Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After three years of pursuing a home health aide in Brooklyn who has never even used a computer, the RIAA has announced it's ready to throw in the towel. Only thing; it wants the dismissal to be 'without prejudice' so it won't be liable for attorney's fees. The courts have been saying that where a copyright plaintiff gives up, the defendant is presumptively entitled to an attorney's fee award. So, Ms. Lindor says 'no way.' She wants the dismissal to be 'with prejudice,' and she wants her attorney's fees."
We've been discussing this case and Ms. Lindor's fight against the RIAA for quite some time.
also means could refile the suit if they want. It may just mean they want to try and get better legal leverage, like a new judge.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Don't they own the music?
1. Owning copyright doesn't give them ownership of the music; it is a limited time monopoly according to the US Constitution. Copyright (theoretically and used to be in fact) runs out and the work goes into the public doamin with Huck Finn.
2. They only own a tiny fraction of the copyrights. Most bands aren't signed; you can see them in your local bar.
3. If I were this lady I'd see a shrink, and file lawsuit against the labels for metal distress
Well said, Morgaine!
The RIAA lawyers themselves need to suffer some kind of professional penalty that will stay on their record, or this kind of legal abuse will not stop.
Abuse of the legal system is something that an attorney could be censured for by their state's Bar association -- with penalties ranging from fines to and including disbarrment.
My blog
And if you read Beckerman's response at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/ms-lindor-opposes-riaa-attempt-to.html then you'd have your response. He clearly lays out how any prejudice is solely plaintiff's fault. Further, he points out the defendant is an individual not accountable for anyone else's actions, and that discovery was completed 2 years ago but that the palintiff waited until the end to complain about discovery. Further, the complaint is to the wrong judge and filed in the wrong fashion, with additional defects. All of those flaws in the plaintiff's argument make it unlikely sanctions are either warranted or will be granted.
I've read the plaintiff's letter and to the lay-person it reads pretty reasonably. In effect, "We can't prove our case because the plaintiffs lied, hid evidence, and generally didn't cooperate to the extent required by law".
Well IAAL and the letter is not especially convincing. For one thing the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be blaming the defendant for acts by several third parties. Another thing is that a lot of the criticism uses generic weasel words, like "inconsistencies" and "deceptive and/or incomplete information," which lawyers tend to use when they don't have anything concrete to attack. The alleged inconsistencies aren't especially damning when you're talking about witnesses and parties describing events that took place a while ago. The case ID number makes me think it was filed in early '05, so I'd think that would be the earliest the discovery requests came, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to be uncertain as to who was at your house on certain exact dates several months ago.
Anyone else notice that the motion also seeks to sanction the defendant and her lawyer for "discovery abuse"? The RIAA's lawyers actually have the gall to accuse someone else of "discovery abuse"? If there's worse case of the pot calling the kettle black, please let me know.
Regardless, my point is that a blanket statement that "The plaintiff must always see every case to completion," while perhaps satisfying in this case, will not always serve the interests of justice.
My point is not that "The plaintiff must always see every case to completion." Quite the contrary.
The RIAA has filed 40,000 lawsuits over a five-year period and have allowed exactly one to be decided by a jury, based upon a premise that has since been determined to be an "error of law."
I've said this before, so apologies to those who have seen it multiple times:
Sony v. Betamax presented the same basic copyright infringement issue. It involved exactly one defendant who, with a guarantee of no financial penalty, admitted to acts in question in several forms. The two sides then battled over whether the activity itself measured up to a violation of the law. It did not.
Filesharing is not mentioned in the copyright law. Neither is uploading or downloading or the determination of which is actually the infringing party. Most copyright infringement without profit potential has been specified as unactionable.
The RIAA has yet to prove the foundation of a legal basis for a file-sharing lawsuit against an individual.
It's not about "seeing every case to completion." Just one.