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."
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?
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?
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Sanctions weren't awarded; the motion was withdrawn because the RIAA, rather than risk sanctions, withdrew the case within the "safe harbor" period.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
When will the RIAA stop wasting money on these cases?
They won't. The old business model is dead, and the new business model is brain dead. The old model was that it cost uberbucks to record an album, so the artist couldn't make a record without the labels.
Now, the price of recording has come down to the point that anybody can record an album in a professional studio and have the CDs professionally pressed and packaged for as little as $1 per copy.
This leaves the labels to distribute and market, and marketing means radio. You have to be on a major label to get on the radio.
The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.
The new business model is paid downloads. The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.
The music industry as we knew it is dead, and I for one am glad. The RIAA labels' days are numbered, and they won't be able to steal from their artists and customers for too much longer.
Lawrence Lessig talks about the four reasons for P2P in his book Free Culture. Cory Doctorow talks about it in the preface to his book Little Brother, which has been on the NYT best seller list. You can buy either book at any bookstore, or check it out for free at your local public library, or download them for free from the authors' prospective websites.
Both books are making a handy profit. As I said, Doctorow's is a best seller, which kind of puts the lie to the RIAA's pathetic whining.
Free Martian Whores!
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?
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.
Ray,
I'd be curious to know if you have any wisdom to share regarding the new direction that RIAA seems to be taking. Namely that of signing agreements with ISPs to get them to do the dirty work instead.
This seems like something that the end user will have very little recourse over. Virtually every ISP agreement I've ever read gives them the right to deny you service for whatever reason they wish -- but how is that remotely just if it's based on the same lack of evidence that RIAA failed to use in the court system?
How (if at all) can the people who inevitably wind up being wrongfully accused fight this?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
"you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?', well, do ya punk?"
Dirty Harry, its characters and quotes are copyrights of Warner Brothers(TM). The above quote is only meant as a humorous reference to a pop culture icon and is not meant as a performance of copyrighted material.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner