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.
Hi. I'm the judge in this courtroom. I told your ass to get out of here once. you didn't listen. You came back with the same complaint. Guess what happens. I deny any and all settlement offers you offer to the counter-claimer. I will make it pretty damn clear this time your crap will not be welcome in this courtroom again. Prepare for contempt processes. Oh ya, I'm gonna make sure they put you in the same cell as a guy who likes to steal car steroes.
Haven't had one in a while! : D
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'd like to see a statement by the judge or other qualified individuals detailing why they didn't get sanctioned for this (mostly for curiosity -- the legal process is obtuse and interesting). It seems like the RIAA lawyers took a big risk in submitting the same info to the same court.
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.
The same process you use to mass mail your legal complaints can not be used to file your legal responses. This is why fellas. This case is going to get messy *grabs popcorn*
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I'm only a layman, but it sure looks like more than chutzpah. Could the lawyers involved be disbarred? Could anybody actually see the inside of a cell over this?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
That is fascinating. The judge got a motion from the RIAA to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims, and he didn't even bother to give the defendants a chance to reply! Instead he saved them the cost for their lawyers and rejected the RIAA's motion to dismiss without causing any work for the defendants. I just wonder how unusual that is.
...but if there's a supreme being out there somewhere, I'll agree to start praying to it or sacrificing cans of tuna on its altar or whatever the hell it wants (within reason, of course) if only, please, please, please, there's jail sentences for the bastards at the end of this affair.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
For you litigation buffs out there, let's take a quiz.
The facts.
A lawyer just filed a 30-page brief in which he (a) devoted 28 pages to repeating the same arguments he had made in a motion that was decided less than 8 months earlier, and (b) devoted 3 pages to telling the judge that his previous ruling was "wrongly decided".
Question #1
What will happen?
(a) The lawyer will win the motion.
(b) The lawyer will lose the motion.
(c) The lawyer will have to find a new line of work.
(d) Both (b) and (c)
Question #2
If you are the client who pays lawyers to do things like that you are
(a) A smart businessperson
(b) A moron
(c) A fool
(d) Both (b) and (c)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Does "ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., etc., et al.," (the people being countersued) include the RIAA & RIAA member companies?
Or did you just use "RIAA" in the same (wrong) way that frequently happens around here.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Just wondering: Since this is Judge Lazzara's second case already, I would think that he now knows more about the subject than your average judge, so it would only make sense to let him handle whatever over similar cases come anywhere near his court. Does the judicial system work that way, giving judges similar cases where possible, or are the cases handled by a random judge?
Every other article on any tech website is about the copyright abuse, especially by the *AA. How much will it take for people to actually stop buying CDs and stop feeding and outdated business model?
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne
It seems like an automated system. I think the RIAA's legal team has been replaced by a server farm.
to a more deserving trade association.
working for Monsanto instead.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Wasn't this a topic of the other news story a few hours ago, "bots gaming the system"?
I think I recall the solution proposed in a post as "change the game so that the bots can't win".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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)
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim generally only require a response when they might actually succeed. Judges will usually give a party a chance to amend their claims to make them non-frivolous, but when the claims are good enough to state actual legal controversy that can be tried, then there's no need to get the other party involved.
It's also worth noting that federal fact pleading standards are pretty lax. You have to really just plead random crazy talk.
Really, I'm surprised the NYCL though that Rule 11 sanctions would be even a possibility for filing a 12(b)(6) motion. I thought that was just standard practice and that failing to raise these affirmative defenses was risking a future legal malpractice suit. Rule 11 sanctions, in practice, are an extraordinary occurrence, AFAIK.
IANAL, though. Just a student.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I always get that mixed up and say the wrong thing.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
for (i=0;i>-1;i++);
And by that logic:
while (lawsuit!=ganted) lawsuit++;
We on Slashdot already quit buying CDs.
The masses don't read tech sites, nor are they aware of the RIAA, nor would most of them care if they did.
"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, that was rather stupid of you. Why in god's name would you not make the motion? Even if you know the judge is going to deny it, if you in good faith think you have ground to file it (the judge disagreeing does not mean it's groundless), you have to make the motion to preserve that issue for appeal.
Under your bizarre logic, a criminal defendant should never move for a new trial after a bench trial, because the judge already said the guy was guilty! Silly defendant! Except if he doesn't, his appeal isn't worth a hill of beans.
"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
Take that RIAA! And since this is in Florida, you know the decision was correct! They never mess anything up down there!
"Frivious" is a perfectly cromulent word!
If you don't mind me asking, why did you raise the Rule 11 flag? I didn't see anything in the RIAA's response other than the usual boilerplate, laundry list of denials and affirmative defenses (which must be raised then or forever lost).
I've heard that opposing counsel in New York (as well as Chicago or LA) courts can be a little more acrimonious than where I'm studying, but I didn't think that Rule 11 sanctions for this sort of thing were possible.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Waaayy the fsck off topic but, you opined?!?
/.?!? What the fsck for?!?
Would you people please try not to emulate Shakespeare? He's been done, much better than you ever will.
Opined, on
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
It doesn't happen very often, and it ranks pretty high on the 'how to tell if the judge is pissed' scale.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
BTW, snarky means testy or snide, rather than smug. Schadenfreude refers to taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. Typing "define:epicaricacy" into Google results in only one definition (with a broken link) that is mostly identical to one of the results for "define:schadenfreude", including the claim that it is a loanword from German. I don't know what to make of that. I assume epicaricacy means schadenfreude, but it doesn't look like something that originally came from German.
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
It's hardly a smart move to annoy the judge. This is a pretty accurately aimed footbullet.
That's clear, man. It is a contraction of "frivolous" (as in "stupid") and "previous" (as in "not this shit again", quoting some previous comment).
Uh... back to coding.
You're being an arsehole.
You can either get a one-liner out that misses the minutae or bore the arse of everyone by detailing the precise scenario.
Now, when you chop at a door, you get a chip in the door. You would, if you're sane, expect another chip.
If the door is infinitely large and you place the chip in a new place, you will NEVER get through. So you aim to put the chip in the second and later chops at the place of the earlier chip. Ergo, making the chip deeper. Reasoning that if you make the chip deeper than the wooden door, you will break through. But you aren't repeating the same thing and expecting a different result: you're expecting the cut to get deeper.
"Hardly a smart move" could be the RIAA's secret motto.
The RIAA is a cartel and should be disbanded and it's members prosecuted under the RICO Act.
Of course, IANAL so maybe I am incorrect or just engaging in wishful thinking.
"1 The Court notes that Plaintiffsâ(TM) counsel in this case represented Plaintiffs in that
case, and Defendantâ(TM)s counsel in this case represented Defendant in that case as well."
Translating:
I know that you know that I know you've done this before and what the result was, and I know that you know the defense knows that too, so WTF are you trying to pull here?
I dunno. It worked for Microsoft.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
in Florida or the rest of the US by victims of spamigation? This seems like a good way for these people to be compansated for their troubles, caused by the RIAA in the first place.
Holy Typesetters, Batman!! The judge took a grand total of 17 lines of text (one and a half pages) for his entire opinion, excluding the footnotes. I guess he must not have thought the RIAA's arguments were worth much discussion.
(I've got a piece of tissue paper that'll hold more water than that.)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Given the RIAA's behavior when will the record companies be hit with the RICO statutes? They are obviously organized crime and in the extortion business.
I'm surprised noone posted a link to this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmXv3naV_IQ
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.