Slashdot Log In
US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:57 PM
from the big-guns-in-the-wings dept.
from the big-guns-in-the-wings dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."
Related Stories
[+]
Judge OKs Challenge To RIAA's $750-Per-Song Claim 333 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, in Brooklyn federal court, the presiding judge has held that Marie Lindor can try to prove that the RIAA's claim of $750-per-song statutory damages is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, since she has evidence that the actual wholesale price of the downloads is only 70 cents. This decision activates an earlier ruling by the Magistrate in the case that the record labels must now turn over 'all relevant documents' regarding the prices at which they sell legal downloads to online retailers, and produce a witness to give a deposition by telephone on the subject. Judge Trager rejected the RIAA's claim that the defense was frivolous, pointing out that the RIAA had cited no authorities contradicting the defense, but Ms. Lindor's attorneys had cited cases and law review articles indicating that it was a valid defense. See the Decision at pp. 6-7."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
An excellent idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An excellent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An excellent idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You forget you can't spell DMCA without the *D* (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the Soviets, the Republicrat Party has convinced the citizens of the USSA that their vote does indeed count (at least the 45% of the citizens of the USSA who actually go to the polls). And they have convinced the 45% who go to the polls that the 55% who don't are apathetic. Well actually they are, who cares which one wins when neither has our interests at heart?
The corporations, each and every one of them, finance the USSA's elections 100%. Each corporation "contributes" to both wings of The Party.
When that great American corporation Sony can "donate" to both major parties of an election, it doesn't care who loses, Sony wins.
Shortly after they start snowball fighting in hell there will be two laws passed.
-mcgrew (splitting my vote vetween the Libertarians and Greens. I won't waste my vote on someone who not only doesn't represent me, but represents those whose interests are diametrically opposed to mine).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reporter: "Will things get better no
Two (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two (Score:5, Funny)
"Sure, the high tech industry produces more revenue and innovation than the entertainment industry, but when it comes right down to it, we still prefer to snort our cocaine from between Titney's Pears than from the Commander's Taco. Can you really blame us?"
- Bipartisan Statement: Sen. Porkin' Hitch (D-isney), Sen. Serious Tubes (R-IAA)
Re:Two (Score:4, Funny)
* or Microsoft, Sony, MPAA, SCO, rms,
Re:Two (Score:5, Funny)
The forces of Rohan destroy the army of Eisengard. The Ents destroy Eisengard itself. A bunch of ghosts destroy the armies of Minas Morgol and then two little guys with furry feet cause Mordor to implode by destroying a ring.
Which leads us to the conclusion that if the US DoJ & the RIAA represent Isengard and Minas Morgol, they will eventually lose, although Sean Bean will die in the process.
Re:Two (Score:4, Funny)
Burden in counterclaim? (Score:5, Insightful)
DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm missing something here...
Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Informative)
Simple. It's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Translated another way, those who pay the most in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions and protection money^W^Wtaxes get the most protection.
*sigh*
Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that's Good For The Economy is what Must Be Done. All other pursuits, goals, and ideals of this country are secondary to The Economy.
Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's what happens when you proceed to take anti-economical actions (e.g. anything p
Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm missing something here...
You're not missing anything.
The government doesn't even pretend to be on the side of the 'little guy' anymore.
They used to at least give lip service to the idea, but now they don't even try to hide their kleptocracy.
Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Burden in counterclaim? (Score:5, Informative)
While on one hand this is a case where the government is defending a law that helps the RIAA, the intervention would have happened regardless of whether the record companies were involved because the government has a duty to defend its laws.
So much for the government working for the people (Score:5, Interesting)
This is disgusting. The RIAA goes around harassing random people on the net (with no real evidence to show they were filesharing) and demands an outrageous amount of money per song, and the government continues to *HELP* them do this?
ARRRGGHHH!!
Hello politicians:
We voted for you.
You work for us.
We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off.
These thugs are harassing people YOU represent and you are letting them.
Stop being corrupt money-grubbing assholes and help us.
(of course I'm not so naive to think politicians will ever actually listen to us, but one can dream right?)
Re:So much for the government working for the peop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for the government working for the peop (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.
"You work for us."
They only work for voters and supporters. The best way to get your opinion heard is to vote and contribute to campaigns. BTW, contributing to the opposing candidate works too. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. If you say "I will support your opponent in the next elections." they can check if you have ever supported any candidates before. If not they will treat it as an empty threat.
"We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off."
Have you actually told your congressman this? I email [house.gov] my congressman regularly on issues that are important to me. I hope you do as well.
Re:So much for the government working for the peop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand; Slashbots are supposed to react to both the RIAA and politicians with knee-jerk indignation, regardless of how little they understand the matter at hand.
I am just going to state the obvious... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Folks around here have been saying that the "sell stuff for a profit" model is dead for the record industry for almost a decade now. But I rarely see people hazard a guess as to when this will happen. Legitimate download resellers like iTunes are making a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the DoJ is required to consider it (Score:5, Informative)
from the Plaintiff's answer and counterclaim:
"Rule 24(c) further provides that "[a] party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should call the attention of the court to its consequential duty" to notify the Attorney General of the United Sates under 28 U.S.C. 2403. Defendant Boggs therefore is submitting concurrently with this Answer a Notification to call the attention of this Court to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c)."
Re: (Score:2)
from the Plaintiff's answer and counterclaim:
"Rule 24(c) further provides that "[a] party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should call the attention of the court to its consequential duty" to notify the Attorney General of the United Sates under 28 U.S.C. 2403. Defendant Boggs therefore is submitting concurrently with this Answer a Notification to call the attention of this Court to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c)."
Re:the DoJ is required to consider it (Score:4, Informative)
If I'm understanding the scenario correctly, the counterclaim is saying to the RIAA "you have done something unconstitutional, and now I am going to seek damages from you because of it"; but the RIAA is replying "well, what we've done is federal law. If you say it's unconstitutional, we've got to get the Department of Justice involved".
Am I grossly misunderstanding this? It sounds more like the DoJ is "getting dragged into it" than "intervening" unless "intervene" is the proper legal term for this situation. I can see where there might be confusion caused by the use of that word.
Re:the DoJ is required to consider it (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the paragraph above the one i initially posted wherein the defendant challenges the whole copyright damages provision:
"Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Boggs is submitting concurrently with this Answer a Notification to call the attention of this Court to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c). Pursuant to Rule 24(c), "when the constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in which the United States or an officer, agency, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the Attorney General of the United States as provided in Title 28 U.S.C. 2403." Section 2403 of Title 28 requires that when the constitutionality of a federal statute "affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality.""
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Will someone PLEASE mod the parent up? (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
How is $750 per song unconstitutional? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is $750 per song unconstitutional? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The federal government can't cruelly or unusually punish you, this doesn't apply to civil situations between individuals.
The language is:
Of co
Re:How is $750 per song unconstitutional? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Twinkies don't work that way (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently neither do you.
If people just get fined retail value when they steal something, then there is no punitive/discouragement factor.
You are absolutely correct. A punishment component is both reasonable and required.
So for stealing a twinkie, $1.00 for the twinkie and $750 punitive fine is a perfectly reasonable judgement. However, if you stole a case of 100 twinkies instead of just one, what should your penalty be then? Would it be say, a single conviction, with a judgement of $100 for the twinkies plus $750 punitive fine or maybe even $800 or $900 in punitive damages? That seems fair to me.
Or would it be 100 convictions, each with a separate fine of $1 + $750 resulting in a $75,000 fine for stealing 100 twinkies.
THAT is how copyright infringement penalties works. There is a statutory $750 fine for each work that is infringed. The courts can't lower that amount, that minimum is right in the law.
There needs to be some sort of punitive damages to discourage further activity. $750 per song is probably a bit steep, but charging any reasonable flat rate per song is probably a crazy way to address the issue. Perhaps they should fine $1 per song plus some punitive damages ($500 for up to 10 songs, $1000 for more).
Yes. But their isn't, and the courts can't apply that scale even if they wanted to. The law requires that they be charged $750 per title infringed. Of course the RIAA is willing to 'settle' for far less... their 'good guys' after all.
But in the final analysis, a law that requires $375,000 in punitive damages for putting a few dozen cds on a web server, when the songs can be bought on itunes for $1 each is massively excessive, and that excessiveness can render it unconstitutional.
This is so not news. (Score:5, Informative)
The background is that, as part of his defence (and a counterclaim), the defendant in the RIAA suit has said that (1) not only is he innocent, but (2) the act of Congress establishing the basis under which he was sued is unconstitutional. That's certainly going for the Moon.
In any case in which a Federal law might be declared unconstitutional, not surprisingly the Federal Gov't takes an interest, and might decide to defend the constitutionality of the law. Should they succeed, that does not mean the defendant loses, of course. It only means he can't get a bye, in the sense that the very law under which he was charged vanishes.
The only thing unique about this case is that the Federal Gov't asserts that it did not previously receive sufficient notice of the case to have time to decide, in the routine way, whether or not to defend the constitutionality of the law in question. So they filed a motion with the Court asking for 60 days to think it over. This motion was unopposed by the defendant, who apparently realizes (at least more so than certain credulous
I mean, unless you're so naive as to think that the argument in Court will go like this:
RIAA (pointing skeletal finger): You broke the law, fiend!
Defendant: Did not. And besides, the law's unjust and should not exist.
Judge: Really? What makes you think so?
Defendant: Well, I...
Uncle Sam (interrupting): Hold on thar a gosh-darned minute! I say that law is fair!
Judge (bowing to Uncle Sam): Well, in THAT case, it must be. Defendent, you lose.
Defendant: Curses! If only Uncle Sam hadn't known about this trial...
RIAA (twirls mustache): Ha ha ha!
While it may be going for the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And here we have Eminem suing Apply for copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Counterclaim: RIAA = Cartel (Score:4, Interesting)
These Cases Should Never Be Getting This Far (Score:5, Interesting)
These cases should never have gotten past the John Doe/Ex Parte stage. You know, that point where the RIAA goes to court in secret, files a case they never intend to pursue, and sues dozens of John Doe IP addresses just to force ISPs to have to release private identity information that they can't get otherwise. These cases should be opposed at that point on all of the following basis -- as well as other's I can't even think of. For a good starting point, however, attack the RIAA at this point where their case is the weakest on the following points:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What the RIAA is claiming is not actionable under current law.
Using unlicensed investigators in the state where the defendant resides. Media Sentry is not licensed to perform investigations in most states, and some right-minded states have laws against this. In short, any evidence provided is tainted.
The illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated defendants. This has been ruled against already by a federal judge in Texas.
The requirement to turn over identity information as justified by the Cable Act of 1984. A judge in a case against one of the colleges shot this one down, pointing out that many of these systems aren't actually cable networks, and that even if they are, that the requirement to turn over subscriber information means only to the federal government itself. The RIAA should be suing under the DCMA, which only allows them to issue take-down notices. In short, there is no law supporting the turning over of subscriber identities to the RIAA in the first place.
John Doe defendants may not reside in areas under the jurisdiction of this court, and as such the court has no right to reveal their private information. Any information turned over by an ISP should go directly to the judge, and he (she) says absolutely NOTHING about any identity outside of its jurisdiction.
The whole John Doe process from the beginning is a fraud on the court, because the RIAA has no intention of using the information gleaned in the instant case. Once they have it, they instead take it and attempt to extort money from thousands of people with threats, lies, and intimidation. The courts should be no part of this. All identity information revealed should only be allowed to be used in the case it was revealed as part of.
The RIAA's contentions of continuous and ongoing copyright infringement are not at all supported by the facts, which show only a snapshot of a single instance at one point in time. This lie was uncovered when the computer in question actually was destroyed in a fire MONTHS BEFORE the RIAA contended that the infringement they'd detected was still ongoing. This was an apparent fraud to get around the statute of limitations, which would have expired otherwise. The RIAA should be SEVERELY sanctioned, and all their cases thrown out of court, over this contention. At the very least, they should have to prove more than once instance with the same user before being allowed to make this bald faced lie!
The RIAA's arguments of irreparable harm have been ruled as exaggerations by one judge recently, on the basis of that they are easily compensated by money. In short, another exaggeration that rises to the level of another bald faced lie!
The RIAA's dogged contention that identification of the Internet account holder leads inevitably to the identification of the copyright infringer is deeply flawed. As such, they end up extorting and harassing many innocent people. Better evidence must be provided before subjecting ANYBODY to their "driftnet litigation process".
The RIAA is yet to present any evidence to show that their evidence collection methods are flawless, while there are many examples of them suing the wrong people based in this collection method. In short, they haven't provided sufficient good evidence to be allowed to continue with what they're continuing with.
The RIAA's belief
Re:With respect to RIVTH (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ray, stop it. I'm trying to foment a gallon of bile and correcting people with facts doesn't help me.
--
BMO "I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words." - Bruce Perens
Re:What happened (Score:4, Informative)
You can blame the industrial revolution for the concentration of wealth and power in our democratic capitalistic society.