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Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.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