Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
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."
Personally, I would like to see someone march a slew of television and radio commercials from vendors and how you can "Share your favorite files, songs!" and sue the vendors who touted the abilities to do so by buying their products. How many advertisements has one seen from computer manufacturers and software developers telling people about the ability to store, share and "make available" their favorite files and songs.
Infiltrated dot Net
I'm not an American, so please forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable of your legal system as you are.
But when are we going to have this stuff get to the point where we can see a real change?Just as soon as you do something about getting it changed.... What is required? Are you demanding it? Or is it someone else's problem? Please don't take offence, but I've read the stories here that you have. I agree, it isn't changing, but perhaps that's because no-one is making it happen.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
So it gets turned over on appeal...and it happens enough times that these lawsuits become a waste of their time. One can only hope that they start losing countersuits, finally getting a clue that their outdated business model that screws over artists and consumers has run its course.
Given that it might be either how about a reply instead of a mod for a change?
Let's get something straight - sharing copyrighted material is a crime, and if the the RIAA went about prosecuting just for that they wouldn't get half the flack that they do. But so far they have failed spectacularly to do so. Part of this is down to the basic structure of the internet - proving that party A shared a copyrighted file with party B beyond all reasonable doubt is hard. As they are pursuing civil actions they are going for the much easier burden of on the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately they are using the lack of knowledge in juries and judges to do so, rather than evidence of a crime.
If you present a printout of a screenshot of a file sharing client with my ip address and the name of song - that is not evidence.
Before you reach the evidence stage you need to provide:
A log of an ip transaction from a reputable source - ie a router at an ISP.
Proof that the file was not mislabeled - a hash of the transfer that shows the file contained copyrighted material.
Proof that the person being sued is responsible for files offered at that ip address.
Until then the RIAA is just pissing in the wind and winning temporarily until they get struck down on appeal.
Even if you show infringement of copyright, the "exponential" damages being asked for are absurd. Let's see a bandwidth breakdown from the ISP being converted into a "number of cds distributed" and then converted into damages.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
It is highly improper. If a lawyer sends a copy of an authority to a judge, and then learns that the authority was vacated by the judge who wrote it, while there is still a motion pending on the judge's desk, he is obligated to immediately notify the judge of the change. A lawyer is not only a representative of the client; he is also an officer of the Court.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's litigation. Along the way everybody wins some battles, and loses some battles.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"The United States is a nation of laws - poorly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The RIAA isn't ethical in its business practices, why should they be in their litigation?
This space available.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Unfortunately an appeal will probably cost her another 100k in attorney's fees. Appeals are expensive.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Our legal system doesn't rest on speculations as to what might have happened; it rests on evidence.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They aren't required to cite legal cases that do not help theirs.
However, what the RIAA did here was cite a legal ruling that went their way, and then failed to mention, later on in the case, that said ruling had been overturned. (And they don't get the excuse of not knowing about it, because said case involved them.)
It's not an example of failing to mention a ruling, it's an example of continuing to base legal arguments on a ruling they knew had been overturned.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
While the motion is pending they have an obligation to alert the judge that the authority they'd sent him is no longer valid.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful