Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Conceals Overturned Case

Posted by Zonk on from the shoe-is-on-the-other-foot dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When a Judge agreed with the RIAA's claim that 'making available' was actionable under the Copyright Act, in Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA was quick to bring this 'authority' to the attention of the judges in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Those judges were considering the same issue. When the that decision was overturned successfully, however, they were not so quick to inform those same judges of this new development. When the defendants' lawyers found out — a week after the RIAA's lawyers learned of it — they had to notify the judges themselves . At this moment we can only speculate as to what legal authorities they cited to the judge in Duluth, Minnesota, to get him to instruct the jurors that just 'making available' was good enough."

9 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. MY GOD! by heinousjay · · Score: 3, Funny

    The RIAA wouldn't sabotage their own chances in court? The humanity!

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  2. Oh, wonderful... by Darundal · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...Kentucky Fried Recording Industry Association of America!

  3. Gowachin Justice by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Funny

    What we really need here is the Gowachin Justice system where the winning lawyer kills the losing lawyer. It would certainly help cut down on stupid lawsuits.

    1. Re:Gowachin Justice by rajafarian · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's funny. What if a case's decision gets reversed? Then we have TWO dead lawyers? Who kills the second lawyer now?

    2. Re:Gowachin Justice by NJVil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does it really matter?

  4. Re:This reminds me of tax protesters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wondering if this is flamebait or troll...

    Yes, it is. But the classic /. reverse psychology moderator manipulation (in which one writes a statement indicating one will be modded down, and is modded up instead) is clearly in effect.

  5. Re:Ethical violation by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    IAAL, and I've worked directly for judges. This won't win the RIAA lawyers any friends on the bench. There is an ethical obligation to inform the court of legal authority (cases) in the controlling jurisdiction (same state, or federal circuit, for example) known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2). Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence". The commentary suggests that a "lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statement of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 3.3, cmt. 2. That's pretty inclusive, and I'd feel comfortable arguing that failing to disclose the reversal of authority you've previous cited is an ethical violation. A referal to the state bar commission could be in order here, and let them sort it out. Thank you, monstermagnet. I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re: Justice??? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nope.

    NewYorkCountryLawyer is a Minor Deity here at /.

    I cannot abide some RIAA sleaze taking him out.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  7. Re:Ethical violation by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive. Ray, you are the cavalry. I meant on Slashdot, not in the anti-RIAA world. The RIAA lawyers I can handle. It's Slashdotters that are tough.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful