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.

Comments

Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[Stanislav_J]

But how about something to compensate her for the harassment, stress, and general upheaval of her life for three years? The RIAA might cave in to paying her fees if they have no other way out of it, but a nice fat damage award would go a long way toward tempering the cartel's tactics, and to encourage others who have been sued. Of course, to get such an award she would probably have to file some sort of countersuit against them, and I doubt she has the stomach for that right now. Shows how in our legal system, even when you win, you still lose to some degree.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

But how about something to compensate her for the harassment, stress, and general upheaval of her life for three years? The RIAA might cave in to paying her fees if they have no other way out of it, but a nice fat damage award would go a long way toward tempering the cartel's tactics, and to encourage others who have been sued. Of course, to get such an award she would probably have to file some sort of countersuit against them, and I doubt she has the stomach for that right now. Shows how in our legal system, even when you win, you still lose to some degree.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree with anything you just said.

It's an imperfect system, and definitely being abused at the moment by the large 'rights holders', who have engaged in a maelstrom of litigation in reaction to their imminent demise.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[morgan_greywolf]

Perhaps a countersuit? IANAL, but I don't see why she couldn't turn around and sue them for the harrassment, pain and suffering, etc. Or is there some sort of statute that prevents that? Anyone know?

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[Dan541]

It's bullshit that plaintiffs are able to withdraw a case.

Withdrawal should result in an automatic win for the defendant which should cover legal fees, loss of income, compensation for harassment and open the door for libel suits maybe then people will stop abusing the courts.

How do court case's get started get the RIAA just take you to court so your forced to lose your income to defend yourself or does the submission need approval before it can proceed?

What do you do about holidays, work or any other form of life, during a case like this?

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[honkycat]

It's tempting to make a blanket statement like that, especially when the plaintiff is perceived as the slimy evil that is the RIAA. However, it's difficult to make such a blanket declaration without creating injustices. In this case, if you read the RIAA's motion to dismiss without prejudice, which is linked from the article, they claim that Ms. Lindor and her relatives and counsel (aka NewYorkCountryLawyer, the submitter) have impeded/deceived them during discovery. Their claim is that as a result, they are unable to mount a case -- i.e., they're not just taking their ball and going home, they've simply decided that it's not going to be possible despite their (claim of) good faith effort to resolve the issues.

If this is true, then it's unreasonable to expect them to pay the costs of the defendant -- that would only encourage defense by stonewalling.

Thus, I don't think you can automatically say the plaintiff must see the case to conclusion to avoid funding the defense. As the case law seems to say (based on the links in the article), there's a presumption that they will be on the hook for costs, but there are certainly circumstances where justice is best served by allowing the case to be dropped without such an award.

And, hopefully obviously, I'm not up to date on the details of the case, and I'm not claiming that the RIAA is correct in its claims. Rather, it is simply those claims and the court needs to decide on their merit. The defense clearly disagrees with their assertions. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[darkmeridian]

Granting a defendant automatic damages if a plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit will lead to many meritless suits prosecuted to the end. For instance, if the RIAA had to pay legal fees, lost of income, compensation for harassment, and libel in this case, they would not be withdrawing the lawsuit. They would rather fight this to the end and wait for the defendant to go bankrupt or cave in. I think the defendant should be given the chance to get damages by filing a countersuit but should not be granted automatic damages lest we create perverse incentives to flog a dead horse.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[Khyber]

No, I say grant automatic damages in court. If you can't prove it, don't fucking bring it. They deserve every bit of shit thrown at them for bringing a FALSE LAWSUIT into court.

She needs to file and have the RIAA members labeled as vexatious litigants. That'll put a HUGE hole in their operation.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[jobsagoodun]

Anonymous Coward: the gutless twat.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[xtracto]

I am no expert in America History, but I remember reading there where people defending the slaves several years ago... sure, they were seen as Mr. Beckerman at that time, defending the people that was overwhelmed by unjust causes.

Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine.....

[MacWiz]

I think people give the RIAA far too much credit by calling them evil. They're not smart enough to be evil.

In this case, if you read the RIAA's motion to dismiss without prejudice, which is linked from the article, they claim that...

The RIAA claims a lot of things. They always give up just before it's time to go to court and prove it in front of a jury.

defense by stonewalling

You mean the right to remain silent? Or the right to an attorney? If you accuse me of something, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to say a damn word.

I would think that defense by stonewalling pales in comparison to prosecution by bluffing. The reason the RIAA drops every case is because they have no evidence. They'll claim they've got a whole shitpile of it, but then turn around and whine about how it's unfair to expect them to produce evidence, how it would "cripple" their efforts. Because they haven't got any.

Out of the tens of thousands of cases there are only a handful wherein the defendent makes a claim of innocence. Those are the only ones we hear about. Something like 99 percent just pay the settlement. It's all about refusing to admit that their system is wrong sometimes. If the RIAA accuses a computer illiterate of filesharing and drags it out for three years but are afraid to take the case to a jury and blame her for their incompetence, they never had any evidence in the first place.

The strongest evidence they have had in any case thus far, to my recollection, was that Jammie Thomas replaced her hard drive before they sued her. In essence, their only evidence was the lack of evidence. That's the only one they took to trial so far, their most solid case.

And they still had to cheat to win.

Good for her.

[AltGrendel]

Stick it to 'em. Hard.

"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[Morgaine]

The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area. When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort. This case needs to be dismissed With Prejudice to counteract this misuse of the legal system.

In addition, the RIAA as plaintiffs suffer no discomfort from a failed lawsuit, as it's all just paperwork and their daily office job for them. In contrast, their defendants suffer horribly from the process win or lose, with years of their lives being damaged and unrecoverable, since the litigation process is entirely foreign to their normal lives. This is unbalanced, unfair, and inadequate.

Both areas need redress, starting with dismissal With Prejudice and including compensation to the defendant for harm caused. But really more than that is needed. 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. Without negative feedback, systems spiral out of control, and that is as true in law as in science.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area. When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort. This case needs to be dismissed With Prejudice to counteract this misuse of the legal system. In addition, the RIAA as plaintiffs suffer no discomfort from a failed lawsuit, as it's all just paperwork and their daily office job for them. In contrast, their defendants suffer horribly from the process win or lose, with years of their lives being damaged and unrecoverable, since the litigation process is entirely foreign to their normal lives. This is unbalanced, unfair, and inadequate. Both areas need redress, starting with dismissal With Prejudice and including compensation to the defendant for harm caused. But really more than that is needed. 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. Without negative feedback, systems spiral out of control, and that is as true in law as in science.

I agree. But I am expecting the RIAA's lawyers, who on a daily basis have been making many false statements of fact to the courts, working with unlicensed investigators, misstating the law, and using illegal procedures, to be called to task eventually. It will no doubt be too little, too late, but I'm expecting repercussions for what they've done.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area.

Except for one other area: terrorism. If the defendants are accused of terrorism, then the courts accept even weaker standards of "evidence", including any old nonsense shouted under torture.

Sadly, this has to be said.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[Stiletto]

When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort.

Um, I hate to tell you, but even with the possibility of dismissal with prejudice, litigation is still a HUGE business. You just need to go for higher awards to offset the risk associated with the penalties.

The litigation-for-profit industry is alive and well and not going anywhere.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[grizdog]

Great, but isn't justice delayed justice denied? If the RIAA lawyers are permitted to make a career out of this before they are sanctioned, and get disbarred in an early, comfortable retirement, what is accomplished? And more to the point, what is "officer of the court" worth, if this is the case?

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[deblau]

Lawyers have to be "zealous advocates" for their clients. That's their job. Would you hire a lawyer who won't go to the mat for you? More than that, it's an ethical imperative. Everyone who's crying out for professional penalties doesn't understand the nature of the profession.

I have a great deal of respect for NYCL. He fights like hell for his clients. Of course, that means everything he says is biased for the defense. And everything the plaintiff's lawyers say is biased for the plaintiffs. That doesn't mean either of them are correct about what really happened -- they're just advocating the theory that best suits their client's wishes. And neither of them should be penalized for that, because that's how the system should work.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[sjames]

There is a line there, and it's pretty clear the RIAA's lawyers have stepped way over it.

A lawyer is first and foremost, an officer of the court. Then, they are to be zealous advocates for their client's case. That advocacy may not, however, cross the line into illegal or unethical practices.

It is fully expected that a lawyer will argue the facts of a case in the light most favorable to the client's position. It's another matter entirely to attempt to deceive the court or to knowingly abuse the court process for the client's benefit.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Lawyers have to be "zealous advocates" for their clients. That's their job. Would you hire a lawyer who won't go to the mat for you? More than that, it's an ethical imperative. Everyone who's crying out for professional penalties doesn't understand the nature of the profession. I have a great deal of respect for NYCL. He fights like hell for his clients. Of course, that means everything he says is biased for the defense. And everything the plaintiff's lawyers say is biased for the plaintiffs. That doesn't mean either of them are correct about what really happened -- they're just advocating the theory that best suits their client's wishes. And neither of them should be penalized for that, because that's how the system should work.

I respectfully disagree. The duty to be a "zealous advocate" has to be balanced against the many other duties a lawyer has, under the general concept of serving as an "officer of the court", such as duties not to to make false statements of fact, duties not to mislead the court on the law, duties to investigate before suing, the duty not to sign frivolous or false documents, the duty not to do unnecessary harm to people with whom you come in contact, etc., etc. I would never do, on behalf of any client, the things the RIAA lawyers have done. There are lawyers, and there are attack dogs; these are attack dogs. I do not consider them to be genuinely a part of my profession.

Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is a line there, and it's pretty clear the RIAA's lawyers have stepped way over it. A lawyer is first and foremost, an officer of the court. Then, they are to be zealous advocates for their client's case. That advocacy may not, however, cross the line into illegal or unethical practices. It is fully expected that a lawyer will argue the facts of a case in the light most favorable to the client's position. It's another matter entirely to attempt to deceive the court or to knowingly abuse the court process for the client's benefit.

Exactly. The RIAA lawyers aren't familiar with those pages from the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Re:Towel????

[morgan_greywolf]

A hitchhiker should never go anywhere without his towel.

Mod parent up..

[Joce640k]

Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.

Re:Mod parent up..

[xouumalperxe]

Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.

Not all cases that last 3 years do so because (at least) one side is purposefully delaying. They might last that long simply because they're complex, both in terms of who's right and how right they are. The whole point of there being courts is to decide which way that sort of thing swings, and you shouldn't be penalized for it.

Now, if you can prove that the case dragged on simply because one party was trying to outlast the other, that's abusing the court, which is a different ball game altogether...

Mickey Mouse

[Morosoph]

Copyright (theoretically and used to be in fact) runs out and the work goes into the public doamin with Huck Finn.

I'm coming to think that the US should make a Peter-Pan type exception for Mickey Mouse, since US congress refuse to let the sun set on the rodent.

Yes, it would be a barmy exception, but it is still worse, by some considerable margin, that one cartoon character should make law for the whole system of copyright!

Hell, they should make an exception for Minnie and Pluto while they're at it...

Re:Easy.....

[Junta]

To save money, the RIAA then asks for a dismissal without prejudice.

Given the scale of RIAA legal costs incurred during that prolonged phase, I would say they aren't trying to save money at all. The defendant's legal fees are trivial next to the cost of trying to drag it out to avoid paying them.

It's quite obvious they want everyone to feel that regardless of the findings of a court, the defendant will have lost, and it's best to do as they say in the first place, regardless of guilt or innocence. RIAA doesn't care much about appearing to be in the right or anything anymore, they just want to induce fear, safe in the knowledge people will still fund the music industry as they way RIAA leads it.

Given the obvious systematic tactics of making a business of milking the Justice system, the courts really need to thoroughly strike down RIAA's efforts.

Civil courts exist to make money for lawyers

[dloyer]

This is another example of how the civil court system exists only to make money for lawyers.

The judges will put on a show to make it look fair, but judges exist to help lawyers make money from Marks (Anyone who is not a lawyer).

If you have ever been involved with a lawsuit, you will quickly learn that it is all about how much the lawyers get paid to stumble through their process at $5/min. Facts don't matter. There is no real risk for the plaintiff to sue someone, the burden is on the defendant who must respond or loose by default.

If you are the defendant and you win, you still loose and if you loose, you loose more.

Since the cost of defense is so high, it is almost always cheaper to settle, and the lawyers know this.

If you are a lawyer and hold a grudge, you can really fuck someone over making claims that are not true. And they do. Judges will turn a blind eye.

The process is completely corrupt and serves no one other than the lawyers that infest it.

Am I bitter? Yes.

Her Lawyer deserves some credit too ...

[Cassini2]

I think the reason this suit got this far, and generated as much interesting legal materials and reactions as it did, have much to do with the lawyer working the case. She would have not got this far, if it was not for the efforts of her lawyer. You have demonstrated how to defend and win a case against the RIAA.

It is not often that we think of lawyers as the good guys, but in this case, the community owes you thanks.

Good Work.

Re:Easy.....

[dshadowwolf]

You've hit the nail on the head here. The RIAA isn't going for the "dismissal without prejudice" to save money. They are doing it for the financial hurting it puts on the defendant and so they can point and say "we aren't done with it, but that's okay, we'll get that one next time".

Basically they are getting a victory without having proved their case and have the option of re-filing the case to get a second-chance at winning. Nobody should be able to do this - but until the RIAA is made to really hurt it will keep going on. Let's hope that Tanya Anderson's counter-suit ends with a victory for her.

And Ms. Lindor, I feel for your suffering and hope that Mr. Beckerman can get you the victory you deserve.

Zealous advocate only goes so far

[HornWumpus]

There are many things they can do that cross that line.

Knowingly filing a case with no evidence purely as an extortion tactic is one of the things that should get a shyster disbarred.