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."
According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a sack of money to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.
There, fixed that for you. Actually, to be fair:
According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge reminding the Judge that he's bought and paid for just like the lawmakers and Judges up the rest of the chain.
More realistic although it's a shame this lower court Judge probably won't profit personally from the case unlike those installed into prestigious positions and those accepting lobbying money for their political campaigns.
My work here is dung.
This reminds me so much of a zombie movie... where somebody has cut off the zombie's head, but it doesn't know it's dead yet, and stumbles around causing damage and killing people for a couple of years before it falls over for good.
I will be soooo happy when the RIAA finally realizes it's dead.
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...
Not sure how I feel about this bit (emphasis in original):
The distribution right encompasses distribution to the public. But song files which reside on a computer hard drive are only accessible to someone else who has the same file-sharing software.
Maybe "the public" has some special meaning in Lawyer Town, but the fact that file-sharing software is required to access shared files doesn't convince me personally that the files aren't available to the public. It's not as though there is some privileged minority of people who have access to file-sharing software. Anyone can download it.
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.
hey ! i have evidence ! but i cant use it - why ? because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.
Don't worry. There is no way on God's green earth that the judge would even consider precluding Ms. Amurao from making a cross-motion for summary judgment. That would be the most flagrant kind of appealable order. The RIAA lawyers' request that Ms. Amurao's cross-motion not be considered by the Court will be denied.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This sounds like a great boon to all mankind - a single judge gets to decide something that basically means the term of copyright is now three years.
It has nothing to do with the duration of the copyright, just the amount of time you can let pass without filing a lawsuit.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
get a LOAD of that BULLSHIT. what kind of twisted system is american legal system that, a judge can DENY a legal move by any of the parties. hey ! i have evidence ! but i cant use it - why ? because IT IS DENIED BY APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY.
The judge made a deadline for each lawyer to submit "motions" - letters that say "this case is invalid, because [xxx]". These letters are very common, since there isn't much to lose by trying.
The judge then extended that deadline to later. The defendant sent a letter to the judge objecting to the RIAA's motion, after the first deadline, before the second.
The RIAA then sent a third letter to the judge, pointing out to the judge that the second letter was "too late" (because it was after the first deadline). That's silly, because there was a second deadline, but that's all the letter was. The American legal system may be twisted in other ways, but this is just some asshole lawyer writing a letter to a judge to try to confuse them. There's no "evidence" being denied, and the judge will hopefully ignore the letter.
It has nothing to do with the duration of the copyright, just the amount of time you can let pass without filing a lawsuit.
Somewhere in DC a lobbyist is trying to get statute of limitations increased to "death of the uploader + 99yrs"
No sig for you!!
If that's really what they say, then the law books are just wrong.
Oh. So you're God. Sorry, I didn't know.
Me I'm just a lawyer, who follows the law.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful