Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging

Posted by kdawson on from the out-of-the-kitchen-with-you dept.

xander_zone_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed. In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA. (We discussed the claims and counters a year back.) "An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions. Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday."

14 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Yay for Ray by gavron · · Score: 3, Informative
    He knows his stuff. In the long run truth will prevail!

    Way To Go Ray!

    E

  2. who's vexatious? by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman’s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents.

    As is not unusual, the editors seem to have missed the fact that NewYorkCountryLawyer is not a litigant - though they are correct in stating that the complaints against him have been dropped.

    1. Re:who's vexatious? by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those who dared not taint their eyes with a quote from TFA, I will further clarify: NewYorkCountryLawyer was not accused of being vexatious.

      Also, my statement that the complaints against him were dropped is not entirely accurate, as the judge dismissed both sides' complaints.

    2. Re:who's vexatious? by RIAAShill · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who dared not taint their eyes with a quote from TFA, I will further clarify: NewYorkCountryLawyer was not accused of being vexatious.

      The decision said that, "[a]ccording to plaintiffs . . . counsel 'intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect Plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue,' unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying this litigation and severely prejudicing plaintiffs' ability to learn the critical facts." The complaint sought monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927, which only allows for sanctions if the accused attorney "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously ."

    3. Re:who's vexatious? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      the judge dismissed both sides' complaints

      Not so. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the RIAA's motion for "discovery sanctions". He did not rule on Ms. Lindor's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. That motion is still pending.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:who's vexatious? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, man... corrected by the expert himself... http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm [cornell.edu] So, a Rule 11 motion simply means that the opponent may be sanctioned for breaking any other rule, if deemed appropriate, correct? If so, what exactly was the sanction for, and if it goes through, what implications might it have outside of this case?

      The Rule 11 motion was based on the deliberate false statements of fact contained in the RIAA's motion. My Declaration of Ray Beckerman in opposition enumerates, in detail, the false statements, and the true facts.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Re:vexatious litigant? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea.

    He outed himself a long time ago as I recall. All of his posts have his webpage in his signature line. His webpage has his name on it.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:vexatious litigant? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's even in his description about himself in his user page (right side).

  5. Re:Overstated, not completely false, though. by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

    So I'm guessing what Ray did was vexatious but apparently being vexatious isn't illegal (maybe being 'overly vexatious' is?).

    If I remember right, vexatious means intending to harass. I think the proper interpretation of what the judge meant was that the effects of actions do not indicate the purpose or intent of the actions. RIAA's lawyers attempted to make the connection from what some would consider due diligence and the blog as harassment and then attempted to infer the intention. If the judge saw the connections as informative sort of like news reporting or as you mentioned posturing for political campaigns, then while the effect of the actions could have been harassment, no "intent to harass" was found and the extent of harassment was exaggerated.

    That would clear up the distinctions between "vexatious" and 'overly vexatious' because without the intent, it doesn't really exist.

  6. No claims of deft dismissed by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed. The defendant did not have any counterclaims. She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys. That motion is still pending.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  7. Re:vexatious litigant? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    He outed himself a long time ago as I recall. All of his posts have his webpage in his signature line. His webpage has his name on it.

    Correct. I have never been anonymous on Slashdot.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  8. More accurate article: my Firehose submission by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday, which Slashdot rejected: "RIAA's "Sanctions" Motion in Lindor Denied"

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  9. Re:"You're Gotham's DA... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Glad to hear NYCL. Whenever I want to find out what is up with the RIAA, I go to you first. You do a great job and please keep it up :)

    Thank you, Tigersmind. Much appreciated. I notice that some of the readers are still believing what is in the article, instead of believing my report. The Rule 11 motion has not been ruled upon by Magistrate Levy.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  10. Re:Overstated, not completely false, though. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did this kind of BS from the RIAA even have a chance of working

    No.

    or were they just being vexatious themselves?

    Absolutely, which is why I made a Rule 11 motion. I can only remember 1 other time, in 30+ years of practicing law, that I have filed a Rule 11 motion against a fellow attorney.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful