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?
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.
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.
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
Which does not apply here as this is not an appeal. The original trial was negated due to inappropriate jury instructions. That makes this effectively a new first trial (sort of like in football where you can get a new first down).
So, do you think that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?
"So, do you know that the RIAA was unable to obtain competent representation?"
There, fixed that for you. The answer is yes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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!
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 .
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So you're a cop and I'm a black man?
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.
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
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.