Slashdot Mirror
Florida Judge Smacks Down RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is going to have to face the music in Tampa, Florida, and answer the charges of extortion, trespass, conspiracy, unlicensed investigation, and computer fraud and abuse that have been leveled against them there. And the judge delivered his ruling against them in in pretty unceremonious fashion — receiving their dismissal motion last night, and denying the motion this morning. The RIAA's unvarying M.O., when hit with counterclaims, is to make a motion to dismiss them. It did just that in one Tampa case, UMG v. Del Cid, but the judge upheld 5 of the 6 counterclaims. The RIAA quickly settled that one. When a new case came up in the same Tampa courthouse before the very same judge, and the same 5 counterclaims were leveled against the record companies, I opined that 'it is highly unlikely that the RIAA will make a motion to dismiss counterclaims,' since I knew they'd be risking sanctions if they did. Well I guess I underestimated the chutzpah — or the propensity for frivolous motion practice — of the RIAA lawyers, as they in essence thumbed their nose at the judge, making the dismissal motion anyway, telling District Judge Richard A. Lazzara that his earlier decision had been wrong. The judge wasted no time telling the record companies that he did not agree (PDF)."
Call me when Boyer refuses to settle and we finally get a decision on this.
Until then, BFD.
The problem is, the RIAA can get sued and convicted into oblivion, but all the RIAA is is a shell corp for the big record companies. The record companies themselves won't have to answer for this, and if RIAA is legally forced under, the record companies will just make another shell corp to cover their asses. This will only truly matter when someone sues the record companies themselves.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
(Quoted for when the OP is modded -1 Troll a few times...)
from your local friend of thieves always peddling his dubious services here at slashdot, where the people who make the movies we watch are scum, and the people who think the world owes them a living a welcome. Stop fucking stealing and you wont need the services of the ambulance chasing dick who submits all this biased bullshit.
I would submit that all the false positives that the RIAA has ensnared were not protected by being innocent. Defending yourself from a wrongful prosecution is very expensive in this country. A fact that the RIAA uses to its advantage.
I've known some lawyers who talked about the degree of animosity that exists between lawyers and judges.
... then by the time their turn comes to sit on the bench, they are so thoroughly bitter and full of spite they simply can't wait to unload gallons of the same kind of poison on the next batch of lawyers who come in front of them.
A lawyer spends several decades suffering various forms of abuse and condescension at the hands of the judges he/she faces with every case
> Could the lawyers involved be disbarred?
No.
> Could anybody actually see the inside of a cell over this?
No.
Not even sanctions. Really. Seriously, people, I know you've all been whipped into a frenzy and want to see the public executions of every spouse and child of every clerk and paralegal of every law firm who's ever done business with the RIAA, but all that happened was that the plaintiffs made a useless motion, and the judge gave it the due consideration it deserved, which was nothing. Trust me when I say that no baby seals were clubbed in the process.
If anything, UMG should be pissed that their legal team phoned it in when it came to this motion. These are pretty serious counterclaims and they don't appear to be taking them seriously. Hubris does that I guess.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
You are correct. Innocence is no defense. While you may be presumed innocent until proven guilty the simple fact that you have been pulled into court before a judge and charged with a crime leaves a an indelible stench of guilt on you.
I recently listened to a defense attorney spend considerable time schooling potential members of a jury in the difference between innocence and not guilt. He apparently was going for the not guilty verdict even though his client participated in the car jacking willingly. Most amazing speech I had heard in a long time. I think he was actually going to argue that his client just went along due to peer pressure and wanted to fit in.
I learned a long time ago that in the court room the judge and attorneys involved are not interested in the truth, the facts, or with dispensing justice. They are there to tell a story and put on an act to convince the jury that their side is telling a better story than the other side.
It reminds me a lot of survivor at the end where the remaining contestants tell a story to convince everyone in the jury to vote them the money.
It's a trick question!
The actual answer in all cases is (e).
(e) The lawyer gets to bill an excessive amount for generating some paper work and having lunch with the judge. He then goes to his $2.4 million dollar home in his brand new BMW and sleep with his trophy wife and later on in the week sleep with his mistress.
Lawyer's don't care if their motions are granted or not, they only care if they can bill for the time.
First, I think the RIAA lawyers are probably doing nothing different from any lawyer - trying to get as many suits dismissed as possible, so they only have to argue the smallest subset possible. I can understand such a philosophy, when time is money, there's a pressure to get quick results, judgements are worse publicity than accusations, and so on. That is probably more a function of the legal system and the American attitude to high-pressure living/working than the RIAA.
Second, if a motion is frivolous, the judge should be doing more than just wagging a finger. Abuse of legitimate procedures devalues those procedures for others, as it increases the likelihood of judges in future regarding all such motions in a more hostile light. The judicial system does not just have a responsibility for those who stand before it today, but a responsibility for all who may ever stand before it, which means that there should be subtle encouragement of motions which are plausible (even if they are ultimately dismissed) and an unsubtle discouragement of motions which cannot possibly be construed as reasonable.
It would be interesting if the courts had greater powers (within reasonable bounds) to deal with contempt of court and any other abuse of court procedures, and a greater willingness to use those powers when lawyers or clients go beyond mere over-enthusiasm to being out of control. It wouldn't need to be severe. A compulsary psychiatric evaluation would be interesting, as it conveys all kinds of messages (real and imagined) about those who try to twist things.
I also think that some sort of staggered system, where you have a first round of aggressive fact-finding that feeds into a second round trial system, would help avoid the problem, the idea being that dismissal or whatever doesn't have any meaning until after the facts have been established, and accusatory systems are not very good at establishing facts, they're too busy constructing theories, but fact-finding missions are very bad at establishing context. Hence the need for both in a way that doesn't lend one to distract from the other.
The SCO/IBM case demonstrates a lot of what I'm talking about - a lot of the hold-ups and confusion was caused by wild speculation and insinuation, a lot of the useful stuff was done by establishing the groundwork, and all of this was before any actual trial had taken place. It would seem to follow that tuning the system according to experiences of what has been effective is better than maintaining a multi-millenia-old method that has acquired a lot of cruft and could do with some refactoring and bugfixing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not quite, the Lawyer and Procecutor are each telling thier side. The prosecutor goes first and tries to make the defendant seem like the most vile person ever to walk the earth. Then it's the Lawyer's turn to make the defendant look like an angel and to make the procesutor look like he doesn't know anything.
Many people at this point would think that this is silly, and nothing more than a show. It was always put to me this way: It's not a lawyers job to determine if thier client is innocent or not, that is the judge/jury's job. The lawyers job is to put the defendant in the best possible light, and to ensure that a fair trial is being conducted.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
:)
That "definition" has always bothered me, as I would find those considered "sane" under that definition to be extremely crazy themselves.
How crazy would you have to be to think that your previous actions would have no impact on future attempts?
If you swung an axe at a door and made a small chip, which would be more insane: Thinking that the next or subsequent blow would put the blade entirely through the door, or thinking that you could swing the axe at the door all day and do nothing but make small cuts?
It is very rare in real life that a certain event has the "memoryless" property (i.e. the outcome is based only on that event, not on the outcome of any previous events). That's a special case, not the general rule.
Look at this case. They tried the same thing, and got a different result: Their motion was dismissed even more rapidly than before. If they keep trying this, it is highly unlikely that the outcome would be the same each time; eventually they would be found in contempt. Judges in particular do not often suffer from being "memoryless".
The enemies of Democracy are
As Keith Olbermann reminds viewers of "Countdown" regularly, the technical definition of "insanity" is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
That isn't really a very good definition, unless everyone is insane. Even though coined by Benjamin Franklin, it completely defines many "normal" behaviors.
Rolling dice
Slot machines
Voting
Dating
Software Debugging
New Year's resolutions
Answering the phone
Disbarred, NO
Sanctioned, Yes
Actual misbehavior by lawyers and their clients is decidedly unfunny. That is the message of Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the law that obligates the federal courts to impose sanctions on lawyers and clients who file and pursue lawsuits in unreasonable ways. Rule 11 breaks with precedent that required proof of bad faith to trigger sanctions. Unreasonableness is a lighter trigger that has proven beneficial to persons burdened by lawyer and client misbehavior. By the way, sanctions is legal terminology for getting your expenses back in some degree from an attorney or party who did you wrong in a lawsuit.
WHAT REMEDY RULE 11 PROVIDES
Rule 11 prescribes sanctions for certain basic misdeeds: (1) the filing of a frivolous suit or document; (2) the filing of a document or lawsuit for an improper purpose; (3) actions that needlessly increase the cost or length of litigation.
Relevant parts of the rule are these:
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee (emphasis added).
Sanctions may apply against an attorney, the client, or both; therefore, we have adopted the collective convention, attorney/client.
And thank you for mentioning me in the same breath as PACER and Groklaw.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"Consequently, because the Court has previously resolved all of the issues raised in Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss, and because the Court is not convinced that its prior decision was wrong, the Court needs no response from Defendant and the motion is due to be denied."
Translation: Not this shit again.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
I'd really like to see a version of that 'commercial' where it goes like this:
...BUT if you could duplicate them for free without anyone losing anything... you WOULD! (show guy pulling 'magic duplicator' from pocket, point it at car, ::poof::, second car appears. Guy gets into duplicate, drives off. Car dealer starts to run after him, then notices he's not missing any cars.)
You wouldn't steal a handbag! (Show guy grabing handbag, women freaking out)
You wouldn't steal a dvd (show guy stealing dvd, shop owner freaking out)
You wouldn't steal a car (etc)
(repeat similar with the other items, in reverse order- dvd, handbag. In each case, the person who was pissed off before is no longer,because they aren't missing anything.)