RIAA Throws In Towel On "Making Available" Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has thrown in the towel on one of the leading cases challenging its 'making available' theory, Warner v. Cassin, in which the defendant had moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint. We have just learned that the RIAA submitted a voluntary notice of dismissal before the judge got to decide the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It will be of interest to see if Ms. Cassin pursues a claim for attorneys' fees in view of recent court rulings that successful copyright defendants are presumptively entitled to an attorneys fee award, even if the dismissal came about from the plaintiffs' having 'thrown in the towel.'"

Comments

Interesting..

[seanadams.com]

they throw in the towel to avoid precedent being established.

Seems to me further evidence that they are systematically abusing the legal system with sham lawsuits. If they actually cared about this individual case wouldn't they want to see it through?

Re:Interesting..

[Fx.Dr]

Something tells me they stop caring about these cases the second they make it to court. Settlement money is where it's at, baby. After all, where's the fun in bullying the Little Guy once he refuses to lay down at take his lumps?

Re:Interesting..

[dgatwood]

If that's the case, why take it to court at all? The threat of lawsuit is only a credible threat if it is backed by a willingness to actually battle it out. Every case they give up on is further weakening their cause, both by showing people that they can fight and win and by creating animosity among judges who feel like their courtroom is being abused. In the long term, they would be much better off not taking any case to court unless they are certain they can win it....

Re:Interesting..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think the shareholders care.

Re:Interesting..

[CodeBuster]

The threat of lawsuit is only a credible threat if it is backed by a willingness to actually battle it out Normally that would be true. However in these cases the amount of the proposed settlement, approximately $3,000 US Dollars or so, is just low enough that simply showing up in court with an attorney would probably cost more. The settlements are rigged to be just enough to discourage court appearances, irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, while just high enough to fund the filing of new lawsuits once an economy of scale has been achieved by the RIAA and its members. The primary purpose of these lawsuits is to generate fear through spamigation. The recovery of statutory damages is merely icing on the cake when they are able to get them.

Re:Interesting..

[RobertM1968]

Add to that, they expect to be able to out-lawyer those they sue (gaining a win) or win by default judgement (the previous norm).

Sadly, they seem yet to have realized that such a scenario isnt working anymore as more people are actually fighting them, and more lawyers are willing to step up to defend them.

About time.

[jeiler]

Of course, all this means is that they will seek another legal tack. Watch out for MediaSentry downloading files to establish "distribution."

Re:About time.

[jeiler]

No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.

Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be). Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal). Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.

Re:About time.

[Duncan Blackthorne]

I'd have to say no. If you're an author and are writing a book about the problem of child pornography, it's still illegal for you to download and/or posess child pornography, for instance.

Re:About time.

[TibbonZero]

And MediaDefender has one for everyone's computer in the world? A warrant has to specific property/location.

Re:About time.

[monxrtr]

They are already liable for trillions of dollars in copyright infringement statutory damages from copying and uploading files in torrents that are not their copyrighted works. One "rogue" DA can destroy the RIAA and MediaSentry with ease, merely by using the bought copyright laws against those enforcing them. You can't deep packet inspect, you can't check "hashes", without by definition copying bits.

Just watch how the PRO-IP Act ends up being self decapitation for the big content industry. We will elect some such "rogue" DA in a city(-ies) to be named at a future time. Fuck wasting time and money lobbying Congress. There's big fortune, fame, and political power to be had from taking down the music industry. Eliot Spitzer's career as New York City DA paved the way. The internet operates in every jurisdiction. "Hello, my name is DA Inigo Montoya. You sued my father. Prepare to be bankrupted."

Good news - Bad news

[Lije Baley]

Meanwhile, in Congress, new laws (H.R. 4729)are being forged right now which may make a good judge's interpretation of these issues moot in the near future.

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/0213244/

RIAA Must Pay

[Nom du Keyboard]

The RIAA should be required to pay every cent of the Defense's costs, as well as for pain, suffering, and time lost defending this truly meritless case! For them to say that each party must bear their own costs is beyond the Height of Arrogance, and a poke in the eye of Justice itself!

They are not illegal copies

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been licensed properly in exactly the same way as websites and radio in the US and much of the rest of the world requires. The license fees are paid to the Russian equivalent of the APA and the royalties are available for collection by the artists and/or their agents.

The RIAA doesn't ask for the royalties because they can't, the APA would have to get the money. Even if RIAA can, they don't want to because that blows their lie that the music is unlicensed.

This does not stop the music from being licensed and copying music with a license (as AllOfMP3 has, and, as "making available" is the bad part, this is licensed making available) is not illegal.

Re:Isn't copyright infringement when a COPY is mad

[jedidiah]

The only problem with all of this snark is the fact that
software is often installed without the knowledge or full
understanding of the end user. The computer is capable of
doing all manner of things on it's own. It is often not
at all clear that the owner of the machine is in control
of it.

Many if not most end users are barely able to use these
machines and have no hope of fully understanding what
the computer is doing or the full implications thereof.

You can't sue someone & withdraw forever!

[Anonymous Coward]

> How is that even possible? Is someone suddenly not a criminal when you find out who they are? I'm terribly ignorant of the law, but I was always under the impression that criminal suits had to be brought by a DA, and even then it was rare for a case to be suddenly dropped unless new information was brought to light.

I don't know what you mean about someone "suddenly" no longer being a criminal, but one thing in civil law is that you can't keep suing someone, then drop the case. If you withdraw, you can bring the same case ONCE more. If you drop the same case twice, that's it. You don't get to keep suing them and dropping the case.

The RIAA works by suing first to get your identity from your ISP. They may or may not have the correct person, but they don't really care. You're not a part of this case, because you probably don't even find out that there WAS a case until it's over. Then they send you to their own "settlement center" unless you refuse and go to court.

But yeah, these aren't criminal lawsuits, they're civil (the RIAA can't bring a criminal lawsuit to begin with). So double jeopardy and all that doesn't apply, but civil rules about withdrawing from cases and such DO apply. Read the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) if you want more information.

But please note, IANAL. Get one before engaging or deciding to engage in any litigation, because I can't give you legal advice! And if NYCL comes in to correct me, listen to him. I had exactly one law class and it didn't cover this. Given how sharp the MAFIAA's practice is, I don't doubt that they will at least try to find loopholes in my line of reasoning.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

Re:Be afraid, be very afraid

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA is obviously afraid of losing outright on the issue of its "making available" argument. I say that because without the "making available" argument the RIAA will no longer be able to sue it fans. Let's face it, if the RIAA had actual evidence of copyright infringement, it would not need to use the "making available" argument. Thus, it's clear that the "making available" argument is the only pseudo-legal straw available for it to grasp. Boy have you got that right, Anita.

You can't display a sculpture you bought!?

[Anonymous Coward]

> (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

Wait. So, if I buy a sculpture from the artist, I can't put it out in public without permission!?

Copyright law is even more screwball than I thought.

Re:You can't display a sculpture you bought!?

[monxrtr]

Good case to set up. One slashdotter sells a lump of clay to another slashdotter with the express contract that it cannot be publicly displayed. Slashdotter Two challenges the validity of the contract in circuit court. Make the Court rule one way or the other. The outcome doesn't matter at all. It will be lose lose precedent for enforcing copyright. Why? Because Pop 40 songs are willingly played on the radio, and implicit revocation of rights occur. Or do you think I can walk down the main street exiling $100 bills into the air and sue anybody who picks one up with theft?

Backing out to save own hides

[shentino]

I think the RIAA is pulling a fed.

Remember how the EFF and the NSL case got pulled before the court could make a "case law definitive" ruling on the matter? Thanks to withdrawal of complaint, the legality of the NSL itself was never actually challenged in court, sparing the federal government a most likely embarrasing defeat in the form of legal precedent.

I see parallels here...maybe the RIAA is scared the judge will hand their ass back to them after sharing it with the uptillion other judges who would use such a precedent to smack the RIAA in other cases.

This is hardly throwing in the towel...things are going south and the RIAA is just pulling the plug themselves before it gets its ass kicked even harder from the judge pulling it for them.

Re:Cowards

[Reziac]

Well, that's the thing. You've got to make a living too, which means you've got to charge for your work. But most workin' class people can't afford a lawyer for a long drawn-out case. And that's why I noted "pro bono" -- because realistically, even if everyone attacked by the RIAA's minions lived in New York, most of the victims just don't make that kind of money and couldn't afford to hire you for the duration of the case. Which means that even when good defense attorneys with the proper experience *are* available, most RIAA victims are just plain screwed.