Slashdot Mirror
First New Dismissal Motion Against RIAA Complaint
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Several weeks ago it was discovered that a California federal judge, in rejecting an RIAA application for default judgment, had dismissed the RIAA's standard complaint for failure to state a claim, calling it "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation" in Interscope v. Rodriguez. In the wake of that decision a New York woman being sued in Brooklyn federal court, Rae J Schwartz, has told the Court that she is making a motion to dismiss the complaint in her case, Elektra v. Schwartz. This is the first post-Interscope challenge to the RIAA's boilerplate, of which we are aware. This is the same case in which the RIAA had sent a letter to the Judge falsely indicating that AOL had 'confirmed that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed'. Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
"Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
Does anyone else get tired of all the "Joe Schmoe is 72 years old, has a goiter and an infected big toenail, but the RIAA still presses on!" sensationalism?
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself. How about focusing on the fact that the RIAA has no proof, or legal grounds, and leave it at that!
The write up is good up until the last line. The respondent having MS says nothing about the case nor does having MS prevent her from using a computer or downloading music or provide immunity from civil prosecution.
The fact that she has MS is irrelevant.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Is there no common law or statutory cause of action in barratry (or otherwise, e.g. RICO Act) that could be brought against the RIAA in a class action? While not a defence, and certainly adventurous, barratry et. al. ought to be available as a counterclaim.
I imagine it would be more judicially efficient to resolve all these cases as a class action. It would also give access to justice to those who would otherwise be unable to properly defend (or counterclaim in) their action.
Finally, and less adventurous, do the relevant statutes address classes of defendants? This would seem to be, if the boilerplate accusation is correct, a quintessential case for judicial efficiency by way of a defendants' class.
Quite right. But it makes for excellent news copy, particularly if she's innocent and the RIAA have hit the wrong person with their scattergun approach to lawsuits.
It's a variant on Missing White Woman Syndrome. The important point is that, in trying to explain to the general public that music downloaders are not evil criminals then using this case to point out that the RIAA also chase MS victims may help sway opinion. It's not logical but it's how it works.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
I won't debate Interscope being based on Bell Atlantic v. Twombly; however, whether or not the RIAA's boilerplate meets the plausibility standard of Twombly is a matter subject to adjudication in the various jurisdictions. It will provide lots of opportunities to have the RIAA complaints dismissed, and that's something I think both of us can agree would be a Good Thing(tm).
Thank you for the discussion and the opportunity to improve the argument that I'm trying to make - I apologize for being a little less than clear in the GP post.
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want. As to the Letter of the law, you are right. And the fact that one of the defendants was dead, or a grandmother, or a single mother of three is also meaningless as far as the law is concerned.
However, considering the tactics and FUD the RIAA is using in the cases they've filed, and that the general public doesn't respond to what is legal, it responds to what the media feeds them, I have no problem with it being pointed out.
Or, to put it another way, it makes no difference what Race a person is, when they are arrested for a crime, yet you will almost always have it pointed out. You can find similar examples involving religion, sex (Female Murder suspects are really big news in my area), or a host of other things that are not directly pertinent to the case itself. Commenting about these things increases the attention the case gets, and, although not directly relevant, it is a true comment.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
If the RIAA can claim that pirates are helping terrorists in their press releases, why can't their victims play the pity card? Turnabout is fair play.
Do you even know what socialism is? Just because Social Security has "social" in the name doesn't make the US a socialist state by any stretch of the imagination.
It is irrelevant that the defendant is disabled, or impoverished, or a child, or one of the other categories of disadvantaged and/or defenseless victims. Posting as AC simply because I don't have an account here, but it does entertain me that you might one day read one of my future posts and never even know it. Ha.
For the record, I think it's condescending to label someone "defenseless" because they have MS. Yes, it's an awful and debilitating condition that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and the person in this case probably has more than enough crap to deal with just from their MS without having to worry about idiotic lawsuits from Versace-clad extortionists. However, I bet if you were to ask any of the MAFIAA's other victims, I'm sure they'd also say they have plenty of other things in their lives they'd rather be getting on with.
This isn't the nineteenth century. In this day and age you can (or should be able to) enter a courtroom in a wheelchair or in a malfunctioning body and expect others to take you as seriously as you take yourself. Society goes to great lengths these days to offset disabilities and make equality a possibility. Sure, more could be done, but the biggest hurdle is, and probably always will be, the patronising attitudes of those who would have the disabled treated as soft-focus, wide-eyed charity cases incapable of taking responsibitly for themselves.
In short, a wrong against an MS sufferer is no more nor less shameful than the same wrong against an able-bodied person.
The last sentence of the summary is heartstring-twanging, counter-productive fluff. A pointless emotive distraction from the real meat of the article: That the tide is turning against the asstunnels.
1. I'm not a PR person, I'm a lawyer.
2. I'm a simple man.
3. The article is about the RIAA's standard complaint -- which it has used in 30,000 cases, mostly uncontested -- being insufficient.
4. Ms. Schwartz's MS is not relevant to that issue, so it is in my view "offtopic".
5. Ms. Schwartz's MS is relevant to the brutality and immorality and moral impoverishment of the freaks and ghouls pursuing her with their frivolous litigation, which is likewise "offtopic".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That said, when you go for the counter-suit for malicious prosecution, barratry, or whatever else you think will stick, I hope you will use the fact she has MS to add at least one more zero onto the end of the settlement.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As a person with a disability, I agree with you. Here a few more points about a disability being pertinent to a court case:
Lawyers fees, court costs, travel and other expenses to fight back can affect the persons ability to get treatment and/or medication for the condition.
Have to go to court can take time away from getting needed treatment (think dialysis).
Also, the RIAA seems to be targeting people that they believe can't or won't fight back; I find it appalling that they seem to be going after people with disabilities, senior citizens, children and students (for the most part).
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
At least be honest with what is going on as you know as well as i, that 90% of the cases really are legit. Perhaps their techniques for gathering 'evidence' is questionable, but people really ARE downloading/sharing files that don't have permission to do so. These sorts of cases really are different then the 90%: 'woman never owned a PC', 'didn't have service during the time period' etc.
Now, personally i don't have a problem with the downloading/sharing, but currently the law does. I also don't feel that it effects their profits ( other then a net increase due to people getting to listen to a lesser quality copy, 'hey, i want the real thing now' ) but i cant prove that with hard numbers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
2. I disagree with you on the moderation question. I don't use other peoples' moderation as a basis for screening comments; that would increase the likelihood of being subjected to Groupthink. I screen on the basis of my own appraisal of a person's demeanor.
3. I do not designate someone as a "foe" because he or she disagrees with me; I love a good argument. I designate someone as a "foe" if I think the person is (a) a shill or troll posing as something else, or (b) the personality type that always has to have the last word and does not have an open mind. And, as I said, I am adding a new category of "foe" -- people who have no heart. I have enough exposure to that kind of person when I'm dealing with the RIAA's lawyers. I don't need to come to Slashdot to spend even more time exposing myself to that sort.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Actually, I'm guessing the RIAA wants all the "bad" publicity it can get on cases like this.
It's been said before that there's a reason the individual record labels file suit through the RIAA: The RIAA as a group is INTENDED to appear scary and evil. They sue little old ladies, twelve-year-old girls, the terminally ill and handicapped - ANYONE who "screws with them." They even (IIRC) make press releases about how kids who they accuse should drop out of college and get a low-wage job to make their settlement payments.
What does Joe Public hear? The RIAA is a bunch of hardasses who'll jump all over me if I even THINK about downloading Limewire. But not those groovin' guys at Virgin Records or wherever; they're still cool.
In other words... by helping to villify the RIAA, Slashdot may actually be HELPING their PR push.
I did say that their method of getting evidence is questionable, and i agree it will be hard to make stick in court..
However, my point was that the sharing is actally taking place in most of the cases. The original poster seemed to think that the violations wernet really taking place, just because the methods/tactics for detection/ID are bogus.
---- Booth was a patriot ----