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."

Comments

Countersuing Microsoft, Sony, etal

[packetmon]

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.

Re:Countersuing Microsoft, Sony, etal

[HexaByte]

Better yet would be some nefarious prankster botting the RIAA leaders w/ file sharing software, and letting them go after themselves! If I can get out of a red-light camera ticket by making them prove I was in the drivers seat, how come the same doesn't hold for a computer that many people may have access to?

Re:Countersuing Microsoft, Sony, etal

[ortholattice]

Reasonable people understand that it's ethically wrong to buy a creative work for your own use, and than give it away to all your friends so they don't have to buy it. Most people understand this ethical truth as a separate thing from the question of if or not a Mega-Huge-Record-Company is "evil" or not.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I wasn't aware of this "ethical truth", and I'll definitely have to mend my ways.

The next time I buy a CD, I'll play it only when I'm sure that no one else is around to hear it, unless I know they also have bought a copy. But even that may be ethically questionable since they're not listening to their copy but to mine. Like homeopathic water, even though the sound waves are physically indistinguishable, it might be possible they have a "memory" of which CD they came from - which might not be the same physical CD my friend purchased. Oh, the immorality!

And when I bring my friends over to watch a movie, I'll make sure they bring their own DVDs and DVD players, and carefully position everyone so they can't peak at the other guy's copy being played, thus preventing any possibility of ethical leakage.

Re:My head is spinning

[janrinok]

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.

Re:Illegal???

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:MY GOD!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They also have a duty to not have experts that perjure themselves to advance a case. As well as not basing entire cases on speculation. And making some effort to allow for the subpoenas to be challenged before they are formal court orders. While the definition of perjury seems in recent years to have slid somewhat, claiming to be an expert in order to pass off misleading information as fact. Especially when it is used to manufacture evidence which shouldn't be admissible in court to prop up a poorly thought out case. Ethics thus far have not been of any real concern to the RIAA, so I can only imagine why they would want to start behaving at this juncture having already gotten away with far more than is common. Seems to me that if they haven't been worried about being disbarred for their less than professional behavior up until now that this won't be the tipping point. Well I can see you've been doing your reading. Agreed, they will do anything they can get away with.

Re:From what you say it sounds plausible

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I find it very difficult that she is going to proceed, mainly because of the money. I think this highly publicized, and highly absurd, verdict, has been a wake up call, and I think you will money and legal talent pouring into this case from all over the place. If the RIAA gets away with this nonsense, the internet as we know it is going to disappear.

Re:Ethical violation

[richie2000]

I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive. Ray, you are the cavalry.