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

About That Letter ..

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:About That Letter ..

[anagama]

I don't really understand the "letter to the judge" part. Absent an issue with a party abusing motion practice, any motion should be considered and nobody has a right to say a party can't file a motion. The other party is totally free to argue that the motion is bogus of course, and if the motion is defective for procedural reasons, it can be denied on that basis. Nothing is stopping the RIAA from filing a response saying the motion should be denied, and I suppose the letter could be considered an informal response, but if it isn't shared with the other party, then it is unethical and improper communication with a judge.

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

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.

Zombie Movie

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Zombie Movie

[thej1nx]

In a way, RIAA is indeed an undead zombie.

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.

Prosecution

[BountyX]

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.

Re:Prosecution

[CowboyBob500]

Exactly. What kind of dumb legal system allows a rich person to sue a poor person, then half-way through say, "Oops, didn't mean it", without having to cover the costs of the other party?

Curious interpretation of "the public"

[superdana]

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.

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.