'm on the run. That is just how fscked up the justice system is.... I'm scared and I haven't done anything wrong.
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
You know, as interesting as TFA is, it's not cool to copy/paste entire paragraphs in the writeup without attribution.
I know I could just RTFA, but you should probably mention which case you're referring to in the summary.
Jury trials are good if RIAA is subject to them
Jury trials are bad if IBM is subject to them
Hence it is proven that jury trials are both good and bad.
Summary Judgment just means there are no facts in dispute for the particular areas disputed. If that's true, then its in everyone's best interest to grant summary judgment. However, if there is a question about the registration, then the judge can grant summary motions for the other areas, and try that part before a jury. However, the defendant needs some proof to fight it. I hope that she has some. It shouldn't be that hard to trace the registration.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
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?
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.
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
It sounds like the only disputed issue is whether RIAA in fact owns the copyrights. This is a question of fact that would vary song-by-song, and a determination that these particular songs belong to RIAA would not prevent the issue from being re-litigated in every other case.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
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?
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
The RIAA has filed a motion for summary {judgement.] If the judge rules in their favor...it may turn into a...situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages.
Well, yeah. In a motion for summary judgment, you are asking the judge to rule that the defendant hasn't got a case worth taking to trial - no matter how generously how you read the arguments in his favor.
Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to..track the ownership of [the] songs she is accused of infringing, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is via discovery or cross-examination at trial.'
Her lawyers want a trial to determine whether the RIAA should sue her as the representative of Label X or as the representative Label Y? There is no real doubt that the recordings are still under copyright?
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.'"
Cases are lost at trial all the time.
You don't get that far unless the parties are pretty evenly matched. But establishing meaningful precedent is extraordinarily rare.
The problem here is that you are really looking only at the admissibility of evidence used to prove infringement and the weight to be given that evidence. The burden of proof in a civil case is light and relevant evidence is rarely excluded.
..over 20,000 lawsuits filed...
This, ladies and gentlemen is the entire point of the exercise. Induce the consumer behavior to check with the RIAA members before doing anything with the media you have legitimately purchased.
"Check with us before doing anything with the media you purchased or else we'll drag you into court." is the explicit threat. That one in 20,000 isn't going well is a fantastic track record. The RIAA is already lawyered-up and ready to drag it out. What individual can afford the fight? Certainly not the ones the RIAA has chosen to prosecute.
And yet nothing will be done by American consumers to reign in another abusive cartel.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
- "Appetite for Destruction"
- "The Comfort Zone"
- "Control"
- "Frontiers"
- "Let it Loose"
- "Get a Grip"
- "Hysteria"
- "If You See Him"
Based on the titles, if these aren't RIAA anthem songs, I don't know what would be. No wonder they want to get her!Also... A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen--who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. Why are all the women getting off? If Jammie Thomas wins, there's another one! I am pretty sure men are being discriminated against...or are only women actually fighting the RIAA?
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?