RIAA Wants To Bar Jammie From Making Objections

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Duluth, Minnesota case headed for a re-trial on June 15th, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed a motion seeking to bar the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she got married recently), from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents. To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections. I'm guessing that the RIAA lawyers realized they have some kind of problem with their paperwork, and thought this a clever way of short-circuiting it. Instead, of course, they have merely red-flagged it for Ms. Thomas-Rasset's new legal team. A few days earlier, the RIAA lawyers filed a similarly ludicrous motion trying to keep Ms. Thomas-Rasset's expert witness from testifying; that too is doomed."

Comments

Re:Hmmh

[slarrg]

It seems to me that the RIAA is just doing a lot of "make busy" work to make the case as expensive as possible for her pro bono counsel.

Re:it flies in the face of common sense

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What's the point in having a second trial or an appeal if you aren't allowed to do things differently? Then again, this is law we're talking about, so logic and common sense probably don't apply.

This is NOT law; this is baloney. The RIAA lawyers wouldn't know the law if it hit them on the head.

Re:it flies in the face of common sense

[k10quaint]

Sadly, all the lawyers that used to work for the RIAA have new jobs in the justice department. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
The good news is, the RIAA is suffering now. The bad news is, many people may be suffering later.

Re:What a non-story

[whoever57]

The copyright registration documents are merely the paperwork that indicates that the copyright owners registered their works... which is a necessary precondition to suing for damages. The documents themselves also establish a prima facie presumption that the plaintiffs actually own the copyrights to the works that are allegedly infringed. In other words: Even if this motion to suppress objections fails, the defense is going to have to prove that the plaintiffs do not have rights to the copyrights in question... good luck trying to prove that.

It may not be so black and white. IIRC, if copyrights are not registered within a certain time period, one can only sue for actual damages and not statutory damages. This would make a huge difference to the defendent, since actual damages would be about $10.

Re:it flies in the face of common sense

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation? I would think that they could afford it.

Having the resources to afford competent representation doesn't necessarily mean having the judgement to select competent representation. Its probably not all that uncommon that people with plenty of resources (particularly if the position they want to take is not well supported) end up with the representation most willing to tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily the most effective at providing useful advice and effective advocacy.

Let's put it this way: the RIAA has the representation it deserves .

Ooh, ooh! I know this one.

[symbolset]

The difference between a professional and a laborer is that the professional practices his profession to the best of his ability in the interest of his client, and the laborer puts the ditch where he's told to put the ditch.

Not incompetence, arrogance

[SmallFurryCreature]

The RIAA is often likeneded to the mafia, and just as the mafia, they are used to the world behaving in a certain way. These lawyers might be high priced, but something tells me they grew up on cases where money talks. Not the real law of criminal cases or the bitterly fought battles of family court but corporate law. Where you often win just because you got the bigger team and the other side just settles because that is what everyone does.

They are now fighting a real battle against a real lawyer who is as far as I know backed by an extreme heavy weight from harvard and his students. All the bullshit that used to work to get a settlement doesn't work. They didn't pull this motion not because they thought it would work in court but because it worked for them before as bargaining chip in the settlement deal.

There is a real difference between a criminal type lawyer we see in on TV and the far more common business lawyers that draw up contacts and settle disputes.

I don't believe in incompetence, sorry, but these guys ain't that dumb and you would make a grave mistake thinking they are. I do believe in arrogance and the RIAA shows all the signs of it. They think there way works (and lets be honest, it has worked until now).

Also don't forget this, if they are cynical, then they might just be throwing things and see what sticks. Pretty much their tactics with prosecuting John Doe's in the first place. File every motion you can think off, you never know what the judge is crazy enough to accept or the opposition lawyer lets slip by. Because one thing this motion has achieved. More work for a lawyer working for free, more fugde for the judge to get lost in.