How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If a regular 'country lawyer' like myself had taken a case like the RIAA's in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset to court, he or she would have been laughed out of the courthouse. But when it's the RIAA suing, the plaintiffs are awarded a $1.92 million verdict for the infringement of $23.76 worth of song files. That's because RIAA litigation proceeds in a parallel universe, which on its face looks like litigation, but isn't. On my blog I fantasize as to how the trial would have ended had it taken place not in the 'parallel universe,' but in the real world of litigation. In that world, the case would have been dismissed. And if the Judge had submitted it to the jury instead of dismissing, and the jury had ruled in favor of the RIAA, the 'statutory damages' awarded would have been less than $18,000."

Comments

Re:I think you have it backwards

[langelgjm]

Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.

Did you even bother to read Ray's post? I'm guessing not.

Ray points out some extremely simple things that were overlooked. Here's one example:

The jury should have been required to make findings as to (a) the date defendant commenced using an âoeonline media distribution systemâ (Kazaa) and (b) the copyright registration effective date of each work they find was infringed. The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa [or the Court could itself have made that determination based on the answers to the verdict form].

I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but basically if you want to bring a lawsuit over copyright in the U.S., you need to have registered that copyright. Under Berne, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (fixation), but the U.S. requires registration of works if there's going to be a case about it (at least for domestic works). This is a simple technical detail, but if the works were registered after any copying or distribution happened, it is an important fact.

Also, Ray is not saying IP has no value.... sounds like you have an axe to grind and are just looking for a place to do it.

If you're on a jury for cases like this, NULLIFY.

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.

This is when you think the law is bad, or you otherwise cannot convict them under it by your conscience. It still exists to this day, but simply remains mostly unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In this case, I would have absolutely nullified a potential $2 million fine. Did she do it? Sure. But it's a bad law resulting in excessive fines.

It only takes one juror who knows his or her rights to stop this kind of crap. For more information as your rights at a juror, see the Fully Informed Jury Association.

http://fija.org/

-SKO

Re:I think you have it backwards

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes, Ray is claiming that all those people did it wrong and I have no idea if he's right. But he is giving a list of arguments to support his point. So if you want to claim that he is wrong, you should show that those arguments are wrong.

My blog post was written specifically to an audience of experienced lawyers. Any regular litigator knows that the procedural errors I pointed out are correct. And any regular copyright lawyer, litigator or not, knows that the substantive legal errors I pointed out are also correct. By saying that you "have no idea if he's right" you are demonstrating intellectual integrity, something in short supply these days. So thank you.

Re:I think you have it backwards

[BlueStrat]

Copyright law is there to protect the rights of the creators;[snip]

Incorrect by way of ommision. Copyright is intended "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings ..."-U.S. Constitution

It seems that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches have all completely skipped over the entire first part, and only acknowledge the existence of the second part, as do many individuals.

The "securing...exclusive rights..." part is simply a method devised to, and derives from, the desire to accomplish the "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." part. It doesn't stand on it's own, and that's one of the biggest problems with modern copyright law interpretation and enforcement as well as the laws written concerning copyright in recent times IMHO.

Strat