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."
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?
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.
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
Is there any way the RIAA can now be held accountable for the costs incurred by the legal system for reviewing the this nonsense?
Sounds fair to me... That lawsuit could have been affecting at least 720 people!
It's just you. The RIAA hasn't realized anything of the nature, whether true or not. What the RIAA has> realized is that the lawsuits are ineffective (duh, big surprise, dumbasses) and that there are less costly and probably more effective ways of dealing with copyright infringement, such as pushing the responsibility over to the ISPs.
As I've said before, I think the RIAA has discovered a way to either force or at least entice ISPs to do their bidding.
I'm not in the loop on this, but here's the entirety of what I think
1) P2P has, most recently and very publicly, become a headache for high speed Internet providers. P2P traffic taxes their infrastructure, so they make moves to block or at least limit it, including everything from additional charges through routing changes, to downright packet manipulation.
2) RIAA has a different reason for disliking P2P. But they see that the ISPs have a common enemy here: P2P.
3) The only remaining question is -- where to go from here? P2P is prevalent enough and has enough legitimate uses that the ISPs don't want to outright cancel customers, but they also don't want customers taxing their infrastructure to the max.
How do RIAA and the ISPs team up in this regard? It's a good question. I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of network neutrality.
My blog
So to play Devil's Advocate, if you know that you've got a loser (either because new evidence comes to light or just by the way that the trial is moving), you think that they should continue to waste taxpayer money in order to avoid a fine rather than cutting their (and the taxpayer) losses and dismissing the case?
P2P has, most recently and very publicly, become a headache for high speed Internet providers. P2P traffic taxes their infrastructure, so they make moves to block or at least limit it, including everything from additional charges through routing changes, to downright packet manipulation.
Yeah, P2P has become a headache for ISPs but how much of that headache is caused on music vs video? I could download/upload 60 mp3s and probably not have the same impact on my ISP as the neighbor downloading last nights American Idol......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
When a prosecutor or litigant voluntarily closes a case, the government should impose a fine for "wasting taxpayer dollars" or something similar.
Because the law as it is is restricted to the wealthy, but isn't restricted to the rich enough?
The intent is good, but your suggestion would achieve the opposite of your stated goal: Only the very rich could sue, because THEY can afford the fees.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.