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."
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice.
Under the Federal Rules, a second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. This is the second case against Mr. Brennan, the first being the case in which they sued him as a John Doe, obtained a subpoena, learned his name and address, and then dismissed. So it would appear to me that this is 'with prejudice' even though they have labeled it 'without prejudice'. In any event, I don't think they're going to mess with Judge Janet Bond Atherton again, any time soon.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What the RIAA has realized is that the lawsuits are ineffective (duh, big surprise, dumbasses)
Digital music guy Steve Meyer just came out with a good article on that subject.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The indies are far more honest and reasonable; they give the music away on websites and via P2P, using the music itself as a reason for you to buy other things (CDs, t-shirts, etc).
Indies also sell their music, and anyone who professes to hate the RIAA should be sure to buy music from indie performers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I believe it's ... illegal in the U.S. for a lawyer to refuse a case based on their personal opinions one way or the other
You are 100% incorrect.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Consider yourself corrected...
Only a public defender *has* to take a case and even then there are ways to get out of it. A private lawyer working, usually, with the initiator of a law suit, can say no for any reason they want (outside of normal discrimination laws)
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I've been reading these stories for years and wanted to thank you for the good work you have all done. It's changed my perspective and my families purchasing habits with music. Everyone I speak with knows I don't purchase music when the RIAA will benefit from it. I go to sites such as secondspin.com, gametz.com or amazon.com marketplace and purchase second hand music if I must have that song. Also I've been using google to find independents to purchase directly online. The internet is a liberating tool. Another reason I'm hoping it becomes like public roads. Everyone should have it available and fast. This way we can punish organizations such as these guys by taking our money elsewhere. Over the last few years I've also switched my home computers to Ubuntu Linux (kicking Microsoft out) and replaced Concast Internet with a local provider. Similar reasons. I don't like their poor attitude and won't do business with them. This is the only way everyday people will get these companies attention. Perhaps they will figure it out. Then again, perhaps they will be the ones asking for a bail out as well. Thanks again and keep up the great work!
On behalf of the folks who have suffered so much from this long RIAA nightmare, thank YOU for being so conscientious about being sure not to do business with the bad guys. I keep a list of independent music sources for consumers such as yourself.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm not an attorney, but I do have some legal experience. Let me show you the imperfections in your analogy. (Note, none of this is legal advice; if you need that, hire a real lawyer).
Announcing on a website that "hey, I'm making heroin, I'll be selling it later" is not, of itself illegal. It's quite possibly probable cause for investigation, perhaps even a search warrant. If you actually were making heroin, you'll be charged with a crime. If you actually were planning to sell heroin, you'll be charged with a crime. If you did neither of those things, you'll end up with some hassle, but you've done nothing wrong.
Pay special attention to the "crime" portion of that explanation -- under most circumstances, copyright infringement is not a crime (see this article for an explanation) -- it's a civil matter.
My saying "hey, I have a Beatles CD that you could make a copy of" is legal. Making the copy is almost always legal. Actually giving the copy to someone is probably illegal, but not a crime -- if I'm Apple Records, I can file suit to get you to stop, and maybe I can even collect some damages.
Now, if you start selling the copy, now you might be in crime territory. If you sell enough copies, it could even be a felony. But simply announcing that you have them for sale isn't illegal, it's actually selling or attempting to sell (making a general offer like "I have some copied music I might be willing to sell" usually isn't enough, but making a specific offer like "give me $0.99 for this song copy" is probably enough to qualify as "selling").
US law is a murky, murky world; this is why lawyers are rich -- more money is made from advising people on how to interpret all the twisty little packages than is made on filing and defending lawsuits.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Sheet music for musicians actually falls under very similar copyright laws. If you go down to the retail sheet music store and buy a piece of sheet music, you are legally not allowed to photocopy that sheet music any more than you're legally allowed to copy a CD or downloaded MP3 or any other book for that matter. If your copy of the media (usually paper, more recently downloaded PDF files) is destroyed or rendered useless then you're generally SOL and must purchase it again, just like with CDs or paid MP3s.
If you run a group, such as a school band or orchestra, you legally should buy a separate copy of the sheet music for each member of the group or make them share. While performance rights are generally not restricted you are not legally allowed to make a recording of your performance without securing permission from the publisher (which usually involves money changing hands).
Some publishers will make other concessions as part of their standard package. For example, when my wife taught elementary music she subscribed to a magazine that gave her new music for her students once a month. Part of the subscription was a license to copy the magazine as much as she wanted for her school, but not for anyone else (even other teachers in the same district). In this area at least, all of the major contests require that you provide the judges with original scores to the music (not photocopies) so that they can follow along. This provides reasonable assurance to the judges and the contest people that you've actually paid for the music like you were supposed to. If you have some other sort of agreement with the publisher then they require proof of that (my wife photocopied the license page out of the magazine).
As a general rule musicians realize the work and effort that goes into composing music and are happy to pay for it and help pad the composer's royalty check. Many band/orchestra directors ignore these laws and photocopy to their heart's content (especially when their students are prone to lost sheet music) just like many individuals freely copy MP3s. It's not uncommon even in a professional setting to be handed photocopies of music rather than the originals. Enforcement is VERY lax.
I'll leave others to debate the merits of the law, but those are the laws.
I said he was incorrect. A civil lawyer does not have to accept any case he doesn't want to accept. Each and every one of the RIAA lawyers is fully and personally responsible for what he or she has done. There is nothing about being a lawyer which excuses their behavior.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Even the destitute can find a lawyer who will represent them, given a decent change of winning.
Only if it's the type of case that lawyers customarily handle on a contingent fee basis, such as personal injury.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's the problem with the RIAA's lawyers. In my opinion, they crossed the ethics line. I can get behind advocating for a client you don't agree with. I can't get behind breaking the law, misrepresenting facts, and filing suits without an adequate basis.
Thanks for expressing it so well, Zordak.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful