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...
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That would be like me standing over you with a baseball bat and:
a. You are not allowed to defend yourself
b. You can not attack back
c. You can not yell for help
d. And if you do survive, you can neither charge me or sue me.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Hope NYCL is correct about the RIAA motions failing. Should they succeed, it's like the prosecution calling the defense shots. How does she get a fair trial? Wouldn't something like this be more apropos to either a) trying to bring up something new after the trial has commenced, or b) an appeal situation? NYCL?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
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?
Better yet, do they have a song on their list which the artist didn't assign the copyright to the label?
The Judge scheduled a June 8th telephone conference regarding the RIAA's motion to preclude objections.
The in limine motions are scheduled for June 10th.
Plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendants from making objections at trial
Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to suppress MediaSentry materials
Notice of hearing scheduling plaintiffs' motion to preclude objections
Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion to foreclose fair use defense
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to preclude reference to cases
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion to exclude defendant's expert witness's testimony
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves? Yeah I guess that seems fair considering they (RIAA) are like totally only doing this to defend the rights of Artists. I wonder how much further they can push these strategies upon people and the courts before a angry mob with pitchforks try to storm their office buildings (remind me to invest stock in pitchfork companies at the earliest opportunity).
The Long Now Foundation
I've hardly ever had to visit his blog due to the marvelous quality of his summaries. Maybe if he cut down on the quality of his summaries he could up the traffic to his blog.
If NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks a motion is ludicrous and doomed what does the judge think?
Doesn't this sort of telegraph to the judge the tactics being employed?
Is it really smart to effectively tell the whole court that you intend to grasp at every straw that comes your way?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
To file a motion to bar objections on something that hasn't been the subject of exhaustive motion and discovery practice?
Correct me if I'm wrong (IANAL) you file a motion like that when the other side has been relentlessly arguing a point beyond all sense and reason and you are just trying to get them to knock it off and acknowledge - a la a request for admissions, that reality is what it is. Or perhaps you are asking the judge to compel them to acknowledge that reality is real.
In any event, you don't file this cold on something that hasn't been a bone of contention. That's just painting a target on it, right?
Counsel for Ms Thomas: "Oh wait? you don't want me to ask about your copyright registrations? really? oh? Your Honor, I'd like to see proof that the parties are actual the valid holders of the copyrights at issue in this lawsuit."
Judge: "So ordered"
RIAA counsel: "How could a 7 foot Wookie live on Endor? That... does not make sense. I... do not make sense."
NY Country Lawyer: "Oh no, they're using the Chewbacca defense again!"
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
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. Frankly, the motion is not as evil as people here will make it out to be, since the issue of ownership of the copyrights isn't really in dispute anyway, and it will save both sides time & money to get to the important parts of the case.
Another thing to note is that this appears to be a new trial, which is not the same thing as an appeal. Despite what many people think, an appeal is not like a do-over of the original case. Once the original trial has been carried out, an appeal can only be made of issues that were properly disputed and objected to at trial. So, if a fact is established at trial, and there is no clear objection that is preserved for appeal, you can't argue it, even if you think that would be a great way to win the case during appeal. An appeal is almost always about questions of law instead of fact as well, and appellate courts usually give a great deal of deference to what the factfinders (usually the jury) determined during the trial, and will only overturn or (more commonly) vacate a lower court's factfinding if the jury reached a clearly erroneous conclusion. In fact, there is actually no constitutional right of appeal. By standard judicial custom most cases do get one appeal as long as they weren't dismissed with prejudice (for something like a patently frivolous claim, or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God).
Since this case is a brand new trial, there is likely little that cannot be brought back into play, for what little that's worth.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
This is just about tying them up and strapping them down with endless motions and other legal hassles so that it gives any other lawyer thinking about taking on the RIAA (pro bono or not) a major reason to think about it twice. they don't even excpect to win these motions, its just about burying the other side in paper work.
Don't be silly, hes not got an account.. why else would he post anonymously.
*whisper*
What's that? Under a bridge you say? Oh, a troll! well nevermind then.
A snowball insulated with enough money lasts quite awhile here.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
NewYorkCountryLawyer, This isn't the clearest summary you've written. I'd suggest that next time, you just give us the facts, for instance the first sentence of your summary would have been enough, and then you just let us do our part and let us add the outrage, the anger, the guessing, and the confusing remarks, all by ourselves.
I've hardly ever had to visit his blog due to the marvelous quality of his summaries. Maybe if he cut down on the quality of his summaries he could up the traffic to his blog.
Now you tell me.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
some people like to get kinky and like to put on masks... just for the fun of it.
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
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!
Is this essentially:
"Your honor, we ask that the defendant is not allowed to make any statement in her defense"
"What? Why?"
"'cause else we'd lose the case, duh!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
I've never understood why books are (C) Author, and music is (C) Publisher
from Salon article in January 2000:Courtney Love does the math
Last November [2000], a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act. He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That Mitch Glazier, the congresional aide? now an RIAA lobbyist It certainly wasn't an accident. I've never understood why they just didn't fix that.
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
> ...unless of course you were following the law.
Don't worry. These are RIAA lawyers. You don't have to worry about them making that mistake ;-)
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.
Or, maybe, just maybe, if their lawyers are trying everything, absolutely everything that they can think up, it means this case isn't really about copyright at all. It's about billable hours.
But if he starts making his summaries vague and misleading, then he might get tapped to become an editor for Slashdot.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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
She should file a motion to prohibit the RIAA lawyers from engaging in barratry. To try and deprive someone of their due process when they themselves are guilty of using the most underhanded tactics to get their way is scum of the earth level thinking.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The defendant shall be required to bring a parrot to trial each day and answer all inquiries with the phrase "Yar, I be a salty sea dog".
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
In a criminal trial the prosecutor would need to prove she stole a song.
In a civil trial the plaintiff must prove not only that she violated a copyright, but that she violated theirs before they can claim they were harmed and so are due relief.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
When the value of the ?IAA's back catalog multiplied by a dozen or more because they stole our commons the entire industry didn't get audited by the IRS. They just get to keep that value, and move it offshore (hello Sony!). Because they stole it fair and square. The same reason applies here.
When the state department pushes globalization of our repressive intellectual property regime, or even worse, it's the same reason: From the courthouse to the statehouse to the Whitehouse, they've sold us out. Every last one. They either know not what they do, or they don't care. We can't do much about it right now because we have bigger fish to fry with issues of security both foreign and domestic.
But eventually these greedy bastards will over reach and then they'll learn that their copyrights can be taken away, by constitutional amendment if necessary, and even monopoly and acts of congress can't save transcontinental rail when its day is done.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But if he starts making his summaries vague and misleading, then he might get tapped to become an editor for Slashdot.
That would be great. Then I would be respected and admired by all, instead of being reviled, mocked, ridiculed, and derided on a daily basis.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ok, here's the idea this phrase gave me.
We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
Look at what's happened here. The RIAA had their team look at it, they found a problem, and tried to sidestep it. In doing so they basically pointed a big glowing arrow at the things in the case they would wish to have hidden.
Well...we could do that too. Right?
If there were a place where all the info were made available, and some sort of public campaign to let "us geeks" know about it...we would read it. "Help us fight for your rights against the RIAA - donate 15 minutes of your time. Click this link." That kind of a thing. A little bit here, a little bit there. If we were to take the Linux management concept and apply it to a legal case (a few high level moderators, lots of low level contributors)...who knows what other red flags the community might find? There are a lot of surprising sorts in the community, and I'd bet we actually do have quite a few legally trained folks who might want to do some small increment of good over a boring lunch break, for instance.
If every person in this thread were to read a paragraph or two and try to spot problems...well yeah, we're not lawyers but we all can read pretty much. Maybe something might come of it.
Anyways, it's just an idea. Maybe a good one and maybe a bad one. Fans and Flames to follow, see below. =)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Research the career, or ending of, 'Jack Thompson'.
Your /. UID leads me to think you might be trolling, but I will give you the benefit of doubt here.
Long story>short:
Jack got himself dis-barred from practicing as a lawyer for his ass-clown behavior in court, and with presiding judges.
Check it out for yourself, maybe start with a wiki search for 'dis-barred lawyers+USA[or insert relative terms/countries]'...use your imagination.
Damn, 'preview' is cool. :-)
Sorry if I came off as harsh...that was not my intention at all.
I tend to be terse, and try for precise.
Add a 'fuzzy bunny' filter to the above, and my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Fixed. That's not cynicism, it's actually the only ethical position and is a typical requirement for membership of a professional body.
An agent acts to the best of his ability in the interest of his client. Perhaps the confusion arises because people who act as agents in a commercial capacity are usually also professionals.
True professions are governed by a professional body that the professional is required to be qualified for, subscribed to and supervised by. The body may have a Charter and have authority to set by laws (legally enforceable rules) over their members. A substantial part of the rules for the professional body surrounds the potential for conflict of interest. They almost universally require that where any conflict arises, the professional must default to the position that is in the interest of, in order, his profession, his client and himself.
Admittedly, that is a little simplistic. Consider that prioritising the interests of the profession is often a tool for prioritising the interests of clients as a whole - if a profession is brought into disrepute it impacts everybody who relies on the profession. If the conflict is between two clients, prioritising the profession is an objective way for treating both of them fairly and evenly.
(I use British terms but the set up is broadly the same in most Western countries.)
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?
Didn't you read my second sentence:
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.
Boy some people are so predictable.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful