Slashdot Mirror
UMG v. Lindor Ends, No Fees, No Sanctions
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The 5-year-old case of UMG Recordings v. Lindor (which we've discussed all those years) has come to a close in Brooklyn, without ever reaching the deposition and document production of MediaSentry. The District Judge denied the RIAA's motions for discovery sanctions but granted the RIAA's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and without attorneys fees, adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge."
So the case is dropped without requiring attorneys fees, adding to the impression that it may be cheaper to pay the recording industry a settlement than have years of legal battle for nothing beyond not having been required to pay the ridiculous punitive damages.
a clear win for the RIAA gameplan, if not the widest possible margin.
Ice Cream has no bones.
The RIAA can refile if they wish (no prejudice), and
Lindor has to pay for his own attorney, UMG is totally off the hook ("no harm, no foul")
They were right: government of the people, by the people and for the people - but in the court system, big business rulez!
Other than an attorney bill that you need to sell your kidney for.
Yeah, that's going to teach the RIAA not to scare people. :/
No fees is sanity? Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Where do you work that Slashdot is allowed but recordingindustryvspeople isn't?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Let's see here: The RIAA has demonstrated that they can roast you slowly in court for years, costing you many thousands in lawyer's fees, and get a dismissal which costs them nothing and allows them to sue you for the exact same thing all over again! Yep, they're in trouble now...
Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?
Yes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm really surprised that with all this potential wrecking of lives, no otherwise-innocent person has simply arranged for a meeting with the accusing attorneys and shot them to death.
I'm not advocating this, but I'm surprised that no one has snapped in that manner.
Can they counter sue? I mean they did ruin this guys life for the past couple of years...
Same boat. Epically sucks.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
It seems that a person who couldn't math the virtually infinite funding of the RIAA would lose even if they win, having to defend endlessly against such suits.
I make it a point to never mention my employer, but we have less internet access than the Chinese. Slashdot probably gets through because it is a .org domain.
Free Martian Whores!
It's nice to know that a judge can stick you for doing your job.
What the fuck is "unduly contentious"? Shouldn't a lawyer work harder when up against a more formidable foe than "Joe's Garage and Automobile Recycling?"
"You successfully wore down the representatives of a large monopoly. We can't have that. You and your client must be punished"
--
BMO
Well, true, but MediaSentry doesn't exist in a vacuum. More money paid to lawsuits means either less money to actually spend on artists (and thus, artists leaving to form indie labels), or less money to spend on MediaSentry. Either one is a good thing in the long run.
More importantly, it would mean the defendant wouldn't have to pay those obscene legal fees, they'd just have to waste a ton of time. So it's not quite a win for the defendant, but it isn't quite what it is now, where a defendant is likely to settle just because their legal fees may well outweigh any possible settlement.
Finally, if it set a precedent, it would break this habit the RIAA has of simply suing everyone and asking questions later. Right now, it's actually profitable for them to do so, because occasionally they do get a settlement. If it cost them that much more each time they failed, they might pay a little more attention to who they sue in the first place.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Just because the defendant prevails in a case doesn't mean that the case was frivolous.
No, and I don't mean to imply that...
To say that it was a frivolous case would mean that the plaintiff had no hope of winning from the outset.
The RIAA has sued a 12-year-old girl, an 85-year-old grandmother who never touched a computer in her life (not sure about the precise ages, but about that), a dead person, and a network printer.
I suppose it's possible this case had some reasonable grounds, but in general, they've been litigious bastards, and it seems pretty clear that it was never their goal to win in court, but rather, to pressure the defense (financially, with legal fees) into a settlement.
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether it was actually frivolous, but it seems to me that this is exactly the reason we have the ability to award legal fees -- to prevent litigious bastards from abusing the system.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
(abridged version)
RIAA: I sue you for $xx,xxx,xxx
Lindor: Ok, here's my attorney. En garde!
(many years and several thousand dollars later)
RIAA: Ok, I was kidding all along. I didn't really mean to sue you, especially since I have no hope of ever winning. Let's call the whole thing off. No hard feelings ?
Judge: Yeah, Beckerman, quit being such an feisty little prick. Oh, and btw you can both go fuck yourselves.
Now I'm not all that well-versed in the letter of the law, but that reeks of fraud. A frivolous lawsuit gone unpunished is what this is. I'd dare accuse the judge of collusion.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Reading the judge's decision, he blames most of the court costs on the fact that the Lindors may have had a houseguest in 2004, and that she sold her computers sometime between 2004 and 2008, which was a loss of evidence for the RIAA. If they had disclosed their houseguest then a lot of this could have been averted, according to the judge. Talk about overcompensation for a small discrepancy, you effectively ruin a family because they didn't disclose a houseguest they had for an unknown amount of time. I am not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty large case of overkill.
The judge's decision seems to be based entirely upon his having accepted as gospel the first version of Ms. Yanick Raymond-Wright's testimony, and totally ignored the second version contained in her errata sheet. At her deposition she testified that she spent a considerable amount of time at Ms. Lindor's house during the Summer of 2004. Thereafter, Ms. Raymond-Wright consulted her records and realized that she was in school in the Summer of 2004, so that it was another Summer, not the Summer of 2004. The trier of fact, at the trial, would have been permitted to determine which of the two versions to accept. Judge Trager was not the trier of fact, since this was a jury case. So the judge -- without even observing the demeanor of witnesses -- made a decision which it was beyond his authority to make.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No it is because the guys in the IT department want to read slashdot.
No fees is sanity? Shouldn't the RIAA have to pay for bringing what seems to be an essentially frivolous lawsuit?
Worse: dismissed without prejudice.
In other words the RIAA can rinse and repeat... B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What the fuck is "unduly contentious"?
The judge doesn't say, does he? That's because he doesn't know of any instance in which I was "unduly contentious". Because there wasn't any.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What, exactly, did NYCL do that was "unduly contentious?" I don't know.
Neither do I. Neither did Judge Trager. Neither did Judge Levy.
Stupid decision? Yes.
Let us say an "incorrect" decisions.
Some sort of anti-individual, pro-monopolistic corporation perversion of the legal system conspiracy? No.
Let me put it this way: undue deference have been paid to the corporate plaintiffs on numerous occasions during this litigation.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the best defense is a good offense.
I am wondering when something like a private, mass numbers of people, class action RICO (or similar, anything possible by non governmental folks)** suit is filed, for price fixing and collusion.
What all these places are charging for "legitimate" download songs, for a few megs of transfer, is *ridiculous*. They are out of the ballbark artificially high..way high. If it was any tangibles products out there with such high across the board and across alleged "competitors" prices, compared to costs of making copies of this or that for sale, the howls would be loud and all sorts of prosecutors would be on it.
But tens of thousands of percent markup seem to just fly with no worries in the digital products realm. I am wondering why this is? The only answer I can come up with is collusion, with perhaps a tad of governmental interference in there with "laws" if ya get my point I am "lobbying" for here.
I think if there wasn't collusion and price fixing, and perhaps some other more serious crimes, that we would be seeing five cent download songs today. And even at five cents it would be a hefty markup.
**seems to be the government is in no hurry to look at the prices of digital download "products" and why they seem to be so "coincidentally" high across the various music sites and official purchasing places. That's why I am wondering what possible private civil suits could be brought, an offensive strategy rather than defensive, and I am aware that under some circumstances, private RICO suits can be brought.
I've been so annoyed at that I have never purchased one single download song (nor pirated any, I just don't), I just have been boycotting. I'll byy a used CD for 50 cents or a dollar max, or listen to the radio, that's it. I was a loyal music purchaser from LPs and singles starting in the 50s, going to 8 track, then to cassette, then started getting seriously annoyed with the lack of price drops with cheap plastic disks, only bought a few new then quit, and when it hit download and it was near the same price..which I knew was jacked up outtasite...heck with it, started boycotting. It's tremendous price gouging, and across the industry. Smacks of collusion.
Jacked up RAM prices...feds on it. Jacked up LCD screen prices..they are on it. Jacked up digital products pricing, jacked up to the moon levels pricing...freekin *crickets*, like it isn't even happening.