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."
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!
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-
They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Not so much. You should see the sorts of motions that are filed on a daily basis. If their attorneys did not file for such appeal, its not only bad strategy but missing such opportunities is the foundation of malpractice. That being said, the appellate courts have a rule (FRAP 37) that grants the courts power to sanction attorneys for frivolous appeals. Up to the point of FRAP 37 sanctions, it is normal to file as many motions as one has time to in major cases.
Further - exhaustive motion practice is a legitimate strategy where Repeat Players (RIAA is regularly involved in litigation, and needs to be careful to "control" precedent) are up against One-Shot players (individuals who will only be involved in this sort of litigation once). The Repeat Player has extra incentive to invest in the litigation, and may overwhelm the incentive the One-Shot player has. It is for this reason that sanctions exist - courts may order attorney's fees awarded to a winning party where the losing party's conduct was vexatious or in bad faith.
by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously
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
HEY!
My dad's a lawyer and my mom's dead..... Oh.
That explains why "Umbrella Corporation" is on your birth certificate...
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. :)
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.
That would be because the RIAA have been shouting from the mountaintops since the dawn of time that it's all about the artist. They want to stop filesharing because, according to them, it directly takes money away from the artists in the form of lost sales. Every single anti-P2P campaign you see from them is preaching the same thing. "Please don't hurt the poor artists."
But in reality, they're just trying to line their own coffers. When someone settles for some outrageous fee, not a damned cent of that goes to "making the artist whole" or making up for their lost sales. Nope, it goes directly into either the lawyer's wallets or the legal war-chest. The artist continues to get screwed to the tune of pennies per album sold, and tough shit about those lost sales killing your already paltry (unless you're Metallica or some other hyper-famous act) royalty payments.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Somebody mod parent down. It obviously wouldn't work.
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497