Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lied To Congress About New Filesharing Suits
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "On December 23, 2008, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol sent a letter to the Judiciary and Commerce Committees of both the House and Senate, falsely representing to them that the RIAA 'discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August.' A copy of the letter is online (PDF). In fact, as many of you already know, the RIAA brought hundreds of new lawsuits since August. See, e.g., these 40 or so cases which just represent some of the cases brought in December." Maybe they're just taking a broad view of the world "initiate."
IANAL.... but my gf is =)
If my understanding is correct
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
2) The document linked to on Mr. Beckerman's site says they discontinued the lawsuits. They didn't specify a length of time that it would remain discontinued for so it'd seem to me they're free to start again when they wanted.
I'm not trying to take the RIAA's side... just making a point. I still hate them with a passion.
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
Actually, it can apply if you make public statements or behavior that leads the general public to perform acts that'd otherwise be copyright infringement. It has happened with fictional works that have been presented as fact, when the author later tried to claim copyright infringement it was barred by estoppel (Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992).
However, there is a considerable gap between the RIAA publicly admitting to changing legal strategy and the RIAA giving implicit permission to non-commercial copying of their works. As long as tjey don't give the impression that this is legal, whether infringements can be effectively prosecuted or not, I don't see that estoppel applies.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Clinton was under oath, I don't think the RIAA was.
I don't preview or spellcheck.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
No, you're the idiot. Your is not you are.
Attribution: William Shakespeare. Note that the character who mouthed that phrase was a criminal.
If you ever face a divorce or bankrupcy or DUI or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're going to need a lawyer. When you need a lawyer you NEED a lawyer. The problem isn't the lawyers, it's the laws and the lawmakers.
Free Martian Whores!
The MPAA brings frivolous suits too, just less of them. It makes the same frivolous arguments and supports the RIAA in its frivolous suits, sometimes submitting amicus curiae briefs on behalf of their brethren. To its credit, in its cases against individuals, (a) it seems to do a little homework -- unlike its RIAA brethren -- prior to bringing suit, and (b) it uses lawyers more nearly resembling human beings who are permitted to negotiate more reasonable settlements.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yeah, but lying to the senate is perjury. Every single one of their lawyers and executives should not pass go, not collect $200, and go straight to jail.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
As I see it, it is. So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?
Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.
Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As it turns out that one was settled too.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful