My back of the envelope guess is that they've gone after around 40,000 people, of whom around 10,000 have settled, at an average of $3000 per settlement, for a total of $30,000,000 over 5 years, or $6 million per year. And I'm guessing on back of the same envelope they were spending around $6 million per year to do it, for the first 2 years, and for the last 3 years have been spending more like $15 million per year.
So it has been a short term financial boon for some lawyers who (a) are not very particular about the kind of work they accept, and (b) won't have that work for much longer.
And it's been a disaster for the record company shareholders, and a disaster for the victims of the suits, and it's been a hardship -- albeit one assumed voluntarily -- for folks like me who decided to step into this mess to try to stop these bullies. The above "back of the envelope estimate" was from me. It didn't dawn on me that it would appear as "Anonymous Coward".
adjudication on the merits = with prejudice = case cannot be brought against her again
no judge can't stop them from withdrawing the case before an answer has been filed
"Settlement money is where it's at, baby." Except that they LOSE money on every settlement!
Haven't you been following along with the stories? Actually Kingrames, I think the GP had it right. I think they: -make money on the settlements -lose money on the default judgments, and -lose a lot of money on contested cases. Overall I think they're losing money now, but the settlements are the money-making part of it. They get almost no revenue from anything else.
I'm certainly not the most up to date on all the RIAA's done, etc. however... It seems to me that it's the DUPLICATION that is an infringement of copyright and not simply making something available........ but what am I missing? You're not missing anything.
It's the RIAA's lawyers that are missing something. I'm not sure what they're missing, but I've got it narrowed down to 2 things: (1) brain cells, or (2) integrity. Or possibly some of each.
So, what will Ms. Cassin do? Who's representing her anyway? Maybe that attorney could find out and get back to us? I guess you've figured out that her lawyer is me.
The RIAA is obviously afraid of losing outright on the issue of its "making available" argument. I say that because without the "making available" argument the RIAA will no longer be able to sue it fans. Let's face it, if the RIAA had actual evidence of copyright infringement, it would not need to use the "making available" argument. Thus, it's clear that the "making available" argument is the only pseudo-legal straw available for it to grasp. Boy have you got that right, Anita.
Why wouldn't the Judge force them to present their failboat of a case after a year of pre-trial proceedings?
Did the defendants not contest the motion to dismiss? Under the federal rules, a plaintiff is absolutely entitled to dismiss its own case before the defendant has filed an answer. In this case, defendant had not filed an answer. Instead, she had filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency.
Secondly, how does it hurt the defendant for the case to go away? Answer, it doesn't.
The only question is whether or not attorneys fees will be sought. But that is a totally separate issue.
What's the case law say about judges granting the cost of defense from the plaintiffs? Is it based on their mood, or how bad the "evidence" was that the plaintiffs used to make their case, or something else? Good question.
they throw in the towel to avoid precedent being established.
Seems to me further evidence that they are systematically abusing the legal system with sham lawsuits. If they actually cared about this individual case wouldn't they want to see it through? I agree with you. I think they are trying to avoid another disaster like this one.
Proving my point about how it's just random when I discover judges ruling against the RIAA in ex parte cases, I just tripped across this gem of a ruling this morning.
It's true, but very slowly. Think about how many thousands (dare I speculate, millions?) of these suits RIAA files each year before 268 United States District Judges in 94 different United States District Courts and 3 territorial courts. In comparison to the onslaught of filings, the "judge says no to RIAA" stories are still just a trickle. Of course, it's also possible that there's some selection bias in what gets reported. It would be interesting to see numbers on exactly how often these things get shot down, and how that has changed over time. You are probably right, but not necessarily right, that in most instances the ex parte applications and default judgments get rubber stamped, and that the growing resistance among judges. although growing, is still a "trickle".
But the reality is... we have no way of knowing, because when a judge refuses to sign something in one of those procedural contexts where there is no defendant or defendant's lawyer who even knows about it, the only one who does know about it is the RIAA. And they're not telling. They only tell when they win something, never when they lose something. (In fact in one instance, Atlantic v. Howell, they won something against a pro se litigant who couldn't afford to hire a lawyer. And then they went around telling every judge they could find about their great victory. Then the pro se litigant got the decision vacated, but the RIAA never bothered to tell all those judges to whom they'd sent the first decision. In fact, in the Capitol v. Thomas case, where a jury trial went far awry, in part because of the judge's reliance on Atlantic v. Howell, the court's decision indicating that that the judge believes a "manifest error of law" was committed mentions the fact that Atlantic v. Howell had "since" been vacated; i.e. he believes it was vacated after the Capitol v. Thomas trial. Wait 'til he finds out that it had actually been vacated a week BEFORE the trial, and the RIAA just never bothered to tell him, instead continuing to rely on the decision it knew had already been vacated.)
When I happen to find out about a judge refusing to sign an ex parte order, or refusing to enter a default judgment, it's total luck. It's a miracle. Each one I've learned about has been a total fluke.
Take a look at the facts of this case in Maine. It was totally "ex parte" -- i.e. the RIAA gave no notice to anyone.
Ask yourself, how in heck did Ray ever even find out about it?
"Counselor" == "lawyer". The implication is that the poster I was replying to was one of the RIAA's lawyers who was mad because they lost that decision. Now that I've explained it, I'm sure you're endlessly amused. Well at least I got a big laugh over it. I can use one of those now and then. Thanks!
Do any of you "lawyers" look at Black's Dictionary? "Ex Parte" means "On one side only; by or for one party; done for, in behalf of, or on the application of, one party only." There are state law references to the "without notice" concept but the main meaning is one side only.
I am just a country bumpkin entertainment attorney. And?
One side went into court, and asked for relief against the other side; did not give notice to the other side that it was doing so; and asked the Court to grant the application without letting the other side know about it until after the application had already been granted.
It was "for one party", done "for, in behalf of, [and] on the application of, one party only."
And the only way that could have been accomplished was "without notice".
I've heard that one RIAA lawyer became a judge in Colorado... That is correct. All I can tell you is that whoever was vetting this judicial candidate didn't contact me for a reference.
I'm sure it's horribly flawed in some way. But it's also beautifully poetic. Any system where you have to have money in order to sue or defend yourself in court is horribly flawed, because it exchanges the rule of law for plutocracy. I'm not sure how to fix it, thought; if you simply have the state pay all legal fees, it makes rising nuisance suits even easier than they are now, and might even make making them for hire a new profession. Well I know a couple of judges who've started down the road of fixing it for the RIAA cases.
Otherwise it'd be a madhouse in which I could sue people and automatically win most of the time (without even making any arguments), just because they didn't have the wherewithal to defend themselves properly.
Well, isn't that exactly what the RIAA has been doing ? Indeed it is.
I can't believe how well you guys have summed it up.
Thankfully, though, it appears we've entered a new phase. The phase where more and more people are fighting back, and more and more lawyers are jumping into the fray.
Slashdot Mirror
So it has been a short term financial boon for some lawyers who (a) are not very particular about the kind of work they accept, and (b) won't have that work for much longer.
And it's been a disaster for the record company shareholders, and a disaster for the victims of the suits, and it's been a hardship -- albeit one assumed voluntarily -- for folks like me who decided to step into this mess to try to stop these bullies. The above "back of the envelope estimate" was from me. It didn't dawn on me that it would appear as "Anonymous Coward".
I think the shareholders care.
well maybe you took this evidence course
i didn't find any flaws in your presentation
let me do that again, this time with line breaks:
adjudication on the merits = with prejudice = case cannot be brought against her again
no judge can't stop them from withdrawing the case before an answer has been filed
adjudication on the merits = with prejudice = case cannot be brought against her again no judge can't stop them from withdrawing the case before an answer has been filed
-make money on the settlements
-lose money on the default judgments, and
-lose a lot of money on contested cases. Overall I think they're losing money now, but the settlements are the money-making part of it. They get almost no revenue from anything else.
It's the RIAA's lawyers that are missing something. I'm not sure what they're missing, but I've got it narrowed down to 2 things: (1) brain cells, or (2) integrity. Or possibly some of each.
And the answer is, she hasn't decided yet.
She clearly has a winnable attorneys fee motion ahead, if she decides to make one, with a lot of good recent precedent behind it, such as Rivera v. Jones, Mostly Memories v. For Your Ease, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, and Bridgeport Music v. WB Music.
Secondly, how does it hurt the defendant for the case to go away? Answer, it doesn't.
The only question is whether or not attorneys fees will be sought. But that is a totally separate issue.
The most recent caselaw is that copyright defendants are presumptively entitled to attorneys fees where the case got dismissed by the plaintiffs who "threw in the towel".
about the typo, folks.
Yes it's 2008.
2007 was the Next to Last H.O.P.E. conference.
(sigh)
I apologize, previous post was in error.
Proving my point about how it's just random when I discover judges ruling against the RIAA in ex parte cases, I just tripped across this gem of a ruling this morning.
But the reality is... we have no way of knowing, because when a judge refuses to sign something in one of those procedural contexts where there is no defendant or defendant's lawyer who even knows about it, the only one who does know about it is the RIAA. And they're not telling. They only tell when they win something, never when they lose something. (In fact in one instance, Atlantic v. Howell, they won something against a pro se litigant who couldn't afford to hire a lawyer. And then they went around telling every judge they could find about their great victory. Then the pro se litigant got the decision vacated, but the RIAA never bothered to tell all those judges to whom they'd sent the first decision. In fact, in the Capitol v. Thomas case, where a jury trial went far awry, in part because of the judge's reliance on Atlantic v. Howell, the court's decision indicating that that the judge believes a "manifest error of law" was committed mentions the fact that Atlantic v. Howell had "since" been vacated; i.e. he believes it was vacated after the Capitol v. Thomas trial. Wait 'til he finds out that it had actually been vacated a week BEFORE the trial, and the RIAA just never bothered to tell him, instead continuing to rely on the decision it knew had already been vacated.)
When I happen to find out about a judge refusing to sign an ex parte order, or refusing to enter a default judgment, it's total luck. It's a miracle. Each one I've learned about has been a total fluke.
Take a look at the facts of this case in Maine. It was totally "ex parte" -- i.e. the RIAA gave no notice to anyone.
Ask yourself, how in heck did Ray ever even find out about it?
One side went into court, and asked for relief against the other side; did not give notice to the other side that it was doing so; and asked the Court to grant the application without letting the other side know about it until after the application had already been granted.
It was "for one party", done "for, in behalf of, [and] on the application of, one party only."
And the only way that could have been accomplished was "without notice".
Thing is, if I were a moderator, and didn't happen to know the background, I probably wouldn't get it.
But thanks for the laugh.
:)
I can't believe how well you guys have summed it up.
Thankfully, though, it appears we've entered a new phase. The phase where more and more people are fighting back, and more and more lawyers are jumping into the fray.