Slashdot Mirror
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."
At what point does the legal system itself become a tool for prosecution? Both the father and daughter are involved, despite the outcome, it basically amounts to harassment. Sad.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Thanks NewYorkCountryLawyer for your posts and followups. I for one greatly enjoy reading them.
The way I interpret this (although IANAL) is that if you're sharing a folder online, and they don't sue you within 3 years, you're pretty much home free? This could be really good news for people who share files. Especially since you could copy them to a computer not connected to the internet, wait 3 years, then release it to the wild.
IANAL either, but I believe you're confusing two points. There are two different rights given to copyright holders - the exclusive right to create copies, and the exclusive right to distribute them to others.
The section you're reading only applies to the former. So imagine the following: You download a bunch of songs from the 'net, and have them on your hard drive for more than 3 years. Then they discover that you have those infringing copies. The statute of limitation prevents them from suing you for having copied those songs without the rights holder's permission.
But, if you then distribute them to the public, a new infringement occurs (a violation of the exclusive right to distribute). The statute of limitations on *that* runs from the date of distribution, not the date of copying.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
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). That one would put an end to the whole RIAA campaign, if you can ever get the judiciary clued in...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
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.
But is Gnutella a "limited network"? Any person who has
1) A computer
2) Access to the Internet
3) A Gnutella "servent" (Limewire, Bearshare, etc., which can be downloaded for free from the net.)
has access to Gnet. Since pretty much anybody can obtain all of the three, I would consider that public.
(Whether the law does or not is, of course, another matter entirely)
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.
That was my main point. There are many different angle of attack on this problem:
1. No proof that anything was ever distributed to anyone other than MediaSentry
2. The fact that MediaSentry's methods are secret, and cannot be established as being reliable.
3. The fact that MediaSentry has extremely lax evidence handling procedures.
4. The fact that MediaSentry isn't licensed to perform investigations, though many states require this for collection of evidence to be used in a court of law.
5. The fact that their so called expert does little but regurgitate what MediaSentry tells him.
6. The fact that their expert has a vested financial interest in the success of the terror campaign.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Pardon me, but isn't traditional purpose of so-called zombies is supposed to obey the orders and act as a proxy of the person who raised them?
RIAA is just a bogeyman. A shadow puppet. It is the *media companies* that are suing you. It is *media companies* like Sony, Warner Bros. etc. which are harassing their own consumers. I am not aware of "RIAA" producing any songs.
Sony would not like the negative publicity of being caught suing a 84 year old grandmother. So it banded up with other companies to make a dummy face which people can hate, instead of sony itself or other such companies. Corporations hate the negative publicity. That is the only place where we can hurt them. And when you hate/attack the puppet instead of its master, you are being just the dumb person Sony and its ilk assumed you to be, and playing their game their way.
You want RIAA to die? Stop naming RIAA in these stories as the suing party. It is not that tough to find out which company in the cabal is alleging the piracy. Name *them* when you report the stories of blind homeless veteran being sued by them.
If someone sues you with malice, should you hate the lawyer they have hired, or the guy who is actually suing you and paying the lawyer to make your life hell?
Sony and its pals do these stunts because they know you will hate the "RIAA" instead of them, and they will get to keep their rosy image and be safe from any direct public-backlash. Change the rules, and attack the voodoo witchdoctor. And then see the zombies die.