RIAA Defendant Moves For Summary Judgment

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One thing you don't see too much of in RIAA litigation is a defendant moving for summary judgment, but that is what just occurred in federal court in Westchester, in Lava Records v. Amurao II. The RIAA had brought suit against Rolando Amurao, a middle aged man who knew nothing about file sharing. After haranguing him for 2 years, they dropped the case and sued his daughter, Audrey, who had used LimeWire years ago. When the RIAA moved for summary judgment against Audrey, however, she surprised them with a summary judgment motion of her own, calling for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out on the RIAA's claims. The brief filed by her attorney (PDF) also points out some of the other infirmities in the RIAA's case, such as the inadmissibility of its evidence, the legal nonexistence of a claim for 'making available,' and the unconstitutionality of its damages theory. According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it. Meanwhile, Audrey's father's case, Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao, is on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit over the issue of whether the RIAA should have to reimburse Mr. Amurao for his attorneys fees. Although the appeal was fully briefed and scheduled for argument May 19th, the RIAA has been asking for postponements of the argument."

Comments

Re:About That Letter ..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wish we had more info on what this "letter to the judge" thing means.

1. A summary judgment motion "searches the record", which means that the Court can grant summary judgment motion AGAINST the party making the motion. I.e., the judge is supposed to search all of the papers, both for and against, and if the moving party's case should be thrown out, the Court should throw the case out.

2. Sometimes, when a party opposing summary judgment feels the other side's case should be thrown out altogether, the party also files a "notice of cross-motion", sometimes he or she doesn't bother.

3. In this case there had been an agreed extension of the time to file "opposition papers".

4. When the RIAA saw that the opposition papers contained a "notice of cross-motion" they complained, saying that the extension of time did not apply to any "cross-motions", and said they would write to the Judge asking her not to consider the "cross-motion".

5. In my opinion their objection is frivolous, and demonstrates that they are deathly afraid of Audrey Amurao's motion.

Re:Curious interpretation of "the public"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town

I would say it has the same meaning it has everywhere else, which is that it is available to all -- as, e.g., this comment can be viewed by "the public" -- rather than to a limited network.

Re:Curious interpretation of "the public"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town

I would say it has the same meaning it has everywhere else, which is that it is available to all -- as, e.g., this comment can be viewed by "the public" -- rather than to a limited network.

Sorry Ray, but I have to call you on this one. Saying that the files are only "available to people on a particular network" *is* making them available to the public, since potentially anyone can connect to that network. If I were handing out CD's to people here in Tucson, would you say that they weren't available to the public since you'd have to fly down here to get one? Please stick to arguments that will actually hold water, such as that the law be requires the RIAA to show that there was actual distribution to the public (rather than just to their agents).

I'm just going by what the law books say. Sorry you disagree with them. The law books say that for a distribution to be "to the public" it can't be to a limited network. Also, your analogy doesn't "hold water" for about 600 reasons.

By the way, the "to the public" element is just one of the many missing elements. The RIAA has also failed to prove (a) dissemination of copies to the public, and (b) a sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending.

You obviously don't know me. I only make arguments that "hold water". I'm just a country lawyer that wound up in a big city. I don't write the law. I report it.