Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Throws In Towel On "Making Available" Case

Posted by timothy on from the that's-sure-a-big-towel-you've-got dept.

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.'"

7 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting.. by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Interesting.. by Fx.Dr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Interesting.. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Interesting.. by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  2. About time. by jeiler · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

    Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    1. Re:About time. by jeiler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

  3. You can't sue someone & withdraw forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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