Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the stick-it-to-'em dept.

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.

66 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    1. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shows how in our legal system, even when you win, you still lose to some degree.

      Thanks to Bobby Bare there is a musical reference to being a Winner.

      As pointed out many times, the RIAA is not exactly good at following the "Gentlemen's rules" of the game. Hope Ms. Lindoor hits them hard in the wallet, would, no doubt, make Mr. Beckerman feel a lot better about Ms. Lindoor taking the draw. Hope the judge tosses the RIAA out of the ring too, with prejudice.

    4. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by phoomp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

      If they get their way in Canada, by getting the government to draft laws which protect their obsolete business plan, they may be developing a foothold by which they can force us to keep them alive.

    5. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the large 'rights holders', who have engaged in a maelstrom of litigation in reaction to their imminent demise.

      Yes, and in a down-turning economy, as the value of their "holdings" declines, they will turn increasingly to this type of litigation-for-profit to try to keep their stock price up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by honkycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by jobsagoodun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous Coward: the gutless twat.

    11. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I think would be fair was if any case brought that was dismissed with prejudice would automatically cost the accusers a fine of exactly as much as the damage they sued for.
      That would not only reduce the amount of false claims, but also the preposterous amounts the accused are being sued for.

      (I say fines and not compensation. Fines should go to the public and never to the accused, who only should get actual expenses covered. In Ius Commune, a firm principle is that neither the accuser nor the accused must ever benefit economically from the justice system. Rewarding the victim makes becoming a victim desirable, just like rewarding the accuser makes accusations more profitable than avoiding the initial issue.)

    12. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    13. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by MacWiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by honkycat · · Score: 2

      If the prosecution can not prove a defendant guilty, then they should need to compensate them for the losses they incured as part of the suit, reimbursing them for legal fees and time.

      That's a big issue and there are arguments both for and against it. Rather than open that debate here, I'll just note that the US is not a loser-pays system by default. Attorney's fees may be awarded to the defense, but as I understand it this is rare and is usually the result of malfeasance by the plaintiff. As you and others have noted, the RIAA does seem to be engaging in a campaign of questionable legality. However, I'm not really addressing that issue here.

      I'm merely trying to point out that there are circumstances where the plaintiff may decide it's just not worth it to pursue the matter further. If this is simply because they're going to lose, then sure, they should dismiss with prejudice and consider awarding attorney's fees if it seems that their entire case was illegitimate. And, certainly, the case law as cited in the article seems to support this presumption. The RIAA, however, has argued that it's not simply that they're afraid they're going to lose, it's that they're afraid their going to lose due to abuse of the system by the defense. If (if if if!) that's true, then it seems unjust to require them to continue the case simply because they brought it. All lawsuits carry some risk of failure and if (if if if!) the defense was misbehaving, it will surely increase the cost of litigation through no fault of the plaintiff. It's quite reasonable that this may cause them to reconsider the cost/benefit scenario.

      Anyway, I hope their position is without merit and they get slapped, but I don't think we can conclude this based solely on their motion and the defense's response. It depends on facts of the case, which I'm sure not up to date on.

    15. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by awrowe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its not french, its Australian.

      --
      A.I. Research. The peculiar science in which we know the question and we know the answer, but can't show the working
    16. Re:Attorney's fees are all well and fine..... by MacWiz · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  2. Good for her. by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stick it to 'em. Hard.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  3. Without prejudice... by LinuxGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Without prejudice... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always thought "Without Prejudice" would be a good motto for a shady company. You'd put it on your letters under the logo and you'd be protected while you lied your ass off during negotiations.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Without prejudice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've always thought "Without Prejudice" would be a good motto for a shady company. You'd put it on your letters under the logo and you'd be protected while you lied your ass off during negotiations.

      Neat idea! Kind of like "Fair and Balanced"!

    3. Re:Without prejudice... by vilgefortz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aperture Science "We do what we must, because we can"

    4. Re:Without prejudice... by metamechanical · · Score: 3, Informative

      an important distinction, something that confused me for awhile; "prejudice" in this sense is not the same as "discrimination", but instead means "pre-judged".

      Exactly as you said, when a case is dismissed "without prejudice", it allows another case to be filed later. My understanding is that this is generally in the event of a case being dismissed due to a clerical error.

      --
      If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
    5. Re:Without prejudice... by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Prejudice" never means "discrimination". Even when talking about race/ethnicity/religion "prejudice" only refers to the (often unwarranted) opinion one forms, or the opinion given to someone, not what one does about it (hint: "prejudice" can be noun or verb, depending on whether its the opinion formed or the act of imparting an opinion or slant). "Discrimination" refers to the treatment one gives a person or group based on something like a prejudiced opinion of them (hint: only a verb as an action has to take place). That's why prejudice (in race) isn't illegal in the U.S. but discrimination is: we still haven't outlawed all thoughts, just actions based on them.

      Bow to your grammar overlords. BOW I said! ;)

  4. My favorite line by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have been telling plaintiffs all along that the defendant is innocent of any
    infringement. Unmindful of their duties as officers of the Court, they nevertheless persisted. Now
    that the time has come to pay the piper, they seek to scurry away, rather than face the music.

    Don't they own the music?

    (I trust Mr. Beckermann will accept my quote as fair use...)

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:My favorite line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    2. Re:My favorite line by dpilot · · Score: 4, Funny

      > 3. If I were this lady I'd see a shrink, and file lawsuit against the labels for metal distress

      Metallica's got that one covered, and they're on the RIAA's side.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:My favorite line by lysse · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the contracts, they own the musicians.

      And their firstborn.

    4. Re:My favorite line by Dan541 · · Score: 2

      The MPAA does not evern know what is and is not theirs to begin with.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  5. "With Prejudice" needed to send a message by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    3. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by grizdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by dmatos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At what point would it be reasonable to start proceedings against those lawyers? You make some fairly strong statements of their misdeeds here. With firm proof would those offenses not be more than enough to get them disbarred, if not jailed and/or fined for perjury?

      Who is responsible for calling those lawyers to task? And who is capable of officially raising the matter for consideration?

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    6. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Why have you (and other attorneys fighting them) not already filed complaints with their state bars?

      --
      Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
    7. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by deblau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    8. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clearly, we need to apply the death penalty to these cases then. Lets see the dollar out weigh that risk.

    10. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who is responsible for calling those lawyers to task?

      The judges.

      And who is capable of officially raising the matter for consideration?

      The parties or the judges.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    12. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re:Towel???? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A hitchhiker should never go anywhere without his towel.

    --
    My blog
  7. Mod parent up.. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Mod parent up.. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Mod parent up.. by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      Actually, it's not in the court records, but in their bottom line, the dammage will run much longer than 3 years.

      Nobody likes to sup with the devil. The dammage to their PR is huge and long lasting. In the heyday of Napster, sales were up. In the heyday of the litigation campaign, the major CD retailiers are folding. Tower Records, and many other retailers are gone. Many retailers have shifted to carying a large inventory to shifting to video games and DVD's. (MPAA is not in as much PR goo as RIAA).

      I haven't bought a new retail CD in years, and that will continue until this mess is over. (online tracks same thing)

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  8. Staying power by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They never dreamed that she could/would stick with it this long so they are getting worried. They are used to just bulling people into submission.

    I agree they need to compensate her for their unacceptable tactics.

    This needs to be plastered across every news station in the country ( but we know it wont, as the *AA is the TV industries buddy )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. Prejudice This by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If that dismissal can be called "without prejudice", then so is a Klan cross burning. They should pay "I'm a Dick Tax" as well as attorney's fees.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  10. Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? by Broofa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mr. Beckerman (or other attorneys familiar with this case and the relevent law), can you comment on the merit of this request?

    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".

    I'm sure the plaintiffs are putting the facts of the case in the most favorable possible light to avoid a "with prejudice" dismissal. But without seeing/hearing the actual testimony it's difficult to judge just how overt the defendents actions were, and to what extent the plaintiffs persual of this case had actual merit - i.e. how justified it was and, therefore, to what extent a prejudicial decision might or might not be warranted.

    1. Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  11. Mickey Mouse by Morosoph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Wikileaks, no DNS
    1. Re:Mickey Mouse by fyrewulff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I've been thinking about this for a while too. A compromise between "NO COPYRIGHT!" and "COPYRIGHT FOREVER!"

      First, we drop copyright back to something a bit more modern but still reasonable. Say, 20 years from the point of creation. This gives enough time for the copyrighted work to see most of the income it'll ever get for the creator.

      But, for certain 'legacy' copyrights, we can grant National Protected Copyright status to. This would be something like how the Library of Congress chooses to preserve certain films. The company that wants to be protected would file an application containing the following:

      1) Why it is believed their copyrighted character/work is a recognized national treasure
      2) What works of theirs they want under this application. All of these works must have been registered for a minimum of 15 years.

      If the application is successful, the copyrighted work then belongs to the government at the end of the 20 years, who licenses it back to the applicant and charges maintenance/filing fees. After this, the government still has a legal way to crack down on counterfeiting operations, and the company no longer has to waste money defending their work. Also, if a company starts acting out of line, Congress can say "Hey, quit that shit or we're going to end your legacy copyright", much like they hold revoking monopoly exemptions on the NFL/MLB when they start taking things for granted. On the other hand, the government is also not going to waste money persuing small time copyright infringement.

      If the company ever files for bankruptcy or otherwise goes under, their copyright is released into the public domain.

      There'd be a lot more stuff to work out related to this, but I think some sort of special copyright status that can be assigned would be a heck of a lot better than just universally locking -everything- up for 100+ years.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  12. Easy..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the defendant needs to do is show that the RIAA has *systematically* dragged out lawsuits, and then dropped them when the defendant "calls their bluff", knowing full well it's chances of winning at trial are unfavorable, and the defendant has no intention of settling. The RIAA knows it will be liable for attorney's fees if they lose at trial, so they drag everything out to the very last moment, hoping to save money by dropping the claim when the defendant doesn't settle.

    However, asking for dismissal at this point in procedure doesn't show the intent to save money from dismissal. The fact that the RIAA had done it *many* times over shows a clear, premeditated plan to shift wasteful costs for reckless prosecution to the defendent in the event that no settlement occurs and a legal victory is improbable.

    The RIAA drops it suits when:

    1) The defendant calls their bluff by refusing to settle and forces them to support a baseless claim at trial, which the RIAA knows it will lose.

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

    It might be a stretch, but a good legal beagle could probably argue that this constitutes Conspiracy To Defraud.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Easy..... by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Easy..... by dshadowwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  13. Civil courts exist to make money for lawyers by dloyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Civil courts exist to make money for lawyers by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why other juristictions have the principle that the cost gets shared between plaintiff and defendant by comparing the sums initially demanded and finally awarded. If you demand 100,000 initially and get awarded 5,000 in the end, then you have lost 95%, thus you have to pay 95% of the legal costs.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  14. She said facetiously... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Would somebody please shoot an official of the RIAA, so that they finally get the point?"

    Of course I would not suggest such a thing in reality... but DAMN... are these people so far removed from reality that they don't know what people think of them? Or do they just not care what their customers think?

    1. Re:She said facetiously... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Would somebody please shoot an official of the RIAA, so that they finally get the point?"

      I'll do it. What server do they play on?

  15. Someone should make a video game about lawyers by dloyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    It would be a first person shooter.

    The goal would be to kill as many villains (lawyers) as possible.

    The hero would fight his way to the supreme court, leaving a long, bloody trail of greedy lawyers and corrupt judges.

  16. Old joke, but oh so true... by spike1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What have lawyers and sperm got in common?

    1 in 100,000,000 has the chance of becoming human.

  17. Her Lawyer deserves some credit too ... by Cassini2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Her Lawyer deserves some credit too ... by slicerwizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Y'all could show your thanks by making Ray your friend: http://slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=check&uid=912032
      I haven't seen a single one in this thread.

  18. Galling, it truly is. by caladine · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  19. Zealous advocate only goes so far by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'