backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 29 comment(s) - last by gbswuk.. on Jun 28 at 11:47 AM
And it may have shot itself in the foot for doing so

The RIAA brought an abrupt end (PDF) to the longstanding copyright trial Warner v. Cassin earlier this month, after filing a sudden motion to dismiss late last May.

The dismissal, approved by the White Plains, New York court on June 4, was discovered Wednesday by Ray Beckerman of copyright blog Recording Industry vs. The People. He notes that discussions had just begun on the principle of "making available" -- that is, offering a file for download via a P2P client's "shared folders" feature. With recent case history suddenly shifting towards the defendant, instead of the RIAA, it appears that the case may have been dropped in order to snuff out another unfavorable ruling.

"They were afraid of [Warner v. Cassin] Judge Robinson deciding the case, because his would be the most well-informed decision so far," said Beckerman, in an interview with Ars Technica.

The RIAA has thus far remained quiet on its reasons for the dismissal.

Warner dropped the case voluntarily and "without prejudice," leaving both sides to bear the cost of their legal fees and leaving its complaint open to future litigation. It is possible, notes Beckerman, that Warner may have closed the door on future, similar cases as well, if it turns out that defendant Cassin was previously identified through a prior "John Doe" proceeding, which Warner had also voluntarily dropped.

Federal law states that cases where "plaintiff previously dismissed any federal-or state-court action based on or including the same claim" as another future case, then a second dismissal -- such as Warner v. Cassin -- automatically operates as an "adjudication" of cases' merits.

The dismissal of Warner v. Cassin marks yet another iteration of an emerging RIAA pattern: walking away -- or trying to -- from cases it feels it cannot win, or cases that might result in an undesirable precedent. In Atlantic v. Boyer, where Atlantic tried to have a judge dismiss a counterclaims suit filed against it by plaintiff Eva Boyer, a District Judge expressed his annoyance with the RIAA's seemingly dogged antics, denying Atlantic's motion almost immediately and without any response from Boyer.

Speaking in the comments section, Beckerman says defendant Joan Cassin has a chance of winning back her legal fees, although she is undecided on whether or not she will choose to do so.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wounded ...
By HVAC on 6/12/2008 8:52:46 AM , Rating: 5
To cut off a turtle's head, you have to lure it out of its shell. The RIAA saw the axe coming and ducked back inside. But they may have damaged or even doomed themselves in their haste.




RE: Wounded ...
By marvdmartian on 6/12/2008 9:11:16 AM , Rating: 5
I see no reason not to twist the knife a little, and make them pay the defendant's legal fees. Seems only fair, if they were the ones that caused said legal fees, right?


RE: Wounded ...
By plinkplonk on 6/12/2008 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 5
exactly, surely if they brought the case against this person then they should have to pay the fees when they choose not to continue, she didn't ask to be involved in the first place so they should have to pay up.


RE: Wounded ...
By Topweasel on 6/12/2008 9:27:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I was thinking about as I read the head lines. I wonder if the defendant got its legal fees reimbursed. I don't know how you can so someone decide that the answer you were going to get would not be what you wanted to hear then walk away leaving them thousands under in legal fees.


RE: Wounded ...
By tmouse on 6/12/2008 9:39:20 AM , Rating: 4
This is, unfortunately, very standard. Direct TV did this hundreds of times in its witch hunts; it's viewed as a form of “punishment”. While pursuing their legal costs would be better for everyone there is a chance they would loose and just run additional costs. Many are just happy to get it over with and others ruin their lives (marriages, jobs ect) trying to extract revenge, it a tough choice.


RE: Wounded ...
By Ticholo on 6/12/2008 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 3
While I get that in such cases no verdict is given and, as such, the defendants may very well be guilty and this could be viewed as "punishment", weighing the financial burden for both sides shows a clear disadvantage on the side of people how are forced into a battle with a corporation that may ruin them well before it's over.
If on top of that you add the fact that these don't appear to be isolated incidents, sort of "last effort" things, but concerted actions that follow a pattern, these guys should be forced to pay when they choose to dismiss a case they brought up. At the very least it would force them to use such measures in a more careful way.
I mean, different judges can let a few of these go by, but when they start to be a few dozens, there's something wrong there.


RE: Wounded ...
By tmouse on 6/12/2008 12:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I’m 100% in agreement, I hope no one thinks I'm supporting this, its wrong plain and simple, These groups do this to (in their mind) punish the defendants even though they get the sense they could not win if it went through to a verdict. The system just seems to ignore it. To make matters worse Direct TV was granted immunity from counter suits when the Ninth Circuit held that Noerr-Pennington protects against RICO claims. Currently the law has different standards for the government versus the people, which is fair. However corporations are treated just like individuals, but many have more money than some of our smaller states, so in court there is simply no equality. They can out spend defendants and run away without the need to go to verdict.


RE: Wounded ...
By Adonlude on 6/12/2008 1:40:49 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately money is indeed power. Our legal system should take steps to change this but the people who have the ears of the politicians are the people with the money.

In this country harassment is legal as long as it is done with a laywer and a fist full of cash.


RE: Wounded ...
By glitchc on 6/12/2008 10:49:00 AM , Rating: 5
It shouldn't be standard. Rather than simply contest for legal fees, bring a suit against the original plaintiff for frivolous claims, and make the legal fees from the prior case part of the claims in this one. It will also bring to light the terms for frivolity, as in RIAA will be forced to defend the term "making available", which was the grounds for their original lawsuit. Should set a nice precedent.


RE: Wounded ...
By Topweasel on 6/12/2008 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome point wish I could rate you up. Make the court decide, by bringing a case on the collection of legal fees (for both this suit and the last suit), for them not to pay it the court would have to set precedence on "making available". Since only you can then at that point dismiss the case they have to listen to the verdict. Just once they need to go after some 500K to 1 mil (yearly income)CEO who's kid "Made Available".


RE: Wounded ...
By Polynikes on 6/12/2008 12:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, if I was them, I'd try to get the RIAA to pay the fees.


RE: Wounded ...
By Ticholo on 6/12/2008 9:48:40 AM , Rating: 3
But the judge could have denied them that motion, right?
Because, let's face it, the chance these cases are "honest mistakes" on the part of RIAA is pretty slim, so there is no reason they shouldn't bear the consequences.
And the least they should be forced to do is pay the defendant's legal fees.


RE: Wounded ...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 2:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are exactly describing Court Reform which was another good thing Bush tried to do when he was re-elected that was flamed down by the Democrats.


RE: Wounded ...
By Targon on 6/13/2008 7:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
There was even one good thing that George W. tried to do?

Seriously, if you want to get into politics, you need to look at the wording of the laws, not the primary point of the law, but what clauses and other things are worked into the wording of the law, because in many cases it explains why a "good" law doesn't get support.

If the law would protect individuals while at the same time granting immunities to the wealthy individuals who are at the heart of many of these lawsuits for example, it would be seen clearly as attempting to protect certain "friends" of the politicians putting the law forward. If it is too transparent, it won't get support.

Earmarks is the term used in politics when describing spending allocations and laws. I don't know what the term would be for special clauses to protect certain people in a law designed to prevent unethical behavior by corporations.


RE: Wounded ...
By kc77 on 6/13/2008 7:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you are talking about Tort Reform. Um, I wouldn't necessarily find limiting the amounts of judgments found in favor of the person who was mistreated, harmed, or even killed due to negligence of a corporation a good thing. Tort Reform focuses strictly on the amount awarded to a plaintiff when dealing with corporate malfeasance.


RIAA
By RedFoxOne on 6/12/2008 10:38:06 AM , Rating: 1
LOL, screw the RIAA. MPAA and all the other four letter organizations that want to stop free trade!

JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com




RE: RIAA
By Donkey2008 on 6/12/2008 4:06:48 PM , Rating: 1
Free trade? You're basically stealing copyrighted works and then passing stolen goods onto thousands of other people. How is that free trade? You sound like a bunch of spoiled children. "Gimme gimme gimme. I want it. WAAAAA!!". Go ahead and start your anti-RIAA websites since you are being treated "so unfairly". It won't hurt them at all.

I personally don't like the RIAA's legal tactics and I hate lawyers as much as anyone, but they are simply trying to protect the product they sell from being pirated and shared over the internet. Go work for a software or game company and tell me how much you enjoy seeing your hard work spewed all over newgroups and P2P.

Here's an idea - don't download and share copyrighted works that have been pirated and you won't be sued. It's a pretty simple concept.


RE: RIAA
By Targon on 6/13/2008 7:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
What you fail to mention is that the RIAA itself does not produce ANYTHING other than legal action. The difference between the RIAA and MPAA in how they approach their cases is also VERY different.

Think about it, the work of a music artist/group is one aspect, and then you have the duplication/marketing aspect when it comes to music. If the whole legal duplication and distribution aspect ends up costing the customer who buys the music retail more than the original artist/group, many people feel that the recording industry itself is broken. Who is losing the money when it comes to music downloads if the artists are getting only 2 cents per copy of a song, and the artists get nothing when the RIAA wins a lawsuit, because the money won goes to pay legal fees?

The movie studios on the other hand need to pay how many thousands of people just to make a movie? Between special effects(even basic stuff most people take for granted), the stars, the extras, the support staff for all these people, plus the work that goes into the transfer from acting to "film", editing, etc, there is a LOT more costs involved in production of movies than there is in recording.

This is a part of the reason for the high costs of going to the movies today, as well as the reason why you don't hear quite as many complaints against the MPAA. The MPAA tends to go after the commercial pirates while the RIAA goes after individuals who often don't even know what is going on(the kids are the ones downloading the stuff, not the parents). You may dislike the MPAA because they SEEM to be the same sort of organization as the RIAA, but in general, the MPAA doesn't go after individuals who don't make a living off copyright violations. They go after businesses that sell pirated movies.


RE: RIAA
By darkpaw on 6/12/2008 4:33:59 PM , Rating: 3
I hate the RIAA's methods and tactics, but piracy is not free trade.


RE: RIAA
By shockf1 on 6/12/2008 8:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
to me the RIAA and MPAA have gone about this all wrong, but on the other hand piracy is illegal.

but the bottom line is that 2 wrongs dont make a right.


RE: RIAA
By gbswuk on 6/28/2008 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Make no mistake todays consumers are at war with the large corporations that attempt to dictate all the rules - I agree it is currently illegal but law is not always right!
Do you imagine that the huge changes that have come about towards lower cost legal on line distribution, reductions in the cost of DVds etc is some kind of altruistic marketing - no it the the giant corporations realising that they cannot go on screwing the public forever. These changes have resulted directly from internet piracy. People had been taping music from the radio and copying VHS tapes for years and the industry did little to stop them - it is only the "scale" of internet distribution that scares them.

Lets look at some the restrictive things that they do:-
1) The determine who sees what and where by region control - why should a kid in the UK or France wait 2-3 more months for the latest game, dvd or film - simply because the company's want to maximise profit. This restriction also prevents you having the free choice about when where and how to use the product you have paid them for
2) They withdraw popular items (eg Disney) and starve the market to give them the opportunity to re-release later at higher prices
3) There are millions, if not billions, which they have withdrawn for economic reasons and simply hold on to - denying the public the opportunity of hearing particular works
4) They are equally unfair towards the people who really matter in this - the artistes and performers who also find their material held back

The entertainment industry, being a fundamental part of life like transport, education, health etc should, by nature of the field they are in, develop ethical codes and responsibilities to the society that they serve. They like most good artistes should not be in the business "just" to make money.

To go back to the "two wrongs dont make a right" - then just remember that at one time in his country Nelson Mandela was a "criminal" under the law and that in Nazi Germany many of the things that happened to Jews were "legal". Law is not right by default and on occasions can only be challenged and changed by breaking it.


Fair?
By P4blo on 6/12/2008 12:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
Where is the justice for the defendant here being left with legal costs? If one party decides to pull their case and offer absolutely no reasons they should pay all legal costs by default.




RE: Fair?
By chmilz on 6/12/2008 2:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. These huge corporations don't need to win in court to win over the defendant: they can just bleed them dry and ruin them financially. Go on, keep biting the hand that you want to feed you.


RE: Fair?
By flydian on 6/12/2008 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. The more I read stories like this, the less inclined I am to hand over money for their products. Luckily, with my current lifestyle, I'm content with the bits of TV and radio that I get to enjoy. But still...


RE: Fair?
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 8:45:48 AM , Rating: 3
Just the legal costs? Let's see now, they are claiming people stole what, a few dozen MP3 or so and want to stick them with dozens of thousands of dollars worth of fine if not more, which is easily 200X the actual loss, so wouldn't it be more fair if the RIAA paid 200X the defendants' legal costs?


By Chosonman on 6/12/2008 10:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
I wish Cassin could continue this case and show the RIAA for what they really are. A bunch of thugs trying to shake down the public for everything they're worth.

It seems the RIAA is suing everyone they can and dropping the cases they can't win just in time so they can build up a portfolio of favorable cases to show to the next judge. Dirty handed if you ask me.




By Screwballl on 6/12/2008 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
agreed... we need people to start fighting back. You know the lawyers would love it since the 4 letter companies would end up getting them a huge paycheck.
That and once people start fighting back, RIAA will learn that it needs concrete evidence to start the lawsuit which in most cases will never happen.
This is the beginning of then for RIAA (or at least their lawsuits).


By phattyboombatty on 6/12/2008 1:58:07 PM , Rating: 3
The recent trend is that defendants are filing counterclaims against the music company. That way, the music companies can't simply walk away on the eve of an unfavorable ruling. Some of the counterclaims are class actions, where the defendants are really trying to stick it to the music companies.


By flydian on 6/12/2008 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
mmm...class actions...

Nothing gets the attention of corporate fat cats like a class action lawsuit.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki