Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."
2 Words... Jack Thompson!
They need to disbar all the RIAA lawyers.
You would think so. But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce. If you don't believe me, look at how long Jack Thompson has been toying with the system.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some kind of estoppel that prevents a party from dismissing a suit that isn't going well and then refiling it?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This clearly looks like an attempt by the lawyers to game the system. There are clear rules they should know. At some level lawyers for both parties are supposed to be agents of the court.
Fines to recover the courts cost for all actions are needed on top of disbarment of the RIAA's lawyers. The message "Don't Game the System" needs to be sent.
This is the direct result of all those dollars you and I have given the parent companies over the years. Next time a new CD, DVD, etc hits the shelves, consider buying it used first. Wait a month or two, until someone else gets bored of it, and support a local business instead of these vampires.
Yes you are, if you're the PE who signed off on it.
It it collapses because of your deliberate mistakes, then yes, you can be sued over it. The suit against you may not succeed, but you damn well can be taken to court over it.
Likewise, these RIAA lawyers should face some form of penalty or review before an ethics board. Will they? Probably not. But they should.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Lawyers represent thier client, but they are first and foremost Officers of the Court. Their first duty is to the court, and then to their client.
Andy
Today's oxymoron is "deliberate mistakes"
Sanctions are in order that's for sure, & I'm also sure there are other remedies that the judge could impose. These sort of tactics are getting out of hand & the courts have got to be getting really sick & tired of these childish tricks by the RIAA Lawyers..
Because this defendant has fought and won. The RIAA needs to send a clear message to everyone else: even winning against us comes at too high a cost. That's all this is about now, and hopefully the courts will send a message to the RIAA: the legal system isn't here to use as your personal club to beat people you don't like with.
So NYCL is to lawyers what Blade is to vampires. Intriguing.
Oh my god. Since lawyers and vampires are bloodsuckers, could that mean that NYCL... is... Blade?
No kidding, I am thankful that we have people like NYCL out there keeping track of these events and posting the news. Being a lawyer who stands up for morals are hard to come by traits found in a single person, and deserves plenty of respect and admiration.
So for all those who haven't, or forgotten to say it, THANK YOU NYCL.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
you're some sort of saint in the fight against corrupt business abuses upon society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
See, this kind of thing should lead to all the lawyers working those cases being disbarred (personally), and the law firms they work for losing their licenses to practice law.
Legal tactics like this just waste taxpayer money (after all, the courts are taxpayer funded), and drive up the legal costs of the parties that are trying to defend against their claims.
An end run around the law (which is what the RIAA lawyers are doing) justifies Beckerman sending a letter to both judges. And I am sure neither will be upset by his action.
This letter should go as well to the bar associations to which these lawyers belong. This is a serious breach of ethics. (Yes, lawyers do in fact have a code of ethics; they are officers of the court first and foremost and their duty to their client comes second.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
The term 'Anonymous Coward' fits really well here.
So, when choosing which side to take, you obviously go with the RIAA, over the lawyer defending the Cassin family.
While their are many aspects to IP, illegal file sharing, copyrights, etc., you choose to side with the group that sends out blanket lawsuits in an attempt to do as much money-grabbing as easily as possible. This is the same group that has sued homeless people, elderly people, DEAD people, and people without computers. Based on what, they have to be right EVENTUALLY?
So many people hate these lawyers and the RIAA not just because they'd really like to download music for free (even though iTunes now sells more music than WalMart), but because they are extremely underhanded, conniving and despicable, even for lawyers. Even other lawyers can't stand them, and that says a lot.
Their MO is "find people to sue, threaten much, try to extract money, drop the case if they want to fight or it will be too hard, and don't worry about whether they did it or not, hopefully they'll just pay some money to make us go away."
Then every now and then, to show they are serious and that they can fight, push hard to win regardless of the facts so more people will be afraid.
This is not acceptable behavior in a free country. Personally, I don't know the Cassin family, and I know nothing about the evidence against them or whether they're guilty or not, but given the RIAA's tactics and prior behavior, I want the RIAA to lose, badly, expensively and repeatedly until these types of actions are no longer allowed in civilized society.
In a courtroom, your actions and your reputation as a lawyer follow you in every case you argue. These lawyers are scum and have proved it many times, they should be treated as such.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
You're missing one nuance of this case, and several related ones: "win" doesn't mean the defendant just prevailed. In this case, it means the defendant gets awarded costs. That's a big deal. Really big. One reason defendants don't fight is that typically even if they win they'll have to bear the costs of their own defense. No lawyer's going to take a case on contingency if there's no possibility of recovery at the end, and few defendants can afford to pay a good defense attorney cash on the barrelhead. Awarding costs changes that. Now there is money in it for the attorney if they prevail, which means more attorneys will be willing to take cases on a contingency basis. That means more defendants fighting back and not settling immediately, which means more work and more costs for the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't want to win cases, they want to get settlements without having to fight at all. That, as much as the possibility of setting a bad precedent, is why the RIAA has tried to drop cases when the defendant puts up a determined defense. And cases like this are rapidly making that impossible.
Wrong on multiple counts.
/., I don't see any reason an artist, song writer, etc. shouldn't get paid for the works they produce. I don't torrent/p2p file share copyrighted works for this reason. However, the way in which the RIAA lawyers are going about the process is unethical at best and illegal at worst. There have been plenty of stories on /. and elsewhere regarding the probable illegality of MediaSentry's investigations without having a license to do so in the relevant jurisdictions. This story is an example of the RIAA lawyers trying to bamboozle a judge. There are plenty more examples; I'm sure a Google search will turn up plenty of reading, if you are so inclined.
/., I doubt it is because he wants a bunch of geek hero worshippers. From what I've been able to see, NYCL is actively dogging the RIAA, and even if he enjoys all the praise he gets here (wouldn't you?), the fact is, he is doing something to help others out. If you recall, on one of his first appearances here on /. he kinda got flamed a bit for a while -- there were a lot of "wow, you're a lawyer and you claim to want to help people out? What's the color of the sky on your planet?" snarky comments. However, his actions seem to have won over a lot of people. At least from what little I know about him, he has swayed /. public opinion by putting his money where his mouth is. For that, I respect him.
First, don't put all your eggs in one basket. NYCL may or may not be a musician, so he may or may not have the ability to "build a viable alternative." However, he is a lawyer, so legal action is something he is capable of (and therefore is actively) doing. If you really want something better, let everyone interested do what they do best. Don't just pin your hopes on one method of attack and pray it works.
Second, how do you know the enemies of the RIAA aren't trying to build a viable alternative? Ever been to MySpace (gag) or Soundclick or any of a number of other indie artist web sites? There are quite a few indie musicians trying to produce music without working within the existing power structure; I'm one of them, as is my brother and several of my best friends.
Third, the RIAA lawyers aren't "just trying to win cases for their client." If all they were doing is taking reasonable steps to protect the IP of their client, I wouldn't have any problems with them. As unpopular as it may be on
Fourth, and finally, while NYCL may be building a cult of personality here on
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I've met lots of decent lawyers. When you need one and they save your ass by knowing the rules, you'll thank them. Most are hardworking folks trying to making a living & NYCL is one of them. A little love for the good lawyers? Way overdue.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.