Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA, unhappy with the Court's decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict over $23.76 worth of song files, and throwing out the legal theory on which it was based, has made a motion for permission to file an appeal from the Judge's order, in Capitol v. Thomas. Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."
I hope the RIAA is McLovin' it.
It's NEVER been about the money. It's not about compensating the artists. (Ha!)
This is 100% about trying to keep control of an entire industry in the hands of a very rich, very corrupt few.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Why won't anybody give the RIAA what they deserve? I mean come on! They must have put at least an hour and a half and three Starbucks runs into spitballing different ways of racking up $222,000 in damages.
Logic is flawed
...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.
What lawyer, where, thinks its a good idea to sue some lady for $222,000 for $23 worth of illegal filesharing? Its bad enough the RIAA tried it in the first place, but the court shot them down, and they're still at it? You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
I don't think this is a true story, but it's very creative.
The parties agree that the only evidence of actual dissemination of
copyrighted works was that Plaintiffs' agent, MediaSentry, copied songs.
Plaintiffs argue that even if distribution requires an actual transfer, the trial
evidence established transfers of copyrighted works to MediaSentry. Thomas
retorts that dissemination to an investigator acting as an agent for the copyright
owner cannot constitute infringement.
"It is well–established that the lawful owner of a copyright cannot infringe
its own copyright."
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them.
Boggle.
And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I agree that it would be unusual for the appeal to be granted. But, it does make some sense -- if, on retrial, Thomas wins with the new instruction, then the RIAA will appeal to the 8th circuit on the jury instruction. And, if the 8th circuit agrees with the "Making Available" theory, then the case would go back to the district court where a new jury would have to, again, decide if she made the works available. (Once the second trial has started, I don't think you can go back to the outcome of the first.)
How many juries do we need?
They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.
--
Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.
A successful motion response to a similarly silly motion (at least in the State of New Hampshire), was the following letter:
Honorable Justice ____:
Plaintiff has got to be kidding.
Respectfully submitted,
________ ________, Esq
I am officially gone from
They want them back.
naw it's not even creative, it's a ripoff: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=222961&mc=6&forum_id=2#3387236
The RIAA's claim that it's all about compensating the artists is indeed true.
What they aren't saying is that it's all about compensating the con-artists. :)
why? because he showed a 3-year-old internet post that contains the exact story posted by the OP?
parent seems like a textbook case of Freudian projection to me.
Warning, parent is a troll.
WARNING: Don't click that link. It's a really sick description of some fag eating a turd out of toilet (and then masturbating).
Because that would've resulted in having all their lawyers shot, drawn and quartered.
Thompson seemed to enjoy throwing around frivolous lawsuits as well.
It hadn't really hit me until I saw this sentence with the word 'seem' in the past tense.
Damn but that just looks beautiful. Thompson...seemed.
It just hadn't hit me until right now that he's history. Jeez, but I hope I live long enough to say the same about the RIAA. "The RIAA seemed to like to file frivolous lawsuits."
Ah, that's going to be great. Can't wait.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Person downloaded $24 in songs.....
RIAA wants $222,000.....
Person downloaded $24 in songs.....
RIAA wants $222,000.....
How the hell does $24 suddenly become $222,000?!
umm, Depends...
If the monopolists let this stuff continue, they begin to lose their monopoly, too. A loss for the RIAA here will push music and other media (likely movies) back into the hands of the competitive market. Then you'd see the industry start to equalize, with less-common artists making more money, and famous artists making less. Mostly, though, the monopolists wouldn't make as much money anymore, and that's what counts.
That's the only thing that I can see them really being worried about. Of course, if word got out that they would only charge you 2X or 4X the "real" worth of the purloined materials for non-business transgressions, their whole new business model probably implodes.
But they would have to admit that they are using corporate-punishments on non-corporate people.
Somehow, I think that is their worst fear.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!
Ok, I need an explanation. The artists signed a contract to the label to produce a record. The label holds the copyright to the material and the artist is paid for this. Then the record is promoted, and either sells or it doesn't.
If there's a suit for copyright infringement and there's money awarded, why WOULD the artist get any of it? It's the label's copyright that's been infringed. Any damages SHOULD go to them. If I'm hired to write some program for Adobe, it's pirated, and Adobe sues someone--why would I see any money? It's not my program. I wrote it, but it belongs to Adobe. Any lost income is theirs not mine.
It can be argued that these record contracts are pretty lopsided and go against the artist. But they are the ones that signed it. Just because they are in a bad contract doesn't mean they should get money from these suits which are for copyrights they aren't the holders to.
How can you go on a rant about a piece of shit without telling us how many Courics it was? Was it bigger than Bono? Had Obama recently been to P.F. Changs?
You'd think people who post on a tech site would at least mention technical details. Sheesh.
Plus postage.
The joke goes: "The RIAA called. They want their $222,000 verdict back."
Well I want a pony!
ugh! What sort of sick fuck posts links to shit like that? That's gross, not to mention unsanitary. CmdrTaco should ban his troll ass for posting that link.
.....take the jury members out and hang them in the public square by their thumbs and let the crows consume the scumbags.
What 200%? Try 2000!
The first link in the summary to the post on recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com is wonky. Actual permalink is:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#6982228835079988736
PJ can't (won't) see it as a complete failure on the court system in the US but SCO are still spending money that is Novell's and still getting away with extensions and continued hidden processing.
They haven't fallen.
When IBM decided not to pay up to SCO, they lost their money. Their only aim since then is to make sure only them and their pals get money and the ones they sued (Linux proponents who deserved to be punished for their apostasy) must spend lots of money to stop SCO making false and damaging statements but NEVER get their money.
Then Jammie can distribute those songs to the world and remit 75% of zero dollars to RIAA.
I'm fairly certain that this isn't what the RIAA would accept for $220,000. So if it wasn't paying for distribution what was it for?
RAY BECKERMAN: Everything I saw told me that the RIAA has gone insane. The place was full of bodies: Napster, Limewire, young children, innocent grandmothers. If I was still alive, it was because they wanted me that way.
RIAA: Where are you from, Beckerman?
RB: New York, sir.
RIAA: I worked in New York back in the old days; we pressed vinyl there. It was like heaven on earth then. Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedoms - from the opinions of others, even the opinions of your 'clients'? You say why..., Beckerman, why you wanted to terminate my control of the music industry? What did they tell you?
RB: They told me that you had gone totally insane and that your methods were unsound.
RIAA: Are my methods unsound?
RB: I don't see any method at all, sir.
RIAA: I never expected anyone like you. Are you a pirate?
RB: I'm a lawyer.
RIAA: You're neither. You're a monkey wrench, wrecking the beautiful engine of my protection racket.
(brief court recess)
RIAA: We are the hollow men / We are the stuffed men
Leaning together / Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when / We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass / Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar / Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion
I've seen horrors . . . extortion that you've seen. But you have no right to call me musical. You have a right to depose me. You have a right to do that . . . But you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for music to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what extortion means. Extortion. Extortion has a face . . . And you must make a friend of extortion. Extortion and financial terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.
RB: They were going to make me a Digg Hero for this and I wasn't subscribed to their fucking RSS feed any more. Everybody wanted me to do it, everybody except those on the take of course. I felt like they were sitting there, dreading for me to take the gravy train away. They just apparently wanted to go out like douchebags, like poor, wasted, rag-assed dinosaurs. Even the musicians wanted them dead, not that they really took their orders from musicians anyway.
(The gavel falls.)
RIAA: The Extortion! The Extortion!
$META_SIG_JOKE
... a standard sarcasm-calibration post. That way people can check their sarcasm detector is correctly aligned before moderating or commenting.
IANAL. I'm using common sense here, which may be the wrong tool for the job, but reading the request to appeal, it makes sense to me UNLESS granting it means that the RIAA can appeal this decision twice.
What the RIAA is saying is that it is a question of law that canceled the the previous trial (whether merely making available constitutes copyright violation), and the result of this appeal may result in significant cost savings (if it turns out it is, then no error in the jury instructions, and therefor no need for a new trial). They say this point will be appealed one way or the other, and so they ask to make things simpler and faster by appealing this point now.
This, to me, makes sense, provided the following scenario is not possible:
If the above scenario is not made impossible, then the RIAA are actually asking here for an extra, unwarranted, appeal venue, and I see no sense in granting the request.
Shachar
"Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."
The RIAA is of course, expecting special treatment in this case too. (Oh cmon, do you really think that any other organization would be able to pull this whole 5/10-year running lawsuit crap? Of course they have gotten special treatment.)
The funny (or maybe sad) thing is, given the cult-like zeal of some of his followers, it's entirely believable that, given the chance, they would eat his poo.
I guess they will never be happy, even when everybody tells them THEY are the problem not the solution. Geez, telling the courts you don't agree will hopefully cost them all their money in fines and fess, and then go bankrupt and leave us to our torrents!
How could the cost to distribute the CDs exceed the cost of the CDs? If that were the case, I would just go to WalMart and buy the CDs and distribute them...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Just wait a couple years. Once Barack Obama has to make executive decisions (not just uplifting but vague speeches), you'll find his shit actually does stink, you sick bastard.
It seems to me the only way that gets addressed is if they start losing with costs, and maybe punitive damages for having the gal to try. I find it distressing that they very visibly abuse the legal system, even after warnings by judges not to. Only heavy sanctions can rectify this as warnings very clearly have no effect whatsoever.
What's the state of that case where someone started to fight back with a class action (if I recall correctly)? Anywhere near going to court?
Insert
If I look what NYCL does I think your statement (actually, it is really a theory) is already disproved. And, FWIW, I actually know a few lawyers I could commend for their ethics. I also know a few (and some judges) in another country I would immediately help with an anvil if they were drowning so I'm sort of in the middle of this.
Further, a lawyer does have a professional duty to help a client with the law. That does not mean they like it, because sometimes they have to continue doing so from professional ethics after it emerges that the client hasn't been quite as truthful as they should. That is really a crap position to be in..
Not a job for me, even if I managed to stay on the "nice" side..
Insert
Ok, IAONAL (The "O" stands for "Obviously"), but isn't the RIAA a gross violation of anti-trust seeing as how it is essentially collusion in the most extreme form? Aren't there laws put in place that prevent all major companies in a given market from getting together and making price fixing and other agreements in unison? I seem to remember a certain spectacle wearing badass President who helped make that kind of stuff illegal.
So why is the RIAA, MPAA, and other collussive (ok, I guess that's not a word) organizations allowed to exist?
That deposition is too funny... I read about halfway through before I just had to grep it for "squeal like a pig." It just goes to show you what I have always said: PhD stands for poor helpless dummy.
Especially since, gee haven't you noticed, most courts don't like to stick their necks out. That lovely word "moot" comes into play here that if the Appeals Court justices let this fully play out down at the district court level the whole thing may be "moot" (there's that word again) by the time it could ever reach them. And wouldn't that be lovely - for them?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But in a way, you can understand their financial motivation for doing so. If they can win a six digits jackpot for every single Peer-to-Peer user they crush under their foot, they stand to make billions of dollars with the blessing of the judicial system. That's a LOT more money than they could ever earn by releasing crappy "best of" albums with just one new song...