Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Gives Up In Atlantic Recording v. Brennan
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic Recording v. Brennan, the landmark Connecticut case in which the first decision rejecting the RIAA's 'making available' theory was handed down, the RIAA has finally thrown in the towel and dismissed its own case. Mr. Brennan never appeared in the case at all. In February, 2008, the RIAA's motion for a default judgment was rejected for a number of reasons, including the Court's ruling (PDF) that there is no claim for 'making available for distribution' under the US Copyright Act. The RIAA moved for reconsideration; that motion was denied. Then, in December, the RIAA's second motion for default judgment was rejected. Finally the RIAA filed a 'notice of dismissal' ending the case."
Its ow available for distribution on my website...
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
We can expect our good friends of the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats to file more lawsuits and claim that their arguments were never rejected in court because they dismissed their counterclaim before the judge could smack it down. Business as usual for the scum of the earth, I guess. Hey remember when these guys used to SELL MUSIC?
The rejection of the making available argument appears to have stuck, but in dismissing the case does the law still recognize the summary judgment as a precedent for future cases?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm guessing that by "gives up" TFA actually means "is allowed to leave without any consequences for filing a meritless suit". This seems rather like finding a thief in your house and having him give your stuff back and leave. I'd rather have my stuff back than not; but somehow justice seems underserved.
That's not true! We have lots of (simulated) sex with really hot (CG) women at all the hottest (second life) clubs!
...or is it looking more and more like the RIAA has realized that downloading really isn't hurting them, and they don't want the embarrassment of admitting it publicly, so they're just slowly backing off from their "Piracy is da debil!" stance and hoping that we won't notice?
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Anyone who paid attention and had even a hobbyist's legal training could see that the goal of the RIAA lawsuit in question was primarily intimidation.
Transmitting copyright material without authorization (or without a solid fair use claim) is illegal, and I don't begrudge copyright-holders their ability to do so. But simply advertising that you might have some information someone might want? This gets far into the realm of Orwellian and rightly doesn't have any legal teeth.
My bet is that the RIAA is quietly formulating ideas about how to push for legislation that will allow them to draw and quarter... *ahem* litigate against individuals who imply that they might have some copyright content available. Hopefully those of us who get the silliness can educate Congress and keep that from happening.
The system does, kinda-sorta, work. ;-)
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Why would anyone be able to get sued anymore for the "making available" thing? Don't they have to now have evidence that someone actually got a song from you ?
Is there any way the RIAA can now be held accountable for the costs incurred by the legal system for reviewing the this nonsense?
The RIAA hogs the civil justice system for racketeering and ruining people's lives and simply gets to walk away unscathed when they smell a loss?
Is there any way for people who settled or were prosecuted with similar arguments to have a new case or see their deal reviewed in the legal system? With all the cases going on about what the real costs of each file is worth and that making available is not enough, it would be nice to see all those people bilked for money get something back. However I would assume that's unlikely since those deals/cases are all closed.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
Attorney's fees?
Because if I'm not totally mistaken, the standard RIAA tactic on them is:
1. Argue against any counterclaims for attorney's fees on the basis that those can always be handled after the case has been decided and is thus redundant.
2. If they're going to lose (and thus be subject to an attorney's fees hearing), withdraw the case so that no attorney's fees decision gets in front of a judge.
The obvious risk here is that attorney's fees are essential to deterring the "pay up or I'll cost you even more in legal fees" tactic.
I am officially gone from
Sounds fair to me... That lawsuit could have been affecting at least 720 people!
Yay! Nice to see this guy managed to beat the RIAA and avoid having to pay thousands of dollars to make a bogus accusation go away.
Oh. Right. Lawyer's fees.
Or should they have to repay everybody for all the time and money they've wasted.
No sig today...
Being accused amounts to a punishment as it requires a HUGE expenditure to defend yourself.
I would assume that the only recourse in that event is to file another lawsuit. Of course, since it's a separate case, any lawyer who takes it will want a third of any settlement or judgment, which means you'd have to seek damages in excess of 150% of your original attorney's fees.
If that happens, the ironic thing is that you could clearly argue Brennan's activities never actually resulted in monetary loss to Atlantic... but their witch hunt lawsuit sure as hell did.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
There is a real person behind every avatar.
Note: I said person. Not woman.
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice. If they can, that will allow them to get out of paying the other party's legal fees but allow them to refile the case in the future. If they cannot, they can be held responsible for the legal fees and cannot refile.
So what I want to know it, what is the point where the judges say "Put up or shut up"? I know in the Oklahoma case (don't have the particulars on hand), the RIAA was forced to accept a dismissal with prejudice because significant discovery had already been done. I wonder in this case, had discovery even commenced or did the RIAA try to get a default judgment based on what they had and once they could not get that, dismiss to avoid discovery and the related issues.
I had also read somewhere in one of the RIAA cases that the judge's decision was based on the fact that the defendant has the right to their day in court too if there is a legal issue to prove their innocence. Will that factor here too?
You are wrong. Some of us are unhealthily underweight. In fact the skinny nerd with the thick glasses is the stereotype. And some of us do get laid [NSFW]
And it isn't true about us all being Linux zealots. There are Mac zealots here too!
Free Martian Whores!
The RIAA has being going about this all wrong. I don't think there's so much a case of "making available" being direct grounds for copyright infringement as much as there is a case that making something available would forego any possible claims that it was for personal use only (because really, how can you argue that it was for personal use if you deliberately make it available to others?). I would think that it would even factor into whether or not fair use is applicable as well. This, in turn, _could_ reasonably implicate copyright infringement, depending on whether one had permission to be making copies of the work that weren't for personal use in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You sound like an RIAA investigator.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
that they are liable for the defendant's court costs? I should certainly hope so!
And some of us do get laid [NSFW] [slashdot.org]
Here are ten strategies that can actually get you in bed with a member of the opposite sex, whether you're a male nerd or a female nerd.
When has a female anything needed ten strategies to get laid? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
anyone else?
Indies also sell their music, and anyone who professes to hate the RIAA should be sure to buy music from indie performers.
The problem is that most :indies" are - CRAP - and few want to listen to them. That's why they are "indies". Otherwise, some lable would have flashed moo-lah in front of them a long time ago.
They MAY be the scum of the earth ...
Except Ray Beckerman.
And Pamela Jones, who is not a lawyer but a paralegal.
Hey, Ray and Pamela! Both of you are quite compatible, and have similar ideals. Are both of you single? If so, can we matchmake you?
You sound like an RIAA investigator.
Are the RIAA investigators really so incompetent that they'd need to troll Slashdot looking for advic.... scratch that, they are that incompetent.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Give me a default judgment. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor, so having a trial is a waste of time.
No, really, give me a default judgment. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor, so having a trial is a waste of time.
Oh, we're going to have a trial? Well, then I have no chance. I give up.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I, for one, was of the opinion that holding liable people who make copyrighted materials available is sensible.
Even if nobody takes advantage of the availability?
In many circumstances, they are, after all, just as party to causing damages to the copyright holder as the person/people who take advantage of the availability.
If someone DOES download them, it's the person who distributed them who IS liable. The "making available" theory isn't saying "the distributor is liable"... that's true regardless. The "making available" theory is "if someone MIGHT have been able to download them, then you're guilty of distributing them".
How long till RIAA starts asking for Bailout money?? ;)
The entertainment industry was an extremely enthusiastic and early backer of Barack Obama. When he needed large masses of money to make abandoning the finance system smart, they were ponying up millions for him, in a single night, so he didn't have to do multiple big fundraisers. The Democratic Party has been a heavy recipient of financial support from them. Unions supplied the GOTV manpower for the party, even if Senator Obama built his own network as well, and the entertainment industry, trial lawyers, and other big money components like Wall Street (Wall Street has been 2:1 Democrat since the Party and Street realized under Clinton that a careful tax and regulation policy can snuff out competition, raising stock prices, even if you have to pay more in taxes).
There are many positive aspects to Sen. Obama's election and becoming President in 11 days. There may be some positive aspects of the enlarged Democratic majority in Congress (I hate large majorities in Congress, because if you don't need moderates in both parties, the wing nuts are in charge).
But don't pretend that pro Entertainment legislation, laws that make more things civil torts as enforcement, and business regulations that somehow entrench the oligopolies that most of the S&P 500 firms operate in, and protect the existing financial sector players at the expense of smaller competition isn't part of the equation.
When the GOP gets power, the religious right gets bones on a bunch of abortion related policies (funding orgs, etc.), the military industrial complex gets Fed, defense contractors get big contracts, etc.
But, if you expect the new administration and Congress to be supportive of the anti-copyright ideals of Slashdot, you are simply ignoring who butters the Democratic Parties bread.
And you wonder why Barockstar is being told not to use his Crack Berry when he assumes office!
Ray,
First, thank you for (a) your work on behalf of the RIAA's targets (b) your explanations to those of us not legally trained on the details of these suits.
That said, with the RIAA walking away, what is the likelihood of recovering costs? And if this is a de-facto dismissal-with-prejudice, does this set any sort of precedence for the other active cases?
SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!
Ray, First, thank you for (a) your work on behalf of the RIAA's targets (b) your explanations to those of us not legally trained on the details of these suits. That said, with the RIAA walking away, what is the likelihood of recovering costs?
There is no likelihood, since Mr. Brennan never showed up.
And if this is a de-facto dismissal-with-prejudice, does this set any sort of precedence for the other active cases?
No, but the February 13, 2008, decision did.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So what I want to know it, what is the point where the judges say "Put up or shut up"?
I don't think they're going to mess with Judge Janet Bond Atherton again, any time soon.
Hi, Mr Beckerman, or anyone who is happy to answer me.
Is the district court ruling the highest that can stop the RIAA?
What's going to stop the RIAA from aiming even higher, such as...?
What's going to stop other big companies from doing similar things in future?
You say that as if the U.S. Founders were all in agreement, but that was not the case. The Northerners wanted to count slaves as whole people, whereas the Southerners refused to acknowledge blacks as being human.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong... The SOUTH wanted to count them as whole people for purposes of apportionment, the North didn't want them counted at all because they didn't have a vote.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
The defendant might still be able to recover costs and/or expenses if he wants to try. That is up to the judge. It's easier to get into court than to get out of it. You can't necessarily say "Oh well, that didn't work" and walk away.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
When ISPs say "taxing their infrastructure", that is a euphemism for "utilising their infrastructure". If they are selling me 8meg broadband and I am using more than 8meg of bandwidth then the problem is at their end not mine, most users don't even know how to restrict their own bandwidth. Internet bandwidth is increasing and media sharers are one of the few groups that are able to take full advantage of the technology. This is bad for the ISPs because they can generally re-sell already sold but unused bandwidth, increasing their profits. If everyone uses their allocated bandwidth or less there is no reason why average users should have any problem browsing the web and reading emails.
ISPs selling you x amount of bandwidth and then complaining when you use it are ridiculous, selling my bandwidth to someone else is irresponsible profiteering. So rather than a common enemy it is more like the RIAA has recognised this and said "hey we have been doing that for ages, maybe we can do some cooperative irresponsible profiteering"
I think what they really want is permission to simply fine people for sharing without it going through civil courts, then they can split the profit.
+1, Insightful. I wish more people realized that this is how things work.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
You won't ever get that. If you share one copyright-protected item without permission, the copyright-holder has standing to sue you. Whether or not you actually get sued depends entirely on whether the plaintiff (a)notices you, and (b)considers you worth the effort.
You don't know how the legal system works, do you? Specifics of a settlement are commonly sealed, but the rest of the proceeding -- including the details of the complaints -- is public record. It's possible to seal them, but very unusual (pretty much, the complaints themselves must, by necessity, contain information that would be harmful if released [e.g. in trade-secret litigation] -- this has never, to my knowledge, happened in a copyright-infringement suit).
Go to the library and ask your reference librarian about how you'd find relevant cases. Remember that they're not allowed to give legal advice, but they can help you find what you're looking for.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Now they are miffed and wounded will someone please place a half sized Hiroshima device under them and light the red touch paper get rid of once and for all
Oh and i almost forgot run like the freakin clappers after you lit the touch paper dont want ya butt scorched.
When has a female anything needed ten strategies to get laid? ;)
A forty two year old four foot ten inch two hundred fifty pound woman with bad hair, thick glasses, and dorky clothes has an even harder time getting laid than I do!
Butt ugly and socially inept is butt ugly and socially inept no matter what sex you are.
Free Martian Whores!
Time is money, so any time you fight against a corporation doing idiotic things, it is going to cost someone. The only shame here is that someone didn't fight back earlier with this defense. If you are concerned about money being spent, you will cheer this dismissal. Consider it an investment, because those settlement letters are losing their effectiveness every time RIAA gets their crappy legal theories shot down. And that costs the people less money overall.
Justice is not a waste of money, it's all of the passive settling that people did. They gave up a little money, collectively, to avoid being personally hit for a bunch of money. And basically, that's what you're complaining about - the taxpayers collectively giving up a little money so they don't get individually hit with this silly prosecution idea. Only this way, the prosecution's ideas get thrown out (yes, slowly) until they come up with something valid.
Whether the RIAA will stop going after individuals is still being debated, but they at least made the announcement, meaning they know it's not effective, or it's not based on sound legal theory.
thank you for that.
Hasn't anyone compiled some kind of anonymous grouping?
Colleges seem most publicized.
What I am hearing is that the RIAA Blitzkrieg is purposely broad-based, so they sue pety-thieves and grand-larceny with the same vigor?
Anyone else?
those settlement letters are losing their effectiveness every time RIAA gets their crappy legal theories shot down. And that costs the people less money overall. Justice is not a waste of money, it's all of the passive settling that people did. They gave up a little money, collectively, to avoid being personally hit for a bunch of money.
Exactly. Every "settlement" payment was just adding fuel to the fire, encouraging them to go after other people. And every time someone refused to settle, they were helping to bring about an end of the madness.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Is that a typo or did you actually use symbolic logic in a sentence? If so, that's an awesome addition to the language, even better than If&Only If.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
OK, Ray, we all love you here, but does that mean if the RIAA showed up at your door with a truck full of money tomorrow, you'd start suing widows and orphans for them?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
The easiest way I've found to file share and not get sued is to hold RIAA family members hostage under threat of death.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Did Mr. Brennan pay any money at all to defend himself, even if he did not show up? Even retaining a lawyer?
He should be reimbursed if so. I never showed up in any court, I always had my lawyer do it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
you must not work at FedEx.
You don't have a case.
You never had a case.
Now get out of my courtroom!
But your Honor, if we could just inspect every bit on his hard drive there'd be something...
No! Leave now!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Nope, I quit working the hub long ago. I got tired of seeing 1 cubic foot boxes that were labeled government property and took four people to lift.
Always wondered what the hell they were shipping. Must be gold or something.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
do you have children? If so, we can rule out plutonium. Take care.
I expect them to switch gears and lobby for more strict copyright laws that ban owning of P2P software and other measures. Congress has proven far more amenable to their wishes than the courts.
they files 212 lawsuits the day after they said they had stopped suing people.
when there companies control the media you read then you too are a victim of it.