RIAA Backs Down In Texas Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After receiving a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion (PDF) in a Houston, Texas, case, UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, the RIAA lawyers thought better of proceeding with the case, and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case 'with prejudice', which means it is over and cannot be brought again. The defendant's motion papers detailed some of the RIAA's litigation history against innocent individuals, such as Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic Recording v. Andersen, and argued that the awarding of attorneys fees in those cases has not sufficiently deterred repetition of the misconduct, so that a stronger remedy — Rule 11 sanctions — is now called for."

Comments

Spiffy!

[MHaz]

Wow... They were stared down, and blinked...

Re:Spiffy!

[MozeeToby]

Given the fact that the size of the fines rule 11 sanctions are set by the judge (not predetermined) I'd say it's more like they leveled a howitzer on the RIAA and the RIAA blinked. Sure, the howitzer might not be loaded, but is it really worth the risk?

Re:Spiffy!

[jd]

Somehow I don't think it was the howitzer that was at risk of being leveled. Now, the RIAA, on the other hand...

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

whooosh

Re:Spiffy!

[Andy_R]

The size of the fine is set by the judge, but here's what the plaintiff asked the judge for (taken from the last paragraph of the pdf.)

"In this case, the Court should award Defendant Lanzoni all of her costs and expenses in defending this lawsuit. In addition, this Court should make a finding that the use of an IP address to identify the defendant in a peer-to-peer copyright infringement case is not sufficiently reliable for the Plaintiffs to rely upon..."

Maybe I'm just not that good at reading legalese, but if that means 'I don't want $big$money$ from the RIAA, I want the court to rule that from now on nobody can be sued based on their IP address' then I'm very impressed with the defendant's decision to place the greater good over their own financial gain.

Re:Spiffy!

[CarpetShark]

Wow... They were stared down, and blinked...

More like they've been staring into space, and just woke up.

Re:Spiffy!

[netruner]

"you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?', well, do ya punk?"

Dirty Harry, its characters and quotes are copyrights of Warner Brothers(TM). The above quote is only meant as a humorous reference to a pop culture icon and is not meant as a performance of copyrighted material.

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the irony...

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just not that good at reading legalese, but if that means 'I don't want $big$money$ from the RIAA, I want the court to rule that from now on nobody can be sued based on their IP address' then I'm very impressed with the defendant's decision to place the greater good over their own financial gain.

It's not about big money, it's about making them go away. If the threat to the RIAA is money, well, money they got. If the threat is an end to their shenanigans then they're going to run away and find a softer target. It's a good defense strategy, pure and simple.

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt this act was as selfless as you believe. However, it was likely it was put in there to make it seem that way.

These types of requests for relief are commonly used in 'rule 11 motions' in order to justify the foundation for bringing sanctions -- sanctions are limited to whatever is sufficient to deter repetition of the improper conduct.

E.g.: "Sanctions are appropriate because the RIAA continues to bring cases against people they know to be innocent. So, instead of just asking for money, which wouldn't deter such a large entity (therefore losing are motion), we are asking the Court to cure the problem by making it more difficult to bring future suits.

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just not that good at reading legalese, but if that means 'I don't want $big$money$ from the RIAA, I want the court to rule that from now on nobody can be sued based on their IP address' then I'm very impressed with the defendant's decision to place the greater good over their own financial gain.

Unfortunately minor set-backs like this does not deter most corrupt organizations. They just take it as a cost of doing business and continue business as usual.

The only way to make these people perk up and pay heed is if some upper management type goes to prison. Preferable for one year for each of the cases where they falsely accused someone.

They don't need the litigation anymore

[greenbird]

They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[flyingfsck]

Actually, disconnection could be appealed to the FCC. Interfering with communication systems (jamming, disconnecting) is illegal for freedom of speech reasons.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Yamamato]

Except the fact that the ISP would point out the clause in your contract that you agreed to that says that they can terminate your service for TOS violations.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the fact that they have no proof of a TOS violation and only shut you off on the say-so of a corporation known to falsely accuse people of said violation.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[ggraham412]

They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.

It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA. The way things are now, only people unlucky enough to have been sued have an interest in stopping them.

I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state. Nothing that they can possibly produce is worth giving up on our freedoms.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[tripdizzle]

Exactly, people need to start reading those agreements. I read mine with Comcast for an assignment last week, and found out I am not allowed to host a website or even remotely connect to my home with the service I am currently subscribed to. If they find that I am doing either of these, they can disconnect me w/o warning and not accept me back as a customer if they choose. Of course, I do both these things regularly (I use TightVNC, so with their broad wording, I am violating both the hosting and remote access restrictions)so I am just waiting for them to take some type of action, I which case I will have to just find a new ISP.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Yamamato]

If you actually went to the FCC with such a complaint you'd be laughed at for confusing the disconnection of ISP service (which you have no right to have) with the jamming of telephones, radios, etc which is actually illegal.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[tripdizzle]

Have you read at TOS? Its hard to even breathe and not break it, at least for me and this one

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Chosen Reject]

If at all possible, keep that connection open. According to the PDF, the defendant proved she was at work at the time of the infringement and considers this proof that she is innocent. So use your VNC connection from work to share all your files, then just before you head home, stop your p2p software.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[jd]

Your ISP still allows breathing?

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Chris Tucker]

"I consciously don't buy music anymore."

Do as I do. Buy used CDs. Here in the Greater Boston/Cambridge/Somerville Co-Prosperity Sphere, there are several used CD/DVD shops. Sure, you may have to wait a few weeks to get the latest CD, but RIAA never sees a penny of your money.

And many artists sell CDs on their websites. Yeah, they buy them from the record companies, but they, the artists, get to keep the money from the CD sales.

Finally, local bands almost always have CDs they burn themselves. Supporting local artists with purchases is the best thing you can do to keep independent artists making music.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Hordeking]

Except the fact that they have no proof of a TOS violation and only shut you off on the say-so of a corporation known to falsely accuse people of said violation.

Not that a TOS is a legally binding contract...

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[elrous0]

They don't need "proof." There is no law that says your cable or phone company *has* to provide you with internet service (it's not a property right like public education). They can cut you off at any time for any reason, and the most you could sue them for would be a breach of contract lawsuit which would get you at most a 1 month cash refund. That's why the RIAA/MPAA thugs like this approach so much. They no longer have to deal with messy lawsuits where someone might actually question their evidence and how it was obtained. They just go to your ISP, say "Cut this guy off, we think he's pirating" and BAM, you're off the internet for good!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Alex Belits]

They don't need "proof." There is no law that says your cable or phone company *has* to provide you with internet service (it's not a property right like public education).

Yes, there is. Consumer protection laws.

it's not a property right like public education)

Public education is not a property right, it's a civil right, you Libertarian moron.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I am not a lawyer, but the TOS you linked says (emphasis mine):

In the section on technical restrictions, it says the you are not allowed to:

use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;

So it appears that using TightVNC for your own personal use is allowed by this clause.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically the RIAA never sees a penny of your money, but you are removing copies of the record from the market, making it marginally more likely (with each purchase) that someone needing the record will have to purchase it new.

Just sayin'.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Dan Ost]

Is that true in areas where the carrier is given a monopoly in order to better serve the local community?

In that case, aren't they required to offer services to everyone who can pay who lives in the monopolized area?

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[the_one(2)]

When you buy used CDs you are indirectly giving money to the previous owner. The previous owner is then likely to buy new CDs. So you are probably indirectly funding RIAA =).

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[haapi]

And what gets me about that, the "ISP can disconnect you" part, is that we are supposed to believe that the RIAA can "prove" the infraction, but an ISP can't prove that your PC is part of a botnet, or sends spam, or whatever, and disconnect you. Bah. What RIAA BS.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[esocid]

RIAA radar is your friend. Look for the labels not on the MAFIAA's payroll and support them for doing something right.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[grenthar]

My favorite line was the part where you are forbidden to:
* undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which ... in any way constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal, or non-U.S. law, order, or regulation....

Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[houstonbofh]

They're getting to the point they don't need the litigation anymore. They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.

Your recourse is a libel suit. Now thay have to prove you are a pirate, or pay you off.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

RIAA radar is your friend. Look for the labels not on the MAFIAA's payroll and support them for doing something right.

You are so right esocid. I consult that site every day.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[hurfy]

Does MS Remote Access for support count as 'server' or remote access? lol, getting cutoff for asking for help to cure a trojan or somesuch would be interesting.....

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget sealand!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Chris Tucker]

Curse your indisputable logic!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Repton]

Yes, but only if it's air that no one else has breathed before.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW!! Under technical restrictions:

use or distribute tools or devices designed or used for compromising security or whose use is otherwise unauthorized

See that "or"? That means one of the things you're not allowed to do, is "use or distribute tools or devices .. whose use is otherwise unauthorized." Most seriously, I cannot remember the last time I used my computer for anything that wasn't "unauthorized." Start a web browser? Nope, no one authorized me to do that. Save a file? No, I don't think anyone gave me permission to do that either. Press the CAPS LOCK key? Nope, that was unauthorized.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Neon Madman]

Actually, it's more like failed business models than a failed industry. There are a number of independent labels that have adjusted and are doing just fine (or at least they were before the recession hit).

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA.

This never works. Think about all the things your tax bill goes to pay for: you don't even know what all those things are. Of the things you do know about, how many happen to be things that you disapprove of?

Multiply that by the population of your country. That's how many counter-examples to your theory, that I offer to you.

When everybody gets hit with an unfair charge, people don't band together to get rid of the bullshit charge. Ever. They never, ever do it. They just pay it. Some of them get mad, most of them don't even notice. But they always just pay it, and the charge never goes away.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Technician]

My favorite line was the part where you are forbidden to:

Ouch!. I just submitted a post of a forum on building air cannons. If they are illegal anywhere, I just violated my TOS.

If anyone is interested. I posted to www.crazybuilders.com. I have a geek project of opening soda cans with marshmallows. This may be illegal somewhere.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the venn diagram that describes the laws you'd adhere to. It might not be possible (conflicting laws) ...

(AC cause I'm lazy)

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about your bands that give music away (and even have their own torrent tracker): Nine Inch Nails / Jane's Addiction

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite line was the part where you are forbidden to:

* undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which ... in any way constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal, or non-U.S. law, order, or regulation....

Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....

You forgot to mention the laws of the Intergalactic Federation under His Grand Emporer Malicon IX.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Good to know that in order to be eligible for Comcast service, you you must submit to the laws of China, North Korea, Iran, and the orders of every other petty dictator on the planet....

You forgot to mention the laws of the Intergalactic Federation under His Grand Emporer Malicon IX.

I for one welcome the total control of our totalitarian overlords.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Capsaicin]

Not that a TOS is a legally binding contract...

No they are the terms to a legally binding contract. What's your point?

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Chris Tucker]

Thank you for that, Buzz Killington!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[rossz]

I plugged in "Ana Popovic", who's CD "Still Making History" was my most recent music purchase. All her CDs are deemed safe. Thanks for the link.

If you like great blues, buy her CD.
If you like hot chicks who play hot blues guitar, buy her CD.

I'll be in my bunk with her CD.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer protection laws!?!?! You call him a moron???

Public Education isn't a right civil or otherwise, you moron!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Alex Belits]

Consumer protection laws!?!?! You call him a moron???

The fact that the laws are poorly enforced does not means that they don't exist, or that they should not be enforced.

Public Education isn't a right civil or otherwise, you moron!

Go, read for yourself.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[falconwolf]

Public Education isn't a right civil or otherwise, you moron!

Go, read for yourself

While it is part of the UN's Declaration of Rights it's not part of the USA's Constitution and in the US the Constitution is supposed to be supreme law of the land.

Falcon

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Hordeking]

Not that a TOS is a legally binding contract...

No they are the terms to a legally binding contract. What's your point?

I think my point would be that clause that's usually in there stating that they can unilaterally change the anything in the TOS at any time, rape your mother, help themselves to your beer, etc, without notice before or afterhand to you. That's not how terms of a contract work.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh.. please tell me there's some country that's banned the use of computers or the internet!

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Tug3]

I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without.

I don't do without music. I even buy the music. But ONLY directly from artist at their gig. When they sell their own music on CDs they burned themselves. THAT is supporting the artist! Oh, and I don't go see Metallica or other boy bands either, as I don't want to support them. There are plenty of bands out there that are playing locally that actually make better music with their hearts in it.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Alex Belits]

Even US Constitution itself does not claim to contain the exhaustive list of all civil rights, so Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a much better authority on the subject.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[elrous0]

Consumer protection laws in the (U.S. anyway) are a joke. And no law that I know of is going to FORCE an ISP to provide you with service. Most of these laws are designed to protect the consumer from fraud and deception, NOT to guarantee them service from a particular company. Again, you might get a refund, but no one is going to come in and tell AT&T "You have to have this guy as a customer." If you're aware of any law that would do this, please cite it.

As for education, the point still stands either way. You have no civil right to internet service either.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Kelsen]

Well, so am I, but like the UN's, my edicts don't carry the weight of law. Sigh. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- When Jesus was on the cross, to pass the time, did he pretend he was an airplane?

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a used CD takes it off the market so that someone else who wants it buys a new one.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Alex Belits]

Consumer protection laws in the (U.S. anyway) are a joke. And no law that I know of is going to FORCE an ISP to provide you with service. Most of these laws are designed to protect the consumer from fraud and deception, NOT to guarantee them service from a particular company.

Not when the company achieves a position of monopoly, advertises it to everyone, then picks and choses customers who cost them the least (be it low bandwidth usage or lack of nuisance paperwork).

Most of these laws are designed to protect the consumer from fraud and deception, NOT to guarantee them service from a particular company. Again, you might get a refund, but no one is going to come in and tell AT&T "You have to have this guy as a customer." If you're aware of any law that would do this, please cite it.

The law does not say what company may be forced to do if it breaks the law -- it's pretty much left to the whims of the judge.

Re:They don't need the litigation anymore

[Capsaicin]

I think my point would be that clause that's usually in there stating that they can unilaterally change the anything in the TOS at any time

Which term is clearly invalid. That wouldn't affect the rest of the TOS, nor TOSs in general.

That's not how terms of a contract work.

As a lawyer who has drafted contractual terms, I have some familiarity with how terms of contracts work.

Ah snap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Got all 'Rule 11' on yo' ass!

And this means what?

[Dusty00]

First to NewYorkCountryLawyer, thanks from all of us for fighting the good fight!

And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions? Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent? Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?

Re:And this means what?

[Red Flayer]

Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent? Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?

If you read the motion (especially the conclusion), it will help answer these questions. It's a pretty quick read and isn't very difficult to understand (just a few terms that may cause someone to stumble if they don't have a legal background).

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rules 11 sanction punishes the plaintiff (in this case RIAA) - and usually would have forced RIAA to pay the defendent's legal fees. But in this case, the defendents have asked for more : "Even though
attorneys' fees have been awarded against the Plaintiffs in the past, the objective of
deterrence has not been achieved. It is apparent that stronger sanctions are needed in
order to achieve deterrence.
In this case, the Court should award Defendant Lanzoni all of her costs and
expenses in defending this lawsuit. In addition, this Court should make a finding that the
use of an IP address to identify the defendant in a peer-to-peer copyright infringement
case is not sufficiently reliable for the Plaintiffs to rely upon that alone as their Rule 11
basis for suing an individual. The principles of collateral estoppel will apply to these
Plaintiffs, and they can be prevented from doing this again in future cases."

In other words - it would force RIAA to stop using IP address as the primary reason to sue an individual.

Re:And this means what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

First to NewYorkCountryLawyer, thanks from all of us for fighting the good fight!

Thanks. And thank you for your support.

And a question, what is the impact of these sanctions?

Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.

Could this cost the RIAA enough to really act as a deterrent?

Absolutely. There is nothing a lawyer should fear more than a sanctions ruling.

Also, if at all how is this relevant in future cases?

Highly relevant. This incident will encourage other defendant's lawyers to make early Rule 11 motions. And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.

Re:And this means what?

[jonnythan]

Keep in mind that said document is a motion filed by the defense - it is not a court ruling or decision. You can say virtually anything you want in a motion.

The RIAA felt the thread of the motion being granted was sufficient to back out of the case entirely, though.

Re:And this means what?

[644bd346996]

So, in other words, this won't dissuade the RIAA one whit, but it might make it hard for them to find lawyers willing to work for them.

Re:And this means what?

[Shakrai]

Ray,

I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking. Namely that of signing agreements with ISPs to get them to do the dirty work instead.

This seems like something that the end user will have very little recourse over. Virtually every ISP agreement I've ever read gives them the right to deny you service for whatever reason they wish -- but how is that remotely just if it's based on the same lack of evidence that RIAA failed to use in the court system?

How (if at all) can the people who inevitably wind up being wrongfully accused fight this?

Re:And this means what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking.

The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

He made a typo on page 13, second paragraph:

A district court judge generally has broad discretion is determining the amount of sanctions to be imposed.

Other than that, great. I hope those who file these in similar cases follow through with it.

Re:And this means what?

[Shakrai]

I have that option -- at least until Verizon joins the bandwagon -- but how many people don't?

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 11 sanctions are worse than fines, its like having a bad reference on your resume. Its a (not so) little black mark that says 'You are a bad lawyer who likes to get cute.

Judges don't like people who get cute. Especially prosecutors.

Re:And this means what?

[greenbird]

The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.

The only problem being that for most people the options are very limited and the way it's set up now it's nigh on impossible to start an ISP outside of the incumbent cable and phone companies. So if both members in your area (most people are lucky if they have 2 options: cable and phone company) of the current oligarchy opt into the RIAA system your options are much slower broadband at best or dialip.

.

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be just my bad taste, but I find it rather amusing that the defense attorney in a copyright infringement case would be named Leach.

Re:And this means what?

[Splab]

This is when small companies start to thrive again.

Suddenly the monoliths are too big and greedy to carry their own weight and the small agile less corrupt will be ready on the sidelines picking up the spill.

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that is that the RIAA isn't disclosing which ISPs it is partnering with. So until people start getting disconnected, we're basically taking a shot in the dark.

Re:And this means what?

[TheReaperD]

The only wisdom I have to share at this point is : if you find out your ISP is in league with the RIAA, change ISP's, and let them know why you left.

Well, start the list with AT&T, Comcast and Cox cable.

Re:And this means what?

[tdelaney]

Obviously IANAL, but hypothetically, if the requested sanctions had been granted, would that not also give the ISP a reason to not sign such an agreement with the RIAA (or possibly even to break such an agreement)?

After all, if an individual could not be prosecuted based on an IP address, then presumably the ISP couldn't be held responsible for not divulging an IP address or disconnecting based on an IP address. In other words, not working with the RIAA would cost the ISP less than working with them.

Re:And this means what?

[Chabo]

Great. The only two ISPs in my area are AT&T and Comcast.

Re:And this means what?

[MobyDisk]

Any suggestions if both of the ISPs in your area are doing this?

Re:And this means what?

[Just Some Guy]

And the attorney, veteran IP litigator Sid Leach, prepared excellent discovery documents and motion papers, which the rest of us will be able to consult and borrow from in the future.

Pirate.

Re:And this means what?

[Runaway1956]

I question the relevancy, NYCL. If things proceed with the anti-counterfeiting treaty, RIAA and their freinds will have done an end run around any and all court rulings. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/06/211236&from=rss http://consumerist.com/tag/copyright/?i=5014035&t=leaked-acta-treaty-will-outlaw-p2p Once the ACTA is put into effect, RIAA and freinds won't even have to file a suit - they just send the Gestapo to round your butt up, and ship you to someplace like Guantanamo.

Re:And this means what?

[Just Some Guy]

It was a joke. Get it? Ray's a pirate for borrowing, and we all roll our eyes because we know that sharing is good and has nothing to do with piracy.

Re:And this means what?

[houstonbofh]

Any suggestions if both of the ISPs in your area are doing this?

Get a business account. Much more expensive, but also much more support. (Comcast has never filtered or throttled business class service for us)

Re:And this means what?

[hurfy]

Do the ISP have to smart about cutting off someone. I would disallow that IP.....of course should they recycle the modem.....

Is that having your cake and eating it too? Why someone would want a cake they couldn't eat has always been beyond me anyways ;)

Re:And this means what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I question the relevancy, NYCL.

I guess you believed the RIAA's press release that they had stopped bringing new cases last August. In fact they've brought hundreds and hundreds of new cases and are continuing to prosecute cases with the same ruthlessness they've exhibited in the past. That, for me, is the relevancy. Anything that helps in the fight against these lawsuits is good news and, to me, at least, highly "relevant".

Re:And this means what?

[Runaway1956]

Oh, I most certainly DO NOT believe anything the RIAA puts out for public relations. And, yes, I agree anything that goes counter to RIAA's wishes is great. My question, though, regards the treaty. If that treaty is signed, the courts will have very little to say, regarding enforcement. The government will be bound to round up anyone who violates the treaty, and to punish them. Of course, the treaty is all bound up in secrecy, with RIAA and brethren "advising" all the governments involved. Even the "Open Government" President, Obama, has signed off on that secrecy. We are about to be shafted, no matter what any court rules, thereby making all court rulings irrelevant. And, that won't just be us, in the U.S. - this thing is going to go global!! http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_denies_ACTA_document_request%3B_democracy_undermined%3F Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!? from the openness,-transparency dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1456154113.shtml In short, my freind, the stakes have been raised.

Re:And this means what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Oh, I most certainly DO NOT believe anything the RIAA puts out for public relations. And, yes, I agree anything that goes counter to RIAA's wishes is great. My question, though, regards the treaty. If that treaty is signed, the courts will have very little to say, regarding enforcement.

The whole treaty thing comes up every time the RIAA lawyers make their frivolous "making available" argument, because there is a treaty that uses the term. Thing is, treaties don't supersede statutes.

Re:And this means what?

[mOdQuArK!]

Learn how to use anonymous proxies?

Re:And this means what?

[mooingyak]

I was going to post something about the quickest way to get copyright reform would be for filings like this to be copyrighted. I got your joke even if some random moderator didn't.

Re:And this means what?

[drinkypoo]

I have that option -- at least until Verizon joins the bandwagon -- but how many people don't?

If your local telco is Verizon then your point is well taken. However, as long as it is still possible to get a frame relay, T1, or similar on a business-grade basis where they're just shoveling your packets based on your SLA then it will still be possible to form co-ops.

Re:And this means what?

[kevin42]

Re: Sid Leach, the attorney who filed the motion:

I've personally worked closely with Sid on a case several years back where I was a technical consultant for the company I worked for on an IP case. Sid totally changed my opinion of lawyers for the better, and I seriously considered going to law school after my experience working with him. He's a super nice guy, and extremely smart.

We would meet late in the evening the night before a court appearance, and the next morning he would have a amazingly well written brief he stayed up all night writing based on the meeting the night before. If I ever need an IP attorney I would hire him in a second (If I could afford him). It's great to see him doing such important work.

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There, this less random moderator fixed that. GP post is "funny" again.)

Re:And this means what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Re: Sid Leach, the attorney who filed the motion: I've personally worked closely with Sid on a case several years back where I was a technical consultant for the company I worked for on an IP case. Sid totally changed my opinion of lawyers for the better, and I seriously considered going to law school after my experience working with him. He's a super nice guy, and extremely smart. We would meet late in the evening the night before a court appearance, and the next morning he would have a amazingly well written brief he stayed up all night writing based on the meeting the night before. If I ever need an IP attorney I would hire him in a second (If I could afford him). It's great to see him doing such important work.

I'm not surprised to hear that, Kevin. He is someone to be admired.

Re:And this means what?

[Tuoqui]

False unfortunately...

1) Small companies generally don't have the lines going cross country to deliver internet service.
2) Small companies generally take what the big companies have and resell it.
3) AT&T, Verison and Bell are probably some of the companies that are "Too big to let fail" a la AIG.

Re:And this means what?

[Shadow99_1]

What small companies...? Few places in the US (the area of focus for the RIAA), have an option of using a small company for internet. Our choices are usually dictated by who owns the lines, and that's the cable company and the phone company. Other options can exist in certain areas, but with those two industries getting states to pass laws limiting other potential broadband solutions your quickly looking at dialup... I've seen the web on dialup in the last year and it isn't pretty... It reminds me of the days of the 14.4kbps modems (aka go grab lunch while your page loads, use the bathroom while the sub-page you wanted laods, etc)...

waste of money

[FadedTimes]

When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases? There is no way they are ever going to win settlements or recover damages that offset their cost it takes to litigate. I guess the RIAA lawyers are making money though, not like they are going to recommend to stop the pursuit.

Re:waste of money

[torkus]

They don't need to make money on the cases. In fact, they can spend $1m on legal fees for a $100k judgment and still come out ahead.

Why?

Because it motivates the other 99,999 people that got 'settlement offers' of $5-10k to pay up. Sad, but true.

Re:waste of money

[whoever57]

When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?

From the RIAA's point of veiw, they are not "wasting money". The organization makes a profit from these lawsuits (and the associated settlements). It's only when either:
1. The lawyers are likely to lose their licenses or:
2. The lawsuit/settlement program stops being profitable.
that they will stop the lawsuits.

Re:waste of money

[mcgrew]

When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?

They won't. The old business model is dead, and the new business model is brain dead. The old model was that it cost uberbucks to record an album, so the artist couldn't make a record without the labels.

Now, the price of recording has come down to the point that anybody can record an album in a professional studio and have the CDs professionally pressed and packaged for as little as $1 per copy.

This leaves the labels to distribute and market, and marketing means radio. You have to be on a major label to get on the radio.

The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.

The new business model is paid downloads. The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.

The music industry as we knew it is dead, and I for one am glad. The RIAA labels' days are numbered, and they won't be able to steal from their artists and customers for too much longer.

Lawrence Lessig talks about the four reasons for P2P in his book Free Culture. Cory Doctorow talks about it in the preface to his book Little Brother, which has been on the NYT best seller list. You can buy either book at any bookstore, or check it out for free at your local public library, or download them for free from the authors' prospective websites.

Both books are making a handy profit. As I said, Doctorow's is a best seller, which kind of puts the lie to the RIAA's pathetic whining.

Re:waste of money

[Microlith]

The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.

Show me one case where this is true and you can prove it. You're making the claim, so back it up.

While I have no doubt about the capability of independent bands to utilize the internet, I sincerely doubt that the sole reason for these lawsuits is to stifle their ability to use the internet to self-promote, and not the mass trading of works that RIAA member companies hold the rights to. No, couldn't possibly be.

The new business model is paid downloads.

And apparently it's doing quite well.

The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.

And I'd wager that the majority of p2p-shared music isn't that of the indies, but that of the majors. You know, popular culture and all that.

I sincerely believe that the reasons are much simpler and don't lead back to this paranoid conspiracy that you propose. The suits are direct, scattershot with lots of collateral damage, and brick stupid. But not nearly as conspiratorial as you seem to believe.

Re:waste of money

[Gorphrim]

Well, they might not stop the current lawsuits until then, but as we already learned (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/19/131227&tid=123), there will be no more new lawsuits.

Re:waste of money

[Splab]

Actually he is somewhat right.

Here in Denmark a chain of shops that deal with items costing between $1 and $2 (guess you guys call them dollar stores?) has started its own label - it is a no bullshit label, you get 50% of profit from sales, default print I think is 1.000 CDs or 10.000 and the shop carries the risk.

CDs are selling like you wouldn't believe it - apparently people are willing to pay $2 for a CD from a group they never heard of (I for one am, heck if it sucks I can use it as a fancy coaster).

The olden ways are dead, just a matter of time.

Re:waste of money

[whoever57]

Well, they might not stop the current lawsuits until then, but as we already learned (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/19/131227&tid=123), there will be no more new lawsuits.

Please keep up. There are new lawsuits since that announcement.

Re:waste of money

[lgw]

That is just fantastic! Amazingly cool. Capatalism for the win! I hope that idea speads to America.

Re:waste of money

[Technician]

2. The lawsuit/settlement program stops being profitable.
that they will stop the lawsuits.

This is already happened. The bean counters are having a hard time with it. The publicity from the case is causing a public backlash so sales are down. It's hard to count these beans as they don't come out of the pot, but are never put in. How do you count lost sales due to a bad company image? This is the primary reason I no longer buy CDs for this reason and the price, terms of use, and DRM (defective by design) are the remaining reasons.

They need to correct these 4 things wrong to get the market back.

Re:waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

Celebrating a bit soon, aren't you? The media and record companies have billions they can funnel into taking back control, and they are. They've paid off the ISPs, they've lobbied politicians to pass a tax, they've squeezed internet radio out of the game by forcing them to pay extortionate fees, and they've been making copyright claims on everything they can find with even the slightest, or sometimes none, copywritten content use(take a look at youtube for an example of this one). The list goes on and on.

They haven't lost. They're not dead. Stop cheering, get out there and stop them.

Re:waste of money

[mcgrew]

No,they haven't lost yet. But they will. They're not dead yet, but it won't be long. And I am doing what I can to stop them, including being part of the boycott and jawboning.

So what happens with Rule 11?

[mooingyak]

A few questions for anyone who might know:

1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?

2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?

3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

A few questions for anyone who might know: 1. Does voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice prevent them from getting sanctioned?

Yes so long as they do it within the 21-day "safe harbor" period, which they did.

2. Independent of #1, what happens if you are sanctioned under Rule 11?

There are many possible penalties, from nominal to crushing... but for any attorney it's a huge black mark on his or her record.

3. How often is a party sanctioned this way?

Rarely. Rule 11 motions are rarely made. It is an extreme thing. I've only made a couple in my 30 years as a lawyer. One of them was against the RIAA lawyers.

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[Valdrax]

1. Yes, if it's within 21 days after the motion for sanctions is filed.

2. The attorney has to pay fines with a goal of deterrence and not compensation. (If the attorney is poor, they'll be fined less.) The attorney's client can be held joint & severally liable. Your professional reputation as an attorney suffers, and in extreme circumstances, it might serve as pretty bad evidence towards an attorney malpractice suit or a disbarment hearing.

3. Extremely rarely. It's generally reserved for lawyers acting in very bad faith, and the 21 day safe harbor gives attorneys a way to amend the offending action. Courts are generally willing to give attorneys the benefit of the doubt on whether they did something with a good faith belief that it was true or not. Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[mooingyak]

Thank you.

I take it the RIAA attorneys felt it had an actual chance of being granted in this case?

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Yes, at least Rule 11 sanctions, the safe harbor allows the party to avoid sanctions by dismissing the case before the motion is filed with the court.

2. The court orders the attorneys and/or the plaintiff to pay money. The attorney is not allowed to pass the cost on to their client if the attorney is sanctioned, and because of that it is a very strong deterrent.

3. Not often at all. Most attorneys will out of courtesy refrain from even making rule 11 motions in anything but the most severe cases of abuse. There are a few attorneys that make the motions often, but they are overwhelmingly denied.

IAAL.

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[regular_gonzalez]

Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.

So just how many has Jack Thompson had, then?

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[Valdrax]

I don't think he ever has, if that gives you any idea how utterly rare they are.

The most famous sanction against Thompson, barring him from filing documents to the Florida Supreme Court, was done in state court under state procedures. The mildly hilarious ruling can be found here.

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[jonaskoelker]

Only a truly stubborn fool gets Rule 11 sanctioned most of the time.

Rule 34, on the other hand...

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[Paradise Pete]

I take it the RIAA attorneys felt it had an actual chance of being granted in this case?

Assumes facts not in evidence - they have no feelings. ;-)
However, like all bullies they shy away from those who put up a good fight and pick on the more defenseless. Why risk a bloody nose when there are so many who see little choice but to just hand over their lunch money? Fortunately there are people like Ray and others who are demonstrating how to deal with them.

Re:So what happens with Rule 11?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

like all bullies they shy away from those who put up a good fight and pick on the more defenseless. Why risk a bloody nose when there are so many who see little choice but to just hand over their lunch money? Fortunately there are people like Ray and others who are demonstrating how to deal with them.

1. Thanks.

2. You've got their number. They are bullies, and like all bullies, are cowards.

I've always wondered

[dixonpete]

Within a couple of years kids will be able to carry around and exchange thumb drives large enough to hold ALL of the music produced in the last decade. Aside from cavity searches how exactly is the RIAA expecting to stop that kind of sharing activity?

Re:I've always wondered

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you answered your own question.

Re:I've always wondered

[mcgrew]

Within a couple of years kids will be able to carry around and exchange thumb drives large enough to hold ALL of the music produced in the last decade

You can already carry around all the good music produced in the last decade on a mini CD, provided you use a compressed format. Personally I woudn't want all the music produced in the last decade.

There's a reason all the twenty somethings are playing '70s, '80s, and '90s rock in the bars to the other twentysomething patrons. Young people still have good taste, to the detriment of the RIAA labels.

Re:I've always wondered

[Anonymous Coward]

Cavity searches? Pffft. The goatse man can carry all of the music and movies (in HD) ever made.

Re:I've always wondered

[Foobar of Borg]

Within a couple of years kids will be able to carry around and exchange thumb drives large enough to hold ALL of the music produced in the last decade. Aside from cavity searches how exactly is the RIAA expecting to stop that kind of sharing activity?

Well, that certainly makes this case a bit more important.

Re:I've always wondered

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is (and always has been) the case. Only one kid in every class downloads everything from the net, then they share it with there friends, and in 3 or 4 cycles everyone has the files. The media changed somewhat, from floppies, data tapes, to cd-roms, to flash drives, or even 2TB external harddisks.

Re:I've always wondered

[Volante3192]

There's a reason all the twenty somethings are playing the hits of the '70s, '80s, and '90s rock in the bars to the other twentysomething patrons.

Let's not overlook the fact that there's always shovelware music made, we just don't remember it because, simply put, it was forgettable.

Re:I've always wondered

[Narnie]

Cavity searches? Pffft. The goatse man can carry all of the music and movies (in HD) ever made.

While using 10 year old media and using uncompressed formats.

Re:I've always wondered

[Chabo]

I can guarantee that in 15 years, twentysomethings will be playing hits of the past decade (meaning 2000-2010), saying "Man, music was good back then, now it's all crap!".

As Volante pointed out, you don't remember the truly horrifying music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, because it's not memorable.

My grandfather thought my dad's music was crap; he preferred to listen to Dean Martin. My dad thought my music was crap; he preferred to listen to Led Zeppelin. I think the music of today is crap; I prefer to listen to old Metallica.

Everyone loves the music they grew up with. In most cases, that's always been the popular bands on the radio, MTV, or the school dance (how many middle-aged people worship at the altar of "Stairway to Heaven"?)

Notice also that with the exception of public domain, almost all music made outside the past 5 years is owned by an RIAA label. If anything, it's in their best interest for young people to be more interested in discovering "their parents' music" than in finding new, up-and-coming bands, who may not be signed to one of their labels.

I love my old music, but there's quite a lot of good music still being made, in every genre. It just so happens that the radio music is drifting towards a more "metal" sound at the moment, which likely isn't your thing. But if you're trying to get away from RIAA-produced music, you actually need to find new material.

Re:I've always wondered

[sjames]

It does seem that the shovelware is growing in proportion to the rest of late. That could be a sign that I'm getting older and I'm just not into the newer music, but I don't think that's it. It takes me a lot longer to hear about something good than it used to, but it's not as if 'good' is defined to be something that sounds like what I used to listen to.

Re:I've always wondered

[FrankDrebin]

And within a few more years, that storage just might be implanted, attached to your cerebral cortex. If this is even remotely possible, and MAFIAA get their way, we will have a totalitarian society complete with thought monitoring. This is why we must fight their ideas off, now.

Re:I've always wondered

[mcgrew]

I can guarantee that in 15 years, twentysomethings will be playing hits of the past decade (meaning 2000-2010), saying "Man, music was good back then, now it's all crap!".

No, they won't. When I was in my twenties I wasn't listening to the hits of the past decade (late 50s to 60s). But I'm saying the twentysomethings in 2000-2005 were listening to Skynard, Floyd, Zeppelin, Van Halen. In the seventies, NOBODY was playing 50s and 60s music in bars, with a few exceptions (Hendrix, Ozzie, Clapton, and that's about it).

As Volante pointed out, you don't remember the truly horrifying music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, because it's not memorable

Actually I do - there was horrifically abysmal music being played. The Archies (ugh), the Bee Gees (barf), Elton John (retch). Like I see with young people's listening habits now, the good stuff wasn't on the radio. In St Louis Hendrix or Zeppelin never got airplay until KSHE came along and started playing the stuff that had only been passed around by "word of mouth". I discovered Zeppelin in a record store - I was about 16 or 17 and their first album had just came out and one of the store employees (a little older than me) was playing it and I was blown away. A friend had discovered Hendrix' Are You Experienced and I heard it at Tom's house.

My daughter turned me on to ska. I'd liked punk since it came out in the late '70s (they never did play punk on the radio anywhere I was), but my ex-wife hated it. One night she was at the grocery store and I put on a Dead Kennedies tape. My daughter got wide eyed, "I didn't know you liked punk!" Like father, like daughter I guess.

almost all music made outside the past 5 years is owned by an RIAA label

That's because recording was extremely expensive until this century. You couldn't get recorded without a label.

It just so happens that the radio music is drifting towards a more "metal" sound at the moment, which likely isn't your thing.

Actually it always has been. What isn't my thing is the Simon Cowell school of production that's formulaic, designed to be a product, not art.

BTW, AFAIK the first punk rock song was "Surfin' Bird", IIRC the band was the Trashmen; every punk band in existance has covered it. The first heavy metal song was Blue Cheer's cover of Summertime Blues. Nobody has gotten heavier than that in all these years, although many have tried and failed miserably, and a few have come damned close.

If it's too loud, you're too old! ;)

If one way doesn't work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well according to the summery the case was dropped because suing people is not enough of a deterrent and stronger measures need to be taken. Which if you think about it is exactly the RIAA's case against people. RIAA:"We are loosing money to piracy because there isn't enough consequences for pirating." So the motion 11 seemed to say "You can't sue because the consequence isn't enough to stop others from pirating."

Now we just have to watch out of blanket taxing and disconnects from ISP's held for ransom by the RIAA.

Re:If one way doesn't work...

[geekboy642]

You've misread the summary. Specifically, it is exactly the opposite of what you've surmised.

More details? In English?

[erroneus]

What is Rule 11? Is this a Texas rule or U.S. rule?

As a Texas resident, it would be nice to better understand what is happening in the event I may be falsely accused of any such thing. (Heck, even legitimately accused... I have two teenage boys who like music.)

What sanctions..?

[Captain Centropyge]

If you actually read TFA, it says...

In UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, a Houston, Texas, case, the RIAA has voluntarily dismissed its case with prejudice, after being served with a Rule 11 motion.

Defendant never filed the Rule 11 motion with the Court, because the RIAA withdrew its case prior to the expiration of the 21-day "safe harbor" period.

So, no sanctions will actually be enforced. The defendant's threat of Rule 11 sanctions just scared them out of pursuing this particular case.

Re:What sanctions..?

[shentino]

Since the RIAA is clearly going to lose, i wouldn't mind if NYCL didn't let them off the hook so easy. If possible.

Is the court obligated to accept their dismissal?

Haven't the defendants suffered harm thus far?

I wish there was a way for the defendants to countersue the RIAA for malicious prosecution or something. A few million dollars in punitive damages against the RIAA would send a signal, methinks.

Also, I would rather some legal precedent be established in the defendant's favor so that the RIAA would get leashed and stopped from further harassing other defendants.

Re:What sanctions..?

[TubeSteak]

Since the RIAA is clearly going to lose, i wouldn't mind if NYCL didn't let them off the hook so easy. If possible.

This wasn't NYCL's case.

Is the court obligated to accept their dismissal?

As a general rule, not always.
But in this instance, Rule 11 gives the plaintiff a chance to withdraw the case.

Re:What sanctions..?

[Captain Centropyge]

While it certainly would be nice to say, "Hold on there! Not so fast," and then slap the RIAA around a bit for being douchebags, I think that being served with Rule 11 papers will have some significant effects. Now that one person has done it, just watch as everyone else starts to do it, too. Perhaps the defendant's lawyer has found the RIAA's "kryptonite". (Or at least a big enough stick to fend them off.)

Re:What sanctions..?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

While it certainly would be nice to say, "Hold on there! Not so fast," and then slap the RIAA around a bit for being douchebags, I think that being served with Rule 11 papers will have some significant effects. Now that one person has done it, just watch as everyone else starts to do it, too. Perhaps the defendant's lawyer has found the RIAA's "kryptonite". (Or at least a big enough stick to fend them off.)

I wouldn't put it quite that dramatically, but I am sure that all lawyers representing defendants will take a page from the book of this outstanding attorney, not only in respect of the Rule 11 motion, but also his discovery notices, discovery responses, and expert's reports, links to all of which are provided in the article.

Re:What sanctions..?

[sjames]

So, no sanctions will actually be enforced. The defendant's threat of Rule 11 sanctions just scared them out of pursuing this particular case.

True, there will be no sanctions. It does show that there's enough question in the RIAA's minds (or at least their lawyer's minds) that they are unwilling to have a judge look at sanctions for them. They had to know their reaction would tip their hand to other defendants, so they must have been particularly afraid that the judge would agree that their practices have been unethical.

Re:What sanctions..?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

True, there will be no sanctions. It does show that there's enough question in the RIAA's minds (or at least their lawyer's minds) that they are unwilling to have a judge look at sanctions for them. They had to know their reaction would tip their hand to other defendants, so they must have been particularly afraid that the judge would agree that their practices have been unethical.

Yes they knew. The case had been written up earlier, when Mr. Leach first came into the case to take over the representation of the defendant, who had been representing herself at first.

The RIAA needs

[stonewallred]

to be driven into bankruptcy. The BS of dropping the suit because they see they can not win is just that, BS. The judge should prevent them from filing anymore cases in his district, since logically they can't win this one(their POV) so they could not win any others.

Re:The RIAA needs

[Captain Centropyge]

The RIAA needs to be driven into bankruptcy.

And then they just get some of our bailout money...

Re:The RIAA needs

[jonbryce]

In England, there is the possibility of being declared a "vexatious litigant", which severely restricts your ability to bring lawsuits.

Is there an equivalent in the US, and if so, how close are the RIAA to being placed on the list?

Re:The RIAA needs

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the same thing. In fact, NYCL was accused of being a vexatious litigant, IIRC.

Re:The RIAA needs

[againjj]

Wikipedia talks about vexatious litigation in California.

Re:The RIAA needs

[Anonymous Coward]

See: Jack Thompson

What about the financial harm caused?

[commodore64_love]

I just love how RIAA walks-away from a case, with no punishment. How am I... I mean the defendant supposed to recover the 20,000 dollars and 4 years wasted on this case? (At this point a shot to the head of CEO seems like good compensation.)

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[Drakkenmensch]

This is the legal equivalent of threatening to mug someone at knifepoint, but saying "ha ha ha it was just a joke!" when the person calls the cops, and being let off free.

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they dismissed with prejudice. So, defendant was prevailing party, and thus, under the provisions of copyright law, is presumtively entitled to her fees and costs, if I understand the rules correctly...

I sure hope her attourney files, and the judge uses a significant multiplier on the fees...

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[CorporateSuit]

I sure hope her attourney files, and the judge uses a significant multiplier on the fees...

Perhaps the same multiplier the RIAA uses to calculate damages per mp3?

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[kenp2002]

A counter suit for malicious or frivolous prosecution is the next step. More then likely they would settle out of court on that since the evidence was strong enough for their case to fall part\get dismissed\etc. Hell you could small claims court them and probably get a no-show for a quick8 grand. The airline ticket\hotel for their attourney would probably be at least $1200.

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[Kippesoep]

As in: the kind that causes overflows on 32bit CPUs?

Re:What about the financial harm caused?

[troll8901]

I suggest we use human calculators.
At least we have paper trails.

Could have been a lot worse

[serutan]

They could have received a Rule 34 sanction.

Re:Could have been a lot worse

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have received a Rule 34 sanction.

Or a Godwin's Rule sanction.

Re:Could have been a lot worse

[Migraineman]

I had the same thought. I also have a very vivid imagination.

Re:Could have been a lot worse

[UnixUnix]

Seeing that 4chan's Rule 34 has not made it into the Federal Rules, I believe the issue is moot.

(Hey... it's the PUN that is the lowest form of humor, not homonymy)

Re:Could have been a lot worse

[spartacus_prime]

I can't believe I actually looked up Rule 34 of the FRCP to see if there actually were sanctions under that. Damn having Civil Procedure this afternoon.

From wikipedia

[MozeeToby]

For what it's worth, here is what wikipedia has on Rule 11 Sanctions

Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney (if party is represented). It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1983 version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter.

Basically, it's a federal rule meant to deter abuses of the justice system and the fines can be practically whatever the judge wants them to be. That's a pretty scary prospect if you are concerned that you might have pissed off the judge enough that he would impose the sanctions on you, since you don't know how much money you stand to lose.

Re:From wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, it's a federal rule meant to deter abuses of the justice system and the fines can be practically whatever the judge wants them to be. That's a pretty scary prospect if you are concerned that you might have pissed off the judge enough that he would impose the sanctions on you, since you don't know how much money you stand to lose.

Why the hell hasn't anyone sued by the RIAA make a Rule 11 motion immediately after the evidence was presented before? Isn't their evidence flimsy enough to warrant it?

Re:More details? In English?

[Todd Knarr]

Federal rule. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 about what an attorney filing a pleading, motion or paper is representing to the court. The key part is that it requires the attorney to represent that the filing is not just to harrass or annoy the other party and that it's not frivolous and has some basis in law and/or evidence.

That's awesome!

[Gizzmonic]

In celebration of this court victory, I will pirate Jon Wayne CDs all day long!

Re:More details? In English?

[erroneus]

This begs the question as to why this hasn't been done long ago. Now that I know what it is and what its purpose is, why isn't it used more often?

Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[ral]

From the Joint stipulation for dismissal:

... each party to bear its/her own costs and fees

The defendant has lost time and money on this case and gained nothing. Even if every case is resolved like this, the intimidation strategy will still be effective.

Re:Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[commodore64_love]

As I said elsewhere: "(At this point a shot to the head of CEO seems like good compensation.)" You waste ~20,000 dollars and four years of my life - SOME kind of punishment needs to be dealt.

Re:Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[infalliable]

This by far the largest imbalance in the legal system.

If a big company/corporation/MAFIAA starts a lawsuit against an individual, it can easily bankrupt an individual in a short time period while being a drop in the bucket to the company/corporation.

The defendants in most of these cases loose considerably even if they have the lawsuit dropped somewhere in the process. They have almost no means to win, as the MAFIAA does everything it can to avoid paying out a cent while fleecing individuals.

Re:Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[LouisJBouchard]

This is my question to NYCL. Can a judge modify the order to require the plaintiff to pay for the defendants costs? If not, then the defendant is out the legal costs and this is really no victory what so ever because the RIAA can still use this case as leverage for their extortion scheme (pay us $5000 now or you will pay $20,000 whether you win or lose).

If I were a defendant in this situation, I would fight the motion for dismissal on those grounds.

Re:Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is my question to NYCL. Can a judge modify the order to require the plaintiff to pay for the defendants costs?

No.

If not, then the defendant is out the legal costs

Correct.

and this is really no victory what so ever

That's a matter of opinion.

because the RIAA can still use this case as leverage for their extortion scheme (pay us $5000 now or you will pay $20,000 whether you win or lose).

They would never use that terminology.

If I were a defendant in this situation, I would fight the motion for dismissal on those grounds.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I hope you never have to find out.

Re:Defendant's lawyer wins, defendant loses

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This by far the largest imbalance in the legal system. If a big company/corporation/MAFIAA starts a lawsuit against an individual, it can easily bankrupt an individual in a short time period while being a drop in the bucket to the company/corporation. The defendants in most of these cases loose considerably even if they have the lawsuit dropped somewhere in the process. They have almost no means to win, as the MAFIAA does everything it can to avoid paying out a cent while fleecing individuals.

You are exactly right. I discuss the economic imbalance problem, and the mischief it has caused, in detail, in the 'equal access to justice' issue of The Judges Journal, published by the American Bar Association, in my article, "Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless : Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations".

Just goes to show

[ShogunTux]

You don't mess with Texas.

Re:More details? In English?

[Zordak]

Rule 11 is federal. Texas Rule 13 is similar. But this is federal court, so federal rules apply.

Re:More details? In English?

[MozeeToby]

No, this poses the question...

Begging the question would mean that it is a non-logical circular argument.

Re:More details? In English?

[Zordak]

It's not that uncommon for lawyers to file for R. 11 sanctions against each other (but don't expect to be friendly afterward). Probably some defense attorneys have asked for R. 11 sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. What's different here is that it looked bad enough that they plaintiffs thought the judge might actually grant them. That's why they dropped this thing and ran.

So they can still walk away from this?

[cheros]

So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already costed the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions?

Or did I miss something?

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already cost the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions? Or did I miss something?

No you didn't miss anything.

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[sbeckstead]

How difficult would it be to get together a class action suit against the RIAA for harassment of the general public (or preferably some more targeted group) Since there seems to be a mass of evidence accumulating indicating that they are not being too careful with the targets of their litigation.

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[sholdowa]

Given your previous posts, would it now be possible to put together a boilerplate response kit which would vastly reduce the cost and time of putting up said credible resistance?

Also, will the repeated threat of section 11 judgements affect the credibility of the RIAA's lawyers?

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides new legislation, is there anything that can be done about a systematic abuse of the legal system like this? Walking away from a few cases still fits in with their overall strategy of "economies of scale". Would this fall under the RICO act (which would, of course, require a Justice Department investigation and suit which can/does fall under political pressure to quit/never start)? Or do we as law-abiding citizens do nothing about this beside lobby Congress and get out-spent by the RIAA lobby?

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[Diac]

Hi i was wondering can the defendant counter sue now?

As they don't have the threat of this suit been redone against them?

I mean the defendant can show that because of the actions of the RIAA they have cost them money and wasted time.

If so can they use the fact that when faced with rule 11 instead of standing up they backed down straight away, while they wont be facing rule 11 in the counter suit there actions when faced with it by not defending themselves against rule 11 show that they did not or think they did not act appropriate in the case.

BTW To the RIAA as i know they have people monitoring these sites.

"If you have done nothing wrong and acted in the proper and legal manner in your handling of this case why did you back down and dismiss the case? Aren't innocent law abiding people and companies not afraid of the law? What do YOU have to hide?"

-J

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[UnknowingFool]

Tanya Andersen in Andersen v Atlantic is trying for class action status. I haven't followed up if it was granted that status.

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[BigBuckHunter]

So, just to get this straight, the RIAA pursued a questionable case that has already cost the defendant money to prepare for, and as soon as credible resistance emerges they quickly run and do it again to someone else - without sanctions? Or did I miss something?

No you didn't miss anything.

With the exception that it will now be slightly less expensive for "someone else" to defend themselves.

BBH

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Costed?

Are you retarded?

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

would it now be possible to put together a boilerplate response kit

A "boilerplate response kit"? No.
A growing library of helpful materials to which the practitioner can refer? Yes. And the motion, discovery responses, discovery notices, and expert's report prepared by defendant's lawyer make an excellent contribution to that library.

which would vastly reduce the cost and time of putting up said credible resistance?

The library does indeed reduce the cost and time of defense, and increases the efficiency and effectiveness of our efforts.

Also, will the repeated threat of section 11 judgements affect the credibility of the RIAA's lawyers?

Their "credibility"? No. But an order awarding Rule 11 sanctions would have an effect on their credibility.

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[sbeckstead]

I think the Andersen Vs Atlantic case is too narrow a scope for what I want here. Since they are terrorizing the general broadband using population with their apparently "random" acts of litigation and privacy invasion, I want most of the public to be in the class. However I'm aware that too broad a scope will get the case dismissed. So I'd like to find a fairly broad base and file that rather that shoot for the sky, I'd like it to be a bit narrower focus than "Everyone".

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[Drakkenmensch]

Add to that the fact that most of these cases start out as "RIAA vs unidentified defendant" and they used court ressources to have the defendant's name and address be known to them, so now they can run off and send them a "give us 2,000$ or we'll sue you into utter destitution" threatening extortion letter. They've been doing that for years.

Re:So they can still walk away from this?

[JD-1027]

Welcome to American justice.

Rule 34, defined...

[Anonymous Coward]

... by XKCD: http://xkcd.com/305/

Re:Rule 34, defined...

[Chabo]

Not defined, just popularized.

Alibi

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the face of incontrovertible evidence that Defendant Janne Lanzoni was at work at the time the
alleged acts of infringement occurred..."

So if I start up Azureus at home via VNC from work I'm fine?

I hate the RIAA's tactics too, but this doesn't sound like too solid of a defense.

Re:Alibi

[Chabo]

Most likely, they can also prove that she doesn't have the technical know-how to set up such a configuration.

I couldn't possibly do without music

[Mateo_LeFou]

Thank god there are thousands of artists making music every single day and sharing it under acceptable terms. Cf. jamendo, magnatune, etc.

Alas

[Mateo_LeFou]

The RIAA, as per that other article, isn't disclosing which ISPs it has in its pocket.

Oh, and furthermore it'll be all of 'em any day now anyway, won't it? Little ISPs that don't play ball will be broken like champagne flutes.

Re:Alas

[houstonbofh]

The RIAA, as per that other article, isn't disclosing which ISPs it has in its pocket.

Oh, and furthermore it'll be all of 'em any day now anyway, won't it? Little ISPs that don't play ball will be broken like champagne flutes.

Or growing very fast. I would spend a few dollars more to support a known independent.

Two birds?

[Mateo_LeFou]

While they're in there, maybe they should check for ibuprofen and save our school administrators some trouble?

Re:Two birds?

[ps2os2]

I can just see the new headlines:

  CD'S STRIPPED for search on possible use of illegal drugs!!!

  Details follow...

Wonder if the pornography people will be far behind...

Re:More details? In English?

[Todd Knarr]

Well, it's a really major thing. It's not saying the attorney being sanctioned made a mistake. It's saying that they didn't make a mistake, that they deliberately and knowingly lied to the court. Even when that's the honest truth, judges are loathe to level that charge at an attorney. So while Rule 11 sanctions are often asked for, they're usually only granted in extreme cases where the judge can't find any way of justifying not imposing them.

And yes, I do think they should be imposed more often. They shouldn't be routinely granted, but at least the second time an attorney does the same thing he should be smacked for it.

Stupid RIAA

[Zotdogg]

Bear with me, I know no one here is a stranger to this kind of opinion but...

The RIAA is realizing that they are not getting the results they want because some of the people they bring to court are innocent. So, they are seeking to broaden the base of people they influence by coordinating with ISPs to shut off internet for people they deem guilty of pirating.

If it wasn't the RIAA, I'd say something like "Unbelievable!".

Re:Stupid RIAA

[argent]

If it wasn't the RIAA, I'd say something like "Unbelievable!".

"That word, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Is This Really a Victory?

[Nom du Keyboard]

The notice of dismissal still calls for each side to bear its own costs. If this is a victory, I'd hate to see a defeat!

Re:Is This Really a Victory?

[LouisJBouchard]

That would be the Thomas case where you pay $9,000/song plus RIAA legal fees plus your own.

WOW, Look out if they get the sanctions they want

[Anonymous Coward]

The defendant is asking for this sanction:
"In addition, this Court should make a finding that the
use of an IP address to identify the defendant in a peer-to-peer copyright infringement
case is not sufficiently reliable for the Plaintiffs to rely upon that alone as their Rule 11
basis for suing an individual."

That would be big. If upheld on apeal, the RIAA's primary evidence would be unusable in court.
Talk about being slapped in the head... That would have to hurt!

great read

[Anonymous Coward]

the linked article to the actual legal "mumbo-jumbo" text is ... actually... quite interesting. really. Good stuff legal eagles.

Rule 11? I'm shitting a brick already

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one spell shitting?

Where's a spelling bee champ when one needs one?

I consciously don't buy music anymore.

[falconwolf]

I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state.

Why don't you try to use the internet against the RIAA? You can legally download music from a number of websites. Some of them are:

• Creative Commons
• Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
• Magnatune
• Podsafe music network
• 7digital

Now you may not find music you like but you might.

Falcon

Short summarising term..

[cheros]

A shorter title would have been: Large Recording Companies vs The Defenseless: how chequebook justice is destroying US society..

I can't believe that anyone ever been exposed to what currently passes for "justice" in the RIAA cases will come away with the same respect for the law as before. And that is IMHO a much larger risk that is conveniently ignored.

Pointless

[cheros]

The RIAA is but a front. The whole idea of the RIAA is to act as a firewall between the legal abuse and the actual operators. The good news is that that firewall has already been broken (AFAIK) so it's becoming increasingly likely that the record companies are dreaming up new abuse to ensure they don't have to accept that business has changed.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

[falconwolf]

Anything that helps in the fight against these lawsuits is good news and, to me, at least, highly "relevant".

What about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement though? It seems to me ACTA can do a lot of damage.

Falcon

Forget it

[cheros]

Sorry to pour cold water on this, but to get someone declared "vexatious" in the UK is VERY hard. You need a long history of questionable cases, and I think you probably need to serve the person the order.

If they are untruthful about living somewhere (it's as easy as not opening the door yourself and calling the court sheriffs that you don't live there to make that happen) it's even a question if you can make that declaration stick.

The excuse is that it would unfairly prejudice the litigant because he'd have to ask permission for each court case, but I can't see that as prejudice - there's still nothing stopping the person filing if they have a valid case.

[Sorry if this sounds sharp - I have been chasing a fraud through the UK courts and it has been an enlightening and extraterrestrial experience that had in no way, shape or form anything to do with law or justice]

local music

[falconwolf]

CDs are selling like you wouldn't believe it - apparently people are willing to pay $2 for a CD from a group they never heard of

That is just fantastic! Amazingly cool. Capatalism for the win! I hope that idea speads to America.

Actually it has been here for years. I live in Minneapolis and there's at least one shop I can walk to within half an hour where I can buy music from local bands. What I found amazing at first is that they press vinyl records.

Falcon

Re:local music

[lgw]

Well, I was actually hoping the whole "capitalism" idea would spread to America, but that's cool too. ;)

Pink Floyd

[falconwolf]

how many middle-aged people worship at the altar of "Stairway to Heaven"?

I'm middle-aged and a lot of the people I grew up with love Pink Floyd and "Stairway to Heaven".

I love my old music, but there's quite a lot of good music still being made, in every genre.

Same here. Not only do I love old music but I'd like to get a turntable to play it on, there are a couple of stores near me that sells vinyl records. I went into one to browse and almost wanted to run to the store to buy a turntable when I came across an Otis Redding album with "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" on it. I love that song. I don't listen to music much now but the last performers I liked and bought a CD of was Norah Jones and Neko Case.

Falcon

Re:Pink Floyd

[Chabo]

I'm middle-aged and a lot of the people I grew up with love Pink Floyd and "Stairway to Heaven".

Sorry, I think my point with that statement was unclear. Most middle-age people I know do worship at the altar of "Stairway to Heaven", and I was speculating that it's largely because it was THE canonical song to play at the end of a dance.

Same here. Not only do I love old music but I'd like to get a turntable to play it on, there are a couple of stores near me that sells vinyl records. I went into one to browse and almost wanted to run to the store to buy a turntable when I came across an Otis Redding album with "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" on it. I love that song. I don't listen to music much now but the last performers I liked and bought a CD of was Norah Jones and Neko Case.

I'd love to buy some vinyl, but the main problem I have with it is the inherent degradation of the physical medium that you get just from playing it. Once laser turntables become available for a reasonable price I might reconsider (and I think that will happen, even if it takes 20 years), but I'd be too afraid to play my vinyl for fear of ruining it.

If I had amazing equipment then I'd love to take every record as soon as I bought it, and rip it to a 24/192 .wav file, but that's not too feasible. So for now, I'll take my 16/44.1 CDs, and rip them. That way I can listen to a perfect reproduction of the CD master, at least.

Re:Pink Floyd

[mcgrew]

I'd love to buy some vinyl, but the main problem I have with it is the inherent degradation of the physical medium that you get just from playing it.

You need a good turntable. The ceramic cartridges used by cheap turntables take 25 grams (sometines more) of pressure, but a good turntable like a German made Dual takes 1/2 gram. I have vinyl that's decades old, and you can tell the ones that have been played with heavy styluses. The ones that were played on a good turntable have little wear at all, not enough for my old ears to hear anyway, and I can tell the difference between a high bitrate MP3 and a CD.

The worst wear is from playing them drunk; they get scratched really easily, and if you leave them out they get dust, which is worse than wear from a cheap, heavy stylus. But otoh, a vinyl record that's scratched to the point of annoyance, if a CD were scratched half as badly it wouldn't play at all.

Re:Pink Floyd

[Chabo]

Even if the degradation caused by a good turntable is minimized, it's still a worry for me. If there was an album that I listened to on a near-daily basis for years, I think even a good turntable would cause a quality loss over time.

At this point, I think I'll just hope that artists start releasing digital music in greater-than-CD quality, like Trent Reznor has already done (24/96 FLAC. I'll agree the man has musical talent, but Nine Inch Nails isn't music that I can listen to on a regular basis.

Re:Pink Floyd

[mcgrew]

If there was an album that I listened to on a near-daily basis for years

Like Dork Side of the Moon? I relished getting a CD version of that album, but MAN was I disappointed!

The linked journal is a true story BTW.

rights

[falconwolf]

Even US Constitution itself does not claim to contain the exhaustive list of all civil rights, so Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a much better authority on the subject.

Not for the US. For the US the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Of course nobody follows it.

Falcon

I think my point with that statement was unclear.

[falconwolf]

Most middle-age people I know do worship at the altar of "Stairway to Heaven"

Okay. Myself I didn't particularly care about the song or Pink Floyd.

I'd love to buy some vinyl, but the main problem I have with it is the inherent degradation of the physical medium that you get just from playing it.

When, if, I get a new turntable I'll do what I used to do. When I had a stereo and turntable I also had a reel-to-reel tape deck. When I bought a new record and played it for the first tyme I'd record it on the tape deck then put it away. I would then play the tape and if the tape ever wore out I still had the record in good shape to record again.

If I had amazing equipment then I'd love to take every record as soon as I bought it, and rip it to a 24/192 .wav file, but that's not too feasible.

Well, I have Walkman CD player so I could burn my tapes to CD but I don't plan on getting a flash player. I haven't even used the CD player in years, I basically only used it when I Rollerbladed or rode my bike but I haven't skated in years and don't ride my bike much. I want to start skating this year but I don't know if I will, I stopped because the Rollerblades started killing my feet.

capitalism

[falconwolf]

Well, I was actually hoping the whole "capitalism" idea would spread to America, but that's cool too. ;)

I wouldn't say Denmark is more capitalistic than the US. Actually it's more socialistic. Not that the US isn't socialistic as well, it is.

Falcon

Re:capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say Denmark is more capitalistic than the US.

I would. As long as you're talking about actual capitalism, rather than public rhetoric, that is.

Actually it's more socialistic. Not that the US isn't socialistic as well, it is.

The US is very much not socialistic. Denmark is more so. In a (very) good way.

(No, I'm not Danish.)