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

[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....

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: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: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: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.