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?
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
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?
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!
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.
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 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!
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
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?
You sound like an RIAA investigator.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
98% of everything is crap. Like everyone else, the indies have crap, but their fraction of crap is lower than the RIAA's.
You need to read what musicians are saying about the big labels. The RIAA is where musicians go to lose moo-lah, not make it. Whatever money the RIAA "flashes" at someone, just gives them some idea of what lower bound they should expect to make somewhere.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
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
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.
Personally, I've always thought that a new phase should be added to the civil court system.
Before even bothering the defendant, the judge needs to go over the complaint in detail and decide if the plaintiff's case could win on it's face. That is, decide if everything the plaintiff claims in the suit were true, could it win?
In this case, the judge could have struck down the making available theory before even bothering the defendant. Assuming there was no other more meritorious theory on the part of the plaintiff, Brennan need never have been bothered with it at all.
If a government body is going to exercise it's extraordinary power to compel a citizen's appearance (with all of the innate possibilities to harm the defendant in the process) on the behalf of a plaintiff, it needs to at least have some assurance that it's not a big waste of time and money.
I do agree with you, the last thing we need is to add a disincentive to drop a meritless case.
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
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.
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
This sort of thing does happen, though. It happens during pre-trial, and with grand juries. The problem is that for justice to be served, you can only strike the most extreme cases. It seems as though it's rarely done in civil trials for that very reason--a preponderance of the evidence is a fairly low burden of proof, and as such, it's extremely hard to determine the frivolity of a case before all of the evidence is presented.
In criminal cases, DAs try to avoid cases where they can't win. As such, if a case is brought to trial, there's probably enough evidence to proceed. Of course, we must still use the grand jury to ensure this; furthermore, we cannot assume that just because the DA has brought a case, that there is enough evidence for a trial. All this does is explain why there are so few cases that go before a grand jury and do not have a full trial.
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.
Isn't that pretty much how it is now anyway?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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).
well, that's what most of the Britney Spears/Linkin Park/50 Cent/Toby Kieth/Justin Timberlake crowd seems to think, at least.
but you're right. all the top selling pop "musicians" are all signed to majors, who select bands using their wallets rather than their ears. i mean, who needs indies when you have music connoisseurs like Simon Cowell picking the latest musical fads for you to listen to.
pretty much every famous band or musician signed to the majors (except for formulaic teenage pop groups put together by the majors themselves, like the Spice Girls) started off has unsigned indie musicians, then moved on to an indie label, then were poached by the majors. even some bands put together by the majors are often signed to indie labels for development until they sell a certain number of records. so if there's no good music in the indie scene, then there's no good music anywhere.
only high schoolers with poor musical tastes would think that the Big Four have a monopoly on good music, or that the best music is whatever happens to be playing on the radio that week. if you need the radio to tell you what to listen to, then it's likely that you have no clue what good music is--it's not just what the major labels are paying your favorite Top-40 station to play.
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 fair, but in uncharted waters, that's a difficult decision to make. Does "making available" constitute infringement on copyright? Perhaps one of the rights associated with copyright is "the right to make available?"
In this particular case, I just don't think that it would be reasonable for a judge to outright dismiss it.
But the judge DID determine months ago that making available is not copyright infringement. Alas, only after the defendant devoted considerable time and resources to a trial.
Recent major releases on public trackers are risky. This goes for Movies, Music, Games, whatever. Stick to niche, cult, or classic content and you won't have any problems. Always use private trackers, and always use encryption. If you really need the current stuff, use USENET. There's no "making available" there.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!