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."
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?
Actually, I doubt they will file any more lawsuits, considering they are trying to work with the ISPs (AKA shift the bad PR away from themselves) to "handle" downloaders.
And as they have their claws into Obama via Biden and not an RIAA lawyer appointed to the administration (Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general). To me hiring this man comes awful close to breaking a promise of not lobbyist in his administration..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
...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.
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?
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
Maybe NYCL can answer this one, but if they brought a case and admitted later that it was not based on any real laws does this set up a countersuit for barratry? And can this be done in a way that will set a precedent?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I'm not cheering. Think about how much money was wasted by RIAA, by the defendant, and by the U.S. Government prosecuting a case that went nowhere.
When a prosecutor or litigant voluntarily closes a case, the government should impose a fine for "wasting taxpayer dollars" or something similar. Discourage RIAA and others from wasting the People's money on BS cases.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I agree with you, but until such time as I can buy a Britney Spears CD or a Speedracer DVD, try them, determine they are trash, and return them for either a refund or store credit, then I will continue to pirate. I am sick-and-tired of wasting my money buying Hollywood trash.
Any other industry, even the food industry, guarantees satisfaction or your money back. There's no reason for the entertainment industry to be any different. I consider refusal to provide refunds/credits to be as bad as corporate theft.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
Ah! But from the article:
Although the notice states it is "without prejudice", under the federal rules a second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.
This would constitute the second voluntary dismissal, the first being in the "John Doe" case in which it obtained the defendant's name and address.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't know what the limits of this are, but the site is making it sound like this second dismissal can be used by defense lawyers in other cases in a similar way that a defense win could have been used.
I realize this will sound like the stereotypical slashdot corporations-are-evil attitude, but I think we need something slightly more complicated. Without going into details, the result should be:
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and wins, everyone pays their own legal bills
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and loses, $giant_corporation pays all the costs for the entire trial
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and wins, $giant_corporation pays $little_guy's legal fees, but not other court costs
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and loses, everyone pays their own legal fees
Defining $giant_corporation and $little_guy are somewhat problematic, but the decision should be made based on the total annual income of each party, or on the total annual legal expenses of each party, or some combination thereof, without actually considering weather the litigants are individuals or corporations. This system is somewhat biased against people who can afford to represent themselves legally, but imo that's preferable to the current system where $little_guy always loses by default because even if he wins the legal bills will ruin him (if $little_guy is the defendant) or eat up his entire settlement (if $little_guy is the one doing the suing).
Illegal, no. But sometimes it is inprudent. I work for a firm, and my job is to make money for the firm. If I only took cases I personally liked or was only willing to advocate positions that I found personally appealing, I would be useless. There are many aspects of the law I wish were different, but that doesn't mean I don't give my clients the full benefit of the law as it is. Where you have to draw the line is at being unethical. I will not do something for a client that is unethical or illegal. I will not argue a position that is unethical. There are lawsuits I wouldn't file. I have defended clients against some of them (including patent trolls). 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.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.