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."
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.
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?
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
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
Hey remember when these guys used to SELL MUSIC?
They never sold music, they sold records. The music was just a reason to get you to buy a black piece of plastic with grooves, or a silver piece of plastic with rainbows. If they were selling music to you, you would own the music and it would be yours to do with as you wished. As it was, you could do anything you wished with the plastic disk, but not the music it contained.
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Now the majors are trying to rent music and call it a sale. All they are selling is a service, a download of bits. Whether or not there is DRM you have no rights to the music you "buy" from them. You are paying only for the download. IMO sixty nine cents for a download of bits you have no rights to is insane.
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).
Free Martian Whores!
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
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'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 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
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.
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!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
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...
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.