Judge Tells RIAA To Stop 'Bankrupting' Litigants

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Boston judge who has consolidated all of the RIAA's Massachusetts cases into a single case over which she has been presiding for the past 5 years delivered something of a rebuke to the RIAA's lawyers, we have learned. At a conference this past June, the transcript of which (PDF) has just been released, Judge Nancy Gertner said to them that they 'have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers ... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it ...' She also acknowledged that 'there is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources,' while it is futile for self-represented defendants to resist. The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,' and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies,' even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."

Comments

It's too bad

[mcgrew]

Too bad that our legislators aren't as honest and bright as this judge. Too bad that the mainstream media always sides with the MAFIAA; but it's not surprising, considering the same people who own the newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations also own the major record labels and movie studios.

The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all. I'm thinking of the movie Brazil and the old TV show Dinasaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".

I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted. Ray, maybe you could use this angle in a court case?

Re:It's too bad

[Shagg]

I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.

It's the uploader's job to figure out if something they want to distribute is covered under copyright. They're the ones getting taken to court.

Re:It's too bad

[Firehed]

No, often times downloaders are getting sued too. And while everyone reading Slashdot knows that it's copyright infringement, I'd put money on there being a fair few people that have been sued who don't know a damn thing about copyright law, and even a couple who honestly didn't know it was illegal at all or consider it wrong (back in the original Napster days, I sure as hell didn't know any better, though I was in sixth grade or so at the time). Remember, common sense isn't nearly as common as it once was. Granted, this doesn't make ignorance of the law acceptable, but it makes six-figure settlements that much more insane. I could see $1000 as the upper limit of what I could consider even somewhat reasonable (for a downloader) - it's more than enough to send the message, but won't drive people to take out a large life insurance policy and then go suicide bomb the RIAA HQ.

For uploading the material, I certainly understand a harsher fine, but what they're asking for in damages is still insane. Of the little music I've purchased in the last five years or so, I've pirated 100% of it first, and of what I've pirated and haven't bought, I just don't listen. Not everyone is like that of course, but what they're claiming for damages is completely unreasonable given what percentage of downloads actually are legitimate lost sales.

Re:It's too bad

[geekoid]

"No, often times downloaders are getting sued too."

Only downloaders who are also distributing; Which is the default in most tools.

Read the copyright law again.

Common sense has never been common.

Re:It's too bad

[Hatta]

What I can't figure out is how these statutory damages could ever be considered constitutional. The Eighth Amendment is short and sweet, and pretty damn clear in its meaning:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Any person with even the slightest shred of decency can see that fining someone 10,000 times the value of an item they misappropriated is excessive.

Re:With friends like her ....

[Ethanol-fueled]

The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,'

Come on, now. Let's not be greedy or ungrateful. Sometimes change must happen gradually and we shouldn't bite the hand for feeding us so long as it is doing the Right Thing(tm).

Re:Why should copyright-breakers have it easier?

[yincrash]

What about the falsely accused?

Re:Why should copyright-breakers have it easier?

[homer_s]

The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option

The legal system is the mafiaa here.
The ABA refuses to accredit schools which do not spend enough money (hence charge students a lot of money) on professors and libraries - even though more students of these schools pass the bar exam in the first sitting that even Harvard (I forget the name of the school - it was out of Utah or Colarado).

It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know. Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.

Re:Sanity Check?

[idiot900]

Wow, you're dense. The judge was clearly being sarcastic in this comment. If you read the rest of the text, it seems awfully like the judge was trying to help Mr. Atkinson by implying that his son should tell the plaintiffs he has no money, having just graduated from school, rather than Mr. Atkinson giving his son money to pay the settlement.

This judge clearly feels that while the RIAA is legally correct, their heavy-handed approach to dealing with people who don't really cause all that much damage, cannot afford a lawyer, and have no clue about the legal system, is a despicable way to attempt to solve their problems.

Bankrupt people

[the_arrow]

Bankrupt people can not pay their fees to the record companies, and neither can they (or will, probably) buy new music. It has been said before, but it seems like the record companies are shooting themselves in both their feet.

Re:Summary is Inflamatory and Unforgiving

[Gutboy]

Summary author is a Lawyer who has been fighting the RIAA for years now. I believe he does understand the role that judges fill, one is to make sure that the court is fair to both sides.

Re:throw the book at those pirates!

[vux984]

There is a damage component and a punishment component. Its reasonable for damages to scale up as actual damages go up... there is no reason to do the same for punishment.

The problem with the penalties for copyright is that they are punitively applied 'per infringement'. Getting nailed for $500 for violating copyright is actually a reasonable punishment, call it $2 damages, and $498 for punishment; that's a relatively fair outcome.

The problem is that sharing 22 songs SHOULDN'T be counted as 22 separate acts of infringement; the damages might be at most $2 x 22 = $44, plus the SAME $498 for punishment. So the final award for 22 songs ought to be around $542, not $11,000, and certainly not $222,000.

Swing and a...

[copponex]

It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know.

No, it isn't, unless you claim you are a lawyer.

Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.

A lawyer who has 1) grown up on welfare, 2) has shown at least some interest in returning balance to income inequality which threatens our entire culture, and 3) will replace the Bush Administration with a cabinet full of something besides the Bush Administration.

If the ABA were under government oversight, you could pressure your congressperson to change the way it runs, or cut their funding. Since it has no governmental oversight, all you can do is bitch. That's the "freedom" of unregulated but necessary industry - they're free to extort money, you're free to waste your breath complaining about it.

Re:With friends like her ....

[Moryath]

It sounds like someone needs to take this transcript, build a very coherent response countering any points she screwed up on while congratulating the things she got right, and give her a counter to remind her that she has contributed to this problem by paying attention too much to the MafiAA side so far.

Re:With friends like her ....

[lucas teh geek]

if you're repurposing the gp's post you need to also replace "truth" with "profit" for it to even make sense. you missed the point the gp was making completely

Re:Why should copyright-breakers have it easier?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Um, lolwut? Corporations did not exist? Or large corporations did not exist?

Like, say, the Hudson's Bay Company, who at the time the Constitution was written, as with the British East India Company, probably had a greater ability to project force than most countries, and at various times in the past had actually exercised governmental functions?

Does Microsoft operate a fleet of warships and control its own country now?