Slashdot Mirror
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."
Sorry, but the RIAA has filed a motion to keep me from posting a comment...
The RIAA's main argument is essentially judicial estoppel.The problem is that since the verdict in the first trial was overturned, matters implicit in that verdict were also overturned, so that there is effectively no previous determination. As I understand it, if the court in the first trial had made a separate determination of the validity of the copyrights, then reversal of the verdict on other grounds might let that determination stand and therefore prevent the defense from making the argument in the second trail, but since there was no such separate determination, overturning the verdict throws out everything.
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It's a second trial. As Ray points out, there's no chance of the motion succeeding, but to play Devil's advocate: I think the reason the first trial was thrown out is an incorrect jury instruction ("making available"). In theory, I suppose you could argue this could be rectified without substantial deviation from the original trial.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The RIAA lawyers gave the defendant's lawyers notice that they were going to introduce documentary evidence at trial. If the defendant's lawyers don't object, then the documentary evidence comes into evidence without objection. If the defendant's lawyers DO object, then the RIAA lawyers have to prove that the document is what it purports to be (that is, a real federal copyright public record).
It appears that the alleged pirate's lawyers did object. HA!
Typically proving a government copyright document is what it is is accomplished by getting a sealed certificate from the government attached to a copy of the document. It's really easy and relatively cheap. But the RIAA hasn't done this and the trial date is screaming down on them.
They are in panic-street because they understand just how crucial that document is!
It's a lawyer's nightmare--messing up something easy to prove but essential to prove. They're hoping that the trial judge will bail them out somehow by letting their UN-certified public record copyright document into evidence.
I can understand their pain, but I can't have too much sympathy because when they have the upper hand, they are very hard. Now, they are soft and whiny to the trial judge, begging for mercy and an escape from the operation of the law. HA!
That's not really the whole story, though, and the article is misleading in parts.
The fundamental reason why
Authors of books write the books, and use publishers for marketing and printing. Publishers take a cut of sales to pay for their services.
Music, on the other hand, is more complex. You have a copyright on the composition, on the lyrics, and on the sound recording. In order to gain access to the professional recording services of the record label, you have to contract with them, and though you are performing the song, it is the studio and its employees providing the lion's share of the work--sound designers, studio staff, technical people, etc. The labels therefore traditionally owned the sound recording copyright, as the studios were the "authors" of the recording, and the artists merely "performers". (In the same way, a film screenplay copyright doesn't become the actors' when they perform it for money.) The minor amendment in 2000 did not change that.
Music artists who do, in fact, write their own music and lyrics also own the copyrights on the musical work (unless they've traded or sold them). The studio copyright on the back of the CD is for the sound recording, which is not a musical work. If you were to acquire the sheet music to the same songs, the copyright would likely be a different entity. Many popular acts, however, are totally studio creations--the label hires the composers, lyricists, and performers. The label owns just about all the copyrights in that situation.
The problem is that music studios are now becoming something more like book publishers--their services are really just mass production and marketing, and accordingly, with groups creating their own professional-grade recordings without the studios and thus keeping those copyrights as well, the studios are left with less actual power and will soon face the consequences of that. When they are no longer needed to make the sound recordings, they can't extort the artists quite as badly.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
In legal matters, never ascribe to stupidity what can be ascribed to willfully amoral conduct. (Which is not necessarily malice, although malice would comprise a large portion there of.)
I've been dealing legally with a person, from whom I have never gotten the same story from twice. Every time we talk, I hear a different story from him. He broke into my house, and stole exclusively my laptop, my briefcase holding most of my legal material, and a folder stamped all over with "CONFIDENTIAL" that contained my work product. He was witnessed coming into the house, and then attempted to bribe and coerce that witness into lying to the police, and as well, obtained a letter from his work stating that he had been working the entire day.
One would naturally first start off with, "how stupid can this guy be?" and the answer is, he's not stupid at all, he's just at his wits end, because I had him painted deeply into a corner. His only last option was to commit multiple felonies in order to attempt ducking the problem. Now, you and I would look at the situation and go, "before this incident, he was only facing civil liability, but now he's facing criminal liability", however when you back a badger into a corner, stupid or intelligent, they're going to lash out in any way that they feel justified in doing.
So, I'm betting the lawyers knew exactly how stupid this motion was, but it's simply a pawn in a strategy... it's attempting attrition...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
or D) setting somebody up for a really hard fall. I'm thinking of Judge Kimball, in the SCOX files, who seemed to be bending over backwards to give time and attention to SCO's every little move, only to thoroughly trash them later. Judges who've got an idea of where the case is going (or who don't particularly like one side, regardless of the merits of the case) will sometimes play out as much rope as one side wants, and whistle jauntily while that side puts their head in the noose. It's a way of making your judgment appeal-proof. If the appeal court looks at your judgment and the proceedings, and saw that you gave the loser every chance to present their side before cutting them down, the court will be more favourable to your judgment.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
So who says that ownership of copyrights is not in dispute?
The party who has the burden of proof of proving ownership of copyrights is saying it. Hmmmm. I wonder why. If it was so easy for them to prove, and beyond dispute, why make an issue out of it?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful