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.
...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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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