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

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

[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

[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

[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....

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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: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.

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.

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: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:Rule 34, defined...

[Chabo]

Not defined, just popularized.

Re:Spiffy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the irony...