Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Boston case, Capitol v. Alaujan, the defendant is representing herself, without a lawyer. Nevertheless, the Judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, which the RIAA had based upon the defendant's alleged failure to respond to the RIAA's Request for Admissions. The Court's decision (pdf) held that the RIAA had served its requests for admission prematurely, prior to the conduct of any discovery conference. The Court also noted that the RIAA had upped the ante quite a bit, trying to get a judgment based on 41 song files, even though it had originally been asking for judgment based on 9 song files. This would have increased the size of the judgment from about $7,000 to about $31,000. The Judge scheduled a discovery conference for October 23rd, at 2:30 P.M. and ordered everybody to attend. Such conferences are open to the public."

it's open to the public

some tips for the slashdot crowd:

welcome the outdoors! yes the bright thing up there is called the sun. no you can't turn it off. the other people you see around you you can't just point and click on to communicate with, nor should you strafe them

1. bathe. it is customary for members of the public to bathe, at least more than once a month
2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants
3. shave, if you are male. not a requirement, but a good idea if you don't have groomed facial hair. and if you are reading this and you aren't male... well, who are we kidding

Re:

Shaving, I never did get why it is so necessary to look like a pre-pubescent child, perhaps the mass media 'in' crowd could explain that one too me, I would have thought it was indicative of some seriously disturbed shared sexual preferences, but then the

shaving is for female interest

women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

again, considering the forum, i am not surprised you don't know this

Re:

circletimessquare has it right, at least as far as female preference. Women prefer it (though my wife oscillates periodically on this subject), it apparently looks more professional, and the average adult male has enough angular bone structure in his face

Oscillates?

Any particular frequency? (sorry, couldn't resist :-).

Re:

Yep, it looks like it coincides with my pay check.

Re:

Hmm, are they born this way, or is this sexual perversion just driven by mass media, it would seem rather illogical that men and women naturally evolved this way over hundreds of thousands of years, I mean why do you consider the natural appearance of men

Re:

It used to be common for a man to shave in order to continue to look young to attract a mate. After they got their mate, they signified it by growing a beard. Some Amish still practice this. It was sort of a off the market thing.

Of course some people canno

Re:

Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts.

Re:

Agreed...getting out of a hot shower and then taking a fresh sharp razor to 3 day old stubble covered in soft foam is one of the simple pleasures in life.

not cultural at all, it's completely biological

it's called secondary sexual characteristics. it's a way for mother nature to announce that this person is ready for sex and procreation. women grow breasts, men grow beards. later, the beard grows white, the breasts sag. before puberty, there are no breas

Re:

women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

My fiance' LOVES my beard. It's long enough to be soft to tickle her in all the right spots.

Shaving is for WARRIORS

It has nothing to do directly with sex appeal.

Warriors shave their beard and cut their hair short so that, in hand-to-hand combat, it is hard for opponents to grab their hair.

(Of course, many chicks go for warriors... or the warrior "look.")

Re:shaving is for female interest

"Your an idiot"

Haha, I love it.

Re:shaving is for female interest

So stop trying to be an ass and claim you speak for every woman on the planet.

He said "generally."

Re:

i understand the point of your post, are you trying to be a spelling nazi and pick on the "your" or that the nick "timmarhy" isn't an acurate enough representation of the timmy character from south park (since after all that's what the nick is a tribute to

Re:

I'm with you. For an adult male to shave is essentially to dress in drag. Hey, men have done worse things through history as societal norms than removing their facial hair to look like women. But the way that masculinity is feared by most modern Western

Re:it's open to the public

Wot's all this then? Wear trousers, y'bloody wanker. Knickers are okay for a life in the cellar, but the general public tends to wear trousers, gov'nah.

yay boston

This only shows that the legal system takes notice when a Big Bad Association acts extra evil. Reporting on little wins here and there is fun, but what's needed is more serious legal action against the RIAA for extortionist practices in the first place. Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.

Self-defense?

I've noticed that a number of these RIAA cases have some people who are choosing to defend themselves. More than I would have imagined. I don't know the specifics of each individual motivation, but I always felt that representing yourself was somehow risky. Perhaps it's lawyers seeking to defend their business by planting the meme that 'a lawyer who represents themself has a fool for a client' -- that you can't separate your emotions from the case well enough to adequately represent yourself? If a lawyer can't represent themself, what hope does a common person have? I can understand representing yourself in a small-claims case, but against a corporation with actual lawyers?

But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win. I don't know, maybe I'm getting the wrong idea from these cases, but it gives me hope that if I'm ever summoned to court against a giant corporation, I might actually stand a chance instead of going broke even if I come out a winner.

Does anyone else sense that a surprising number of these cases are being won by people who are defending themself? Why would it be that people are choosing to do so ( are the RIAA cases that easy to knock down ), and is it more than typical for average cases?

Re:Self-defense?

Yes people will get screwed if they represent themselves. No the system isn't fair, especially in the USA where lawyers cost a fortune. Thats the reason why people defend themselves. They basically have no choice because they have no money.

Re:Self-defense?

It is risky, but they may feel it is worth it. Can't afford to pay the extortion money, can't afford a lawyer so go for broke. Also if the lose the judgement there is the possibility that the court will consider their financial means and set up a payment plan.

Also the RIAA isn't what I'd call "well lawyered". They may have a lot, but the guys in these cases seem like rookies. They do some DUMB shit. Maybe the first time in the courtroom for some of them. In that case, a smart respondent might not be at such a disadvantage, especially if the judge feels sympathy for them and helps them out a bit in legal matters.

Finally, the RIAA has really, really weak cases here. I know it's civil court and reasonable doubt isn't the standard, but even still. Their evidence is extremely shaky and their declarations full of holes. Still not a great idea to defend yourself, but you aren't up against solid evidence.

Re:

Maybe the idea was "He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one".

Re:Self-defense?

But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win.

What's important to remember is that the legal system is a political system, not a technical one. When push comes to shove, all the laws, case decisions, and procedures of law boil down to establishing agreement between members of a political body. (EG: a state or jurisdiction)

When people represent themselves, a powerful force comes to play, depending on the judge - that of sympathy.

The judge knows that people who represent themselves are disadvantaged. They are often (usually?) poor or at least, of insufficient means for their current circumstances. They are usually rather ignorant of the nuances of law and established procedure. (which, maddeningly enough, is subtly different for each jurisdiction, even within the same state)

So, you'll typically get one of two reactions from your judge:

1) They either pay no attention to the "pro per" status of the party, typically with a bit of annoyance that "you didn't file form 10-W at least 10 days in advance of the hearing".

2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.

In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. And, from a position of power, why not feel like the "good guy" when it costs you nothing?

Bottom line

Since the defendant is Pro Se, the judge forbid the plaintiff from rolling over the defendant on a technicality, and sited another technicality to make sure. This sounds like a great judge, who believes in the spirit and not just the word of the law. I wish we had more like her.

Re:

No, but if I have my brain removed, I might qualify.

RIAA is desperate for cash, and bad at math

Bumping up the amount in this case is not even
enough to pay the $68K they owe in an earlier case.

Going from 9 to 41 songs is just bad math.

No big.

This is no big deal. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment prematurely, and the motion was denied. The case is still alive, and the parties have to meet and confer on scheduling and discovery issues. The idea is to take care of any issues on which the parties are not in disagreement before the judge has to deal with them. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 [cornell.edu].

When is class action lawsuit against RIAA coming ?

huh ? there has piled up enough cases to clearly indicate that they are exploiting justice for personal profit.

OUTCH

i heard the RIAA was hurting for $$ but over 9 songs? damn i wonder what they would do about the 13k my friend has

someone should go and take pictures

Someone should go and take pictures of the RIAA people.
That way we could find out more about them.
Maybe make note of some of their personal habits.
Pick up any papers they discard.
Follow them to the parking garage and make note of make,model and tag number.
Fein interest and start a conversation to see what personal info they give up.
Then share it with Slashdot so we can get to know them on a too personal level.
That way we can call or go over some sleepless night and let the RIAA share the publics lack of privacy.Or get sex.Or valuables.Or......

Re:

No, everything that also indicates even a sliver of success is newsworthy of slashdot too. What else do you think we do when there's nothing new about Vista to insult? Bash Microsoft? Hah, we still need an anti-Vista article to be able to post our hate.

Re:

Apparently the RIAA tried to cheat a poor man who couldn't even afford to hire a defense.
Why is this news?
Probably to warn other victims.

Re:Newsworthy

Why is this news?

I think it is better served a an example that even the poor are getting a fair shot when defending themselves from huge corporations with tons of money backing their case.

Not only do I see this as promising, I see it as a possible assault to the RIAA style tactics. Most people wouldn't have the money to pay the settlement or the full fine so why not fight it even if you have to learn how to in the process. Worst case scenario, you have lost some time which seems to be a commodity poor people could afford as easily as rich people. If you gave up, your still losing so sweat equity is the best way around. Especially if you have the truth on your side.

Anyways, If RIAA continues picking on people with dirty handed tactics and they keep standing up to them, The costs they cannot recover will mount and maybe even be owed to whoever they are going after. Then maybe they will stop the dirty handed tactics and some rational sense will prevail from the situation.

Re:Newsworthy

Why is this news?

I think it is better served a an example that even the poor are getting a fair shot when defending themselves from huge corporations with tons of money backing their case. Not only do I see this as promising, I see it as a possible assault to the RIAA style tactics. Most people wouldn't have the money to pay the settlement or the full fine so why not fight it even if you have to learn how to in the process. Worst case scenario, you have lost some time which seems to be a commodity poor people could afford as easily as rich people. If you gave up, your still losing so sweat equity is the best way around. Especially if you have the truth on your side. Anyways, If RIAA continues picking on people with dirty handed tactics and they keep standing up to them, The costs they cannot recover will mount and maybe even be owed to whoever they are going after. Then maybe they will stop the dirty handed tactics and some rational sense will prevail from the situation.

Think of it as a form of grassroots organizing over the internet. It drives the RIAA crazy knowing that defendants and defendants' lawyers all across the country are starting to have almost as much information as they do about what's going on in these cases. It's harder for them to lie about it.

Re:

Is everything that has something to do with the RIAA getting shot down newsworthy on slashdot these days?

Think of it as comic relief in a humor-starved environment.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

No, judges do not enforce, police and prosecutors do the enforcing. But that would be criminal law, and this is civil.

The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.

I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty. If all they did was interpret laws, every case would be essentially a summary judgment.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

There were other swings and misses in both that comment and elsewhere in this thread. I haven't read any other comment threads attached to this story but I rest assured they are mostly as bad.

What law are judges presiding over the RIAA cases supposedly making? What precedents are they ignoring or going against? Can anyone articulate these things or are we just jumping on a "judicial activism is bad and every judge is a judicial activist" bandwagon lately?

As to summary judgment and interpreting the laws - these are orthogonal concepts. Summary judgment is simply the judge deciding that the case must come down a certain way according to the law, because there is no material fact in good-faith dispute. A material fact is one that actually matters to the case. For instance, if I have to prove that you sold me a car in order to win, it is immaterial whether the car was made in Japan.

The idea that judges "interpret" the laws is mostly a creature of high school civics classes. Judges apply the laws to disputes between parties. The judge may do some interpreting in the process, but that is neither the judge's whole job or is it solely the judge's job.

The criminal vs. civil issue will be dealt with in 30 other comments to this story. I'm not overly concerned about covering it here, as a result.

The judge vs. jury divide is worth discussing. Juries decide issues of fact. That's their only real job. When a judge denies a motion for summary judgment, he is essentially saying that there is enough of a factual dispute to send the case to a jury. It won't go to a jury immediately, of course, but it hasn't lost that possibility in the future. That's what happened here.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

Nice summary. It is worth pointing out that judges can also perform the fact finding function juries do. This would happen when no party demands a jury. If however, one party demands a jury, then the facts will be decided by jury.

Re:

That's also true. It depends a lot on your jurisdiction and the nature of your case. Cases at equity are not entitled to juries at all, for instance. Thanks for adding this clarification. :)

Re:

Yes, raping is the key function of a prosecutor these days.

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

the judicial system's very purpose is to interperate the law, and to test it in court. You have ZERO understanding of how the legal systems works if you think all judges do is rubberstamp the law.

open your damn ears, haven't you ever heard of laws being thrown out on account of them failing to hold up in court on a consitutional challenge?

Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it.

Judges should not ENFORCE the law. That's the job of the police. Judges should not MAKE the law. That's the job of the government. Judges should INTERPRET the law.

That's how the system works. Government makes laws. They decide what is legal and illegal, what procedures are to be followed and how the other two powers are to behave in the context of the law. Under perfect circumstances, those laws are created with a balance in mind that aims at upholding the order and create a fair and balanced playing field for everyone.

Police (or the executive in general) enforces the law. They are granted rights and privileges above those of a normal person who they are to employ within the borders of legality to enforce the laws created by the government, to enforce order and to hunt down and arrest people who break the law.

The courts, finally, have a rather heavy load to bear. They are on one hand a safeguard for the other powers, especially the executive (so they don't overstep their rights), on the other hand it's on the court to make sure that procedures are followed and the orderly flow of the system is observed. And finally it's the court's position to decide in ambigious cases which side should be "winning". Guilty or not.

They're not making law. They are using the laws present to interpret them in such a way that the fairness and balance created through the legislative are observed and upheld.

At least that's the theory. That reality often doesn't match it is a given. But generally, those are the reasons those three parts exist. No single power should have all the power in its hands.

Re:

I hope you rot in prison. I mean come on? 9 songs? 41 songs? What the hell is it? Have you paid the RIAA for whistling a tune while walking down the street? No? Oh well you should be locked away for copyright infringement.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah

Have you paid the RIAA for whistling a tune while walking down the street? No? Oh well you should be locked away for copyright infringement.

Actually, people in that situation would be locked away for failing to pay off ASCAP, not the RIAA.

Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot?

and 500 posts within 4 hours

Obviously then it is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to them. Not going to go into details here or look up links to use, just suffice it to say that the RIAA's efforts in both courts and trying to get laws past to fight "music piracy" has a much greater far reaching effect on the internet and technology people then just whether or not the RIAA gets to grab money from "pirates" or not. Furthermore Ray and other lawyers have gained advice and assistance from these articles as well as Ray's legal blog, so in many ways each victory over the RIAA is a victory for many Slashdotters as they have chosen sides on this as well as participated in helping to achieve a portion of those victories as Ray has acknowledged here in the past. ATM, Ray and Slashdot together are about as close to a Groklaw for the RIAA fight as there is.

Now that I have fed the troll a bit, time for me to go feed myself something more bodily nutritious then words.

Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot?

Obviously then it is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to them. Not going to go into details here or look up links to use, just suffice it to say that the RIAA's efforts in both courts and trying to get laws past to fight "music piracy" has a much greater far reaching effect on the internet and technology people then just whether or not the RIAA gets to grab money from "pirates" or not. Furthermore Ray and other lawyers have gained advice and assistance from these articles as well as Ray's legal blog, so in many ways each victory over the RIAA is a victory for many Slashdotters as they have chosen sides on this as well as participated in helping to achieve a portion of those victories as Ray has acknowledged here in the past. ATM, Ray and Slashdot together are about as close to a Groklaw for the RIAA fight as there is.

Thanks.

Point II of the Warner v. Cassin [blogspot.com] reply brief (at pages 9-10) briefly discusses the impact the RIAA's theories could have on the internet if they were to be accepted by the courts.

Re:

Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently.

Yes, and she needs to hire a full time driver, too. Because she shouldn't be behind the wheel because someone may think she's always doing something illegal while doing her daily driving.

Maybe the judge is well aware of RIAA tactics and initiated the PUBL