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."

Comments

I'm not a lawyer, so someone please explain this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?

How can they get away with this

[guruevi]

Either their lawyers are incompetent or crooks or both but this is ridiculous. What were they expecting? That nobody was going to find out? Thanks to NYCL we get a little bit of fairness in the crooked justice system. How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?

Re:How can they get away with this

[dmgxmichael]

Hopefully the lawyers involved will be disbarred. Probably they will not, but one can hope.

Re:How can they get away with this

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Why is that I have this feeling that "Lawyer", "Incompetent" and "Crook" are oxymorons? I think you mean redundant rather than oxymoron. Now that I've done my pedantic duty, let's examine the three sets you mention to see how they overlap:

There are obviously lots and lots of incompetent people that are not lawyers. And of course, many crooks are not lawyers. However, the "Lawyer" set overlaps so completely with the "Crook" set to the point that "Lawyer" is almost a subset of "Crook". And of course, the Lawyer/Incompetent overlap falls almost entirely within the Lawyer/Crook overlap - because if you're an incompetent lawyer, than almost the only way to stay in business is to also be a crook.

Now, the RIAA seems to pull its entire legal staff from the place where "Lawyer", "Incompetent", and "Crook" all overlap. If you're sketching this all out yourself, you should have a very small section where "Lawyer" doesn't overlap "Incompetent" or "Crook". There, you will find NYCL and, maybe 1 or 2 other people.

Dirty Pool

[whisper_jeff]

A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?

Re:Dirty Pool

[bitflip]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've hired a few over the years.

Frankly, I want my lawyers ready and willing to sue their own mothers if that's what I want them to do.

I regard lawyers (mine or not) as instruments of the client's will. It is the RIAA that is the scumbags, because they're the ones asking for, or at least not blocking, their tactics.

Re:Dirty Pool

[JustinOpinion]

I should let NYCL answer for himself... but if you look at his comment history, you'll find that he re-iterates that the RIAA lawyers are indeed using unconventionally dirty tactics. He says they are unethical and/or stupid, and sometimes implies that their actions are outright illegal and they should be disbarred.

Example:

It's the RIAA's lawyers that are missing something. I'm not sure what they're missing, but I've got it narrowed down to 2 things: (1) brain cells, or (2) integrity. Or possibly some of each.

Another example:

what they are doing is totally illegal. In federal practice ex parte relief is only granted as a last resort. In these cases the RIAA lies through its teeth to get the order, falsely saying that the ISP or University will destroy the records if they are given notice of the application. It amazes me that there is any judge in the U.S. who would sign such an order. I think you'll be seeing more and more judges refusing, as news of the RIAA's lies spreads.

Another:

How stupid can these people be?....

Good question. I don't know the answer to it. Each time I think they've reached the mountain top, they come up with something even better.

It's as tough as the other question I keep wondering about with these characters:

"How mean and how heartless can someone who was born of a human mother be?" Each time I think I've seen how low they can sink, they find some way to sink even lower.

These questions are simply unanswerable.

I think it's safe to say that NYCL has a low opinion of their tactics both from an ethical standpoint and from a legal practice standpoint.

Disbar the RIAA lawyers

[Reality Master 201]

Seriously, if they're gaming the system this way, they deserve to lose their licenses. This is clearly unethical and deceptive.

Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.

Jeez, that's some scummy shit.

Re:Disbar the RIAA lawyers

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Is that going to work, or are they just going to keep scraping the bottom of the newly-graduated barrel?

Maybe we can think of this another way - can RIAA cases be used as a honeypot? Let the lawyers bring cases forward, have "judges" spend a few years waffling about it, while the families pretend to be mortified (they've been let in on the whole thing). Then the lawyers are kept busy on pointless cases that go nowhere, and the rest of us can live our lives in peace.

Actually, maybe that's happening already...

Isn't this well into sanctionable territory?

[spazmonkey]

I would like to know how this sort of thing works within the boundaries of ethics rules. Sanctions? Disbarment?
Anyone have knowledge to input?

Not a smart move

[Todd Knarr]

I don't think this is a smart move. Given that the first case is still active, and that the new case involves the same acts and the same defendants, can't the defense move to have the new case reassigned to the first judge and consolidated with the first case? I'd think that would be a lawyer's worst nightmare, to have tried this kind of end-run and wind up back in front of the judge you tried to evade anyway. He's sure to be none too thrilled about it, and now has a reason to crack down harder.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sanctions?

[Penguinisto]

I'm genuinely curious - doesn't the RIAA risk facing sanctions or worse? If not from the courts, there has got to be something from the Bar Association that prevents unethical behavior like this... and if not, then maybe all you geeks out there need to see about lobbying state/provincial legislators to have some sort of stronger enforcement against unethical behavior put into place. It seems a bit too loose from my POV.

I don't just mean the RIAA, either. SCO v IBM stands out as another really big example where lawyers get to screw directly with the things that we in geekdom make a daily living from (e.g. the RIAA spewing mistruths about how the Internet works, corps claiming rights they do not have over code, etc).

As a bonus, maybe keeping the less scrupulous lawyers among us honest will at least make things a little easier for all of us.

Even coordinating a letter-writing campaign couldn't hurt, y'know?

/P

Re:Not innocent enough!

[MacDork]

When's the RIAA going to stop suing families and finally go for the homeless people? ;)

They've done that too. They've also sued the dead, people who don't even own a computer, and paralyzed stroke victims.

Re:Estoppel

[k_187]

It depends on jurisdiction. I did pretty bad in Civil Procedure, and don't have my FRCP in front of me, but in Federal Court (which I don't even know if theyre in since I didn't RTFA), you get 2 bites at the apple. You can voluntarily remove yourself once, then refile and I think if there's a procedural problem, you can also remove and refile. Don't quote me on all that though.

I don't understand

[Yurka]

why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.

Re:i want to kill myself

[Kierthos]

So if NYCL is our enemy, as you claim, then what the screaming budgie fuck does that make the RIAA lawyers? Boy scouts, paragons of humanity, and the future leaders of the free world? I think not. The RIAA lawyers, truth be told, are trying to get their clients a victory in civil court. But they are going about it in such a way, that even if NYCL was the stereotypical ambulance chaser kind of lawyer and the kind that carries a spare neck brace for defendants in auto accident cases, he would still look like the good guy in this by comparison.

Snidely Whiplash, tying Little Nell to the train-tracks, would look like a good guy by comparison.

One solution

[boatboy]

One interesting solution I've heard for this sort of unethical lawyering is to require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. Talk to any doctor, and they'll tell you that malpractice insurance actually makes them targets for litigation, since the prosecution knows there is a higher chance of a high payout. At least in my state, it's mandatory doctors carry it. Apply that same rule to lawyers, and you would get a great, entertaining situation of lawyers suing each other over malpractice. Too bad politicians are typically lawyers.

Re:These are the people you buy media from...

[Jaysyn]

These days I only buy from non-RIAA acts, since all the used CD stores where I live have basically been run out of town.

www.riaaradar.com

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Time to think outside the box...

[AttillaTheNun]

The RIAA is a monopolistic mafia that depends on the popularity of their artists to enforce their ways. Popularity which they artificially create via their PR machine and monopoly.

I say we play into their game... to their detriment.

Find the lamest, most retarded RIAA artist out there (I'm thinking orders of magnitude beyond Milli Vanilli here) and everyone (and I mean everyone) buy ONLY that artist's material. Buy every CD, online album, single, ringtone, whatever. I wanna see that artist as the sole occupant of every music chart and radio playlist. The more obvious to everyone of the sham that is taking place, the better.

Once the RIAA is dependent on this single jackass of an artist for all of their revenue (effectively killing off the rest of their artists or driving them outside the RIAA), stop buying. Let the competition, based on free market labels and artists with true talent, drive the final stake through their sorry butts. It will go down as one of the most hilarious (and satisfying) scandals ever.

Re:NYCL FTW!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks, aurispector.... you made my day.