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."
Wow... They were stared down, and blinked...
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.
Who is John Galt?
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?
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.
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?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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?
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!
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.
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.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
They could have received a Rule 34 sanction.
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.
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, 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?
Insert
Thank god there are thousands of artists making music every single day and sharing it under acceptable terms. Cf. jamendo, magnatune, etc.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
While they're in there, maybe they should check for ibuprofen and save our school administrators some trouble?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love