Slashdot Mirror
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."
So, no sanctions will actually be enforced. The defendant's threat of Rule 11 sanctions just scared them out of pursuing this particular case.
Bite my shiny metal ass!
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).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Actually, disconnection could be appealed to the FCC. Interfering with communication systems (jamming, disconnecting) is illegal for freedom of speech reasons.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
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Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
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.
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Rule 11 is federal. Texas Rule 13 is similar. But this is federal court, so federal rules apply.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"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.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
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.
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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Tanya Andersen in Andersen v Atlantic is trying for class action status. I haven't followed up if it was granted that status.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
RIAA radar is your friend. Look for the labels not on the MAFIAA's payroll and support them for doing something right.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci