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."
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.
...Kentucky Fried Recording Industry Association of America!
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
This happens all the time. Of course the RIAA is not going to "rush" the court to bring forth the case. Geez, get a grip. It's like no one has ever seen the way the legal system works. When something bad happens to you, you aren't the one to bring that up in the court--the other guy does. It's amazing to see the amount of stories about how the RIAA does something in court and how people are shocked, shocked I tell you, to believe they did that. Let me fill you in--most of the stuff they do is what all lawyers do.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I wouldn't expect the RIAA to report a decision that hurts them, but I think that could be an illegal act. I think not telling the whole truth about the precident in a case is illegal. Does anyone know for sure? I'd be amazed if they got away with this, but I'm not shocked that they'd try it.
Unless she gets an appeal, it won't matter. Failing to cite a single case in a different jurisdiction is hardly a sanctionable offense.
because I'm sure the job of the plaintiffs team to do the job of the defence as well. Seriously, how is this news? The plaintiff brings information to court in support of his case, the defence brings information to court to destroy the case - there's no question of an overlap here.
Every few days there is another RIAA story and every story seems to be going in a different direction. they lose, they win, they lose... ugh. I'm just as pissed about this stuff as the next guy and I do like to know what is going on; But when are we going to have this stuff get to the point where we can see a real change?
The issue here isn't that the RIAA has unethical lawyers, its that the defense has crappy, undiligent lawyers. Slashdot seems to be saying "shame on the RIAA lawyers for not doing the job for both side's lawyers!" Gimme a break.
what happens in law when Decision C is made based on earlier Decisions A and B,
and then Decision A is reversed ?
I, for one, am absolutely outraged that the RIAA didn't go to court in order to present evidence AGAINST their own case. And Rockstar should have been fair and presented Jack Thompson's evidence for him as well.
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.
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.
Arent they *required* to disclose this information? Couldn't the entire case be tossed out and them held in contempt?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
After the MN jury verdict was announced, I realized that the file sharing crowd has a lot in common with the tax protester crowd. For those that aren't aware, tax protesters have a variety of reasons why the US Income tax doesn't need to be paid: the amendment wasn't correctly ratified, wages can't be taxed, the IRS doesn't have authority, etc, etc. And They still cling to these arguments even when no court has ever ruled in their favor (it's a conspiracy, after all).
A friend of mine used to subscribe to a newsletter (bottom line or something like that). Half tha advice was dubious strategies to avoid paying income tax. The other half was advice for what to do when you're audited.
Likewise with the RIAA lawsuits. Slashdot is full of excuses and rationale why it's not a crime, how to avoid getting caught, and defense strategies in case you are hauled into court. There have been positive rulings against the RIAA, but with that $220,000 fine in Minnesota, I wonder if anyone on slashdot will consider maybe the RIAA is right. Nevermind, it's probably just a conspiracy.
Wondering if this is flamebait or troll...
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
Remember that one?
Ya, you have a good point. And all the ISPs touting how fast their service is and the ability to "download movies at light speed!" and so on.
"The United States is a nation of laws - poorly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
hey slashdotters. if you're going to question the integrity of the riaa not bringing this case to light why don't you turn yourselves in for being theives and try pulling some of the its-not-theft bullshit on the courts?
it's great to see some of the common theives on here acting like they're somehow better compared to the riaa.
In our federal system, when is a trial judge in Minnesota bound by an decision in New York?
If he is a federal judge, he looks first to appellate decisions within his own Circuit - the Eighth. U.S. Courts If he is a state judge, he looks first to appellate decisions within his own state.
But he is free to roll his own, subject only to the risk of reversal on appeal.
It is within bounds for a trial judge in Duluth to decide that the opinion of a trial judge in New York was correctly reasoned and that the opinion of the appellate court in New York was not.
The sate appellate courts of Minnesota can disagree with the state appellate courts of New York.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis can - respectfully - disagree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
It is the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve such conflicts - if it believes that they are needlessly disruptive and of Constitutional significance.
But the Supremes take on only 100-200 cases a year.
Does anyone else see personal interest as their only motivating factor now?
I call bullshit.
I have hundreds of files and loads of songs I can store, share and make available leagally. No one should EVER be held liable for their customers using their (legal) products to facilitate crime.
Of course, if there was a law against incitement to violate copyright that might be a different thing. There isn't, and it is so so so so so so so so wrong that I think their needs to be.
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
Doesn't an officer of the court have an obligation to provide all relevant material? If so, does this mean Thomas is likely to be overturned by the judge? Puts the judge in a rather awkward position, having to reverse himself, but if I were him I'd shoot the RIAA's lawyers out of a cannon if they truly did know, and didn't disclose.
Is there an allowance to get a case overturned/re-tried if there's evidence that the plaintiff did not fulfill their duty to the court (and the law)? It seems to me that if the RIAA lawyers were citing cases that were later overturned, and that this was the basis for the precedent that "making available" was valid as a form of distribution (and thus a key-point to the case), then it seems that the case may have very well gone the other way if the hadn't "cheated"
So when will this lawyer be disbarred for obviously, knowlingly, and willingly breaking the law, not to mention bringing disrepect and irreparable harm to the image of the courts and integrity of lawyers?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I followed the case through the press (and your blog) and was curious whether the actual trial was available somewhere, for pay or for free. I'd like to get an idea of what the jury saw -- I guess while I thought it was a bit of a crap shoot whether they'd find her liable or not from the coverage in the press, I'm astonished at the size of the award and wonder just what happened in there.
I wish you better luck with your case, and thank you for keeping an online library on the matter. At some point it'd be nice to see more people aware of the fact that this is not simply about piracy but also about setting a reasonable standard of proof for any activity one might be (possibly wrongly) accused of on the Internet. Or concerned about the idea that maybe a law that can financially ruin a family over a handful (or a couple thousand, or even two) songs is ethically wrong. I know I'd be less frustrated if a particular jury happened to think along these lines, or put themselves in the position mentally of having one of their kids download enough to bankrupt the family without their knowledge, but I suppose they might have been overloaded by the technical nature of the subject and claims of billions of dollars of losses due to piracy, etc.
It sounds quite plausible to make an appeal, however after reading some articles about the woman and the overall case I find it very difficult that she is going to proceed, mainly because of the money.
The problem with the appeal I guess is that she still does not know if she is going to *win* the appeal, and, if she loses the appeal then she will have to pay the attorneys fees plus the fine she must pay now.
However, I would really like to see this case continue, I myself do not know if she is guilty or not, and from all the information I have got, it seems everything seems to show that she indeed performed the file sharing. However, I would really like an appeal because I believe there are several issues that must be brought forward with regards of the state of the laws and the verdicts and the only way to do that is to continue litigating.
Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the case that, when doing the appeal, it is done to a higher court?, or specifically to some place which has higher law status than the ones that made the decision?
I ask this, because, in Mexico happened something similar (bear with me and read a bit more), where a woman (Lydia Cacho) unveiled a pedophile ring where a lot of very powerful Mexican people was and they tried to put her in jail and whatnot. She (and her lawyers) started fighting legally, but, as we all know in corruption in Mexico is very high and they had to go appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court because all the lower courts were indeed corrupted.
Therefore, the idea is the same (I think) in that, if the lower courts in the USA are still corrupted by the hand of the RIAA, it may still be possible to appeal to higher courts, until there is someone who can really hold the law.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It was difficult to read and didn't flow.
WHERE IS THE PUNISHMENT TO THEM FOR THESE ACTIONS? Punishment sufficient to fully deter them from ever trying this again? In the Duke Rape case, the public prosecutor was disbarred - and he only ruined 3 lives along the way (a few more than 3 if you count his own, and that of his family).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The RIAA lawyers had an obligation to inform the judge and the other party as soon as they learn about that case being overturned. This is a clear cut case of malpractice, if the facts are as stated in the article.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Disbarment would have to be used much more frequently than it currently is to be an effective deterrent. As it is, you have to get to Nifong levels of craziness before you have to worry about it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There's speculation among some legal authorities that there might be a constitutional limit on how far statutory damages can depart from actual damages. There was a notable Supreme Court case that put such a limit on punitive damages (BMV v. Gore, 1996), holding that punitive damages can only be a relatively small multiplier over actual damages (the court suggested 10x or more would be highly unlikely to qualify). No case about statutory damages has made it up that high in the 11 years since, so whether court would extend a similar ruling to statutory damages is all speculation. In part this is because statutory damages usually are actually reasonably close to estimated actual damages, so there's no occasion for an appeal on those grounds. Copyright laws are an anomaly in that respect, but also don't come up much because convictions like this one are rare.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One defendant, in UMG v. Lindor, has actually raised this defense, and the judge accepted that it can be added to the case, rejecting the RIAA's arguments that it was implausible or inapplicable. In particular, the judge wrote in support of the defense's plausibility: "...Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
yes they won this case for now. but people seem to forget they still havent payed up on the case they lost.
That the RIAA is staffed by bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling.
Let's take a look at the case:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-judge-bars-riaa-president-from-testifying-in-capitol-records-v-thomas.html
This afternoon also marked the appearance of Jammie Thomas [defendant] on the stand. She was called by the plaintiffs immediately after lunch, who started by questioning her about her experience with computers.
NEVER let the defendant testify, especially in first trial! Or is this a civil case where you have no 5th amendment rights? Anyway...
The questioning then turned to her CD-ripping habits. In her deposition, Thomas said that she ripped no more than six or seven CDs per day, but on the stand today, she said she could have ripped over 2,000 songs in a little over two days.
Wow. Then,
She originally had said that she bought the PC from Best Buy in 2003 and that the hard drive was replaced in January or February of 2004. After her forensic expert inspected the hard drive and found that it wasn't manufactured until January 2005, she then said that she bought the PC in 2004 and that the hard drive was replaced in March 2005. "I was a year off on everything in my deposition," she said.
Lying on the stand isn't good either.
Finally,
"He also said that the 'jury could do the math' on whether it was possible for her to rip 2,000 or so tracks over a two-day period given the demonstration earlier in the day."
Well, I'm a bit surprised too...but...this is the best defense?
Silly me, I thought the RIAA spoofed her computer and faked the whole thing.
In this case this was an order, not a binding precedent. And it was from another jurisdiction for which the judge in the present case can wholly ignore. And, unless there was an issue at hand for which the judge was ruling on, immediately does not mean drop all cases to telephone the judge. (I think you would agree it would be brought forth during the next hearing/conference/meeting with the judge in person?)
While I do not know all the facts of this case, an argument can easily be made that the vacated order was showing logic of a legal argument and was not binding, therefore the vacated order was not necessary to bring forth to the judge in the instant matter because it is not binding and your honor already knows this. And the fact that the order appears to be vacated because the defendant in that case appeared in the matter does not invalidated the legal argument set forth in that order.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
They cited the Atlantic v. Howell case to instruct the jury in the Minnesota case.
I tried posting the paragraph from the document and encountered a filter here on slashdot.
you'll have to read for yourself
link to online documentsfrom this article
Let's go visit some of these places and flame on them. Their representatives brought this suit and they are just some of the multimillionaires who will profit from it. * Guns N Roses- http://web.gunsnroses.com/ * Vanessa Williams - http://vanessawilliamsonline.com/ * Janet Jackson - http://www.janet-jackson.com/ * Gloria Estefan - http://www.90millas.com/ * Goo Goo Dolls - http://www.googoodolls.com/ * Journey - http://www.journeymusic.com/ * Sara McLachlan - http://www.sarahmclachlan.com/ * Aerosmith - http://www.aerosmith.net/ * Linkin Park - http://www.linkinpark.com/ * Def Leppard - http://www.defleppard.com/ * Reba McEntire - http://www.reba.com/ * Bryan Adams - http://www.bryanadams.com/ * No Doubt - http://www.nodoubt.com/ * Sheryl Crow - http://www.sherylcrow.com/ * Richard Marx - http://www.richardmarx.com/ * Destiny's Child - http://www.destinyschild.com/index2.html
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else here - but that's the practice of law - it's not "deliberate concealment". If the lawyers for the RIAA were expected to be impartial and thorough advocates for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant - the people they sue wouldn't need their own counsel, would they?
/.
Of course, submitting a case to a judge and not advising the judge it was overturned tends to make the judge question everything you told him or her from the next moment forward. That's the risk you run when you don't note up your cases or bet the other side won't. Seeing as most lawyers have to appear before the same judge multiple times in other cases over the course of years - it's professionally very unwise to do it. Little more.
Lighten up
.Robert
Telling a judge about how some other judge ruled, but leaving out the fact that the case was overturned is perfectly acceptable. They don't need to tell the judge it was overturned, but usually the other side will and make them look stupid. This is not the same as withholding evidence. Two different topics.
Doubt me take a look a Groklaw.
I smell a mistrial!!
Jammie Thomas has asked me to notify people that contributions can be made via Paypal at freejammie.com.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Have you heard of these Piracy Hothouses called "Libraries" that accept donations of and sometimes even buy creative works to give out to total strangers?!
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."