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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
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!
Even if they were doing it to annoy the defense it should only prove to be a minor hindrance. Consider that a successful defense of Jamie Thomas-Rasset against the RIAA, possibly winding its way to a spectacular conclusion with arguments before the Supreme Court, would boost the career of an enterprising pro-bono attorney tremendously. It could put them on the fast track to partnership in a big firm or, at the very least, increase their profile enough to attract new clients with similar cases and deeper pockets.
So you're a cop and I'm a black man?
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.
Why do these buffoons get far-reaching presidential appointments, while decent, experienced, talented people (Like NewYorkCountryLawyer, for example) get the shaft?
It's not who you know as much as it is how much money you have( for "contributions")... My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
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.
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.
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
You are correct that it's those 4 corporations hiding behind the RIAA as a front. I use "RIAA" as shorthand. But knowing those 4 names doesn't really help because most of the records are sold under their affiliated labels. So the best way to know which are the real bad guys is to go to my Index of Litigation Documents and look at the plaintiffs' names. And the best way to avoid patronizing any RIAA label is to check them out on RIAA Radar.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
Yeah, but their balance sheet is probably looking more and more like mine every day.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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"?
Every state has an organization which has the power to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct, up to and including disbarment.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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.)