RIAA Complaint Dismissed as "Boilerplate" 197
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The decision many lawyers had been expecting — that the RIAA's 'boilerplate' complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the Copyright Act — has indeed come down, but from an unlikely source. While the legal community has been looking towards a Manhattan case (Elektra v. Barker) for guidance, the decision instead came from Senior District Court Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The decision handed down denied a default judgment (i.e. the defendant had not even appeared in the action). Judge Brewster not only denied the default judgment motion but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Echoing the words of Judge Karas at the oral argument in Barker , Judge Brewster held (pdf) that 'Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation.'"
magine that riaa (Score:5, Insightful)
reality: your business model is history
think up a new business model, and stop trying to prop up the dead one with the court system
a new business model means less money? too bad. the golden age is over. fucking deal with it and stop sending your barking dogs to terrorize little people in your rage and frustration and denial
Re:magine that riaa (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite a few studies have shown that new business models would earn them even more money. It seems more that they aren't content with a slice of pie, they want it all. The notion of IP (intellectual property) has given them the excuse to try to get everything they can, even when things such as fair use and respecting your customers get in the way.
Re:magine that riaa (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just keep it a little longer... (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that they know it is dying - they just want a little bit more money before discarding the RIAA as "the evil force that forced us to force the old model - but we have a new one now, and we became good and nice).
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:magine that riaa (Score:4, Interesting)
Bizarre? No. Logical (Score:4, Interesting)
And I think that was one of the longest and most incomprehensible sentences I ever wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
"Law is the ultimate science" -- Padishah Emperor Saddam Corrino IV
Are these people morons? (Score:4, Insightful)
The longer I live, the more I am in a state of sheer awe that society doesn't come apart like Britney Spears fan on youtube.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can they do such a lousy effort this yet be one of the largest sectors of industry?
Perhaps they're more accustomed to people just rolling over with a chilling effects letter. Plenty of hard work keeps things finely tuned, it's evident that there have been a lot of legal people collecting retainer fees who have spent very little time practicing. Seriously, this is pretty amaturish.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it only works a vanishingly small percentage of the time, applying a tiny effort to loads of people still results in a net gain.
(Except, of course, when you factor in the damage to reputation, but that never stopped the unscrupulous before...)
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eivind.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Informative)
-only about 20% of the cases result in settlements, and
the RIAA is losing millions of dollars on the litigations.
They make money on quick settlements; they lose money on default judgments; they lose a lot of money on cases that litigate for awhile and then settle; and they lose a fortune on cases where the defendant fights back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope your country remains free of this plague, but I will tell you it's an international thing.... they're certainly persecuting people throughout Europe, except for the Netherlands, where the courts astutely saw through their scam from the outset.
Eivind reminded me of my manners! (Score:4, Interesting)
Having worked in NYC, and having friends in Watertown, NY, I would not insult you inadvertently by abbreviating your UID as NYCLawyer!...instead I will use NY Country Lawyer if I feel the need to abbreviate.
Lawyers have a bad rep on
I've kept track of your posts over the past several years here, and feel good about the fact that you are on *our* side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're caught up with the idea that they can continue to play the game by the old rules. They still seem convinced that the Internet will possess and distribute content solely by the terms of copyright holders. Their efforts to deal with copyright violations are disproportionally stick to carrot, and any benefits technology brings to the table with regard to low-cost distribution and promotion are set aside in pursuit of abusing technology to restrict distribution and limit choice.
Irregardless of the e
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Informative)
Total music industry revenue is about $40 billion worldwide, and about $12 billion in the United States, per year.
The GDP of the United States is $13.13 trillion, per year.
Compare this to "self storage" companies which make about $22.6 billion, per year.
Companies that supply lock up garages for people who own too much crap make almost twice as much per year as the music industry.
re: music industry vs. self storage (Score:4, Funny)
in a self storage unit (small manhattan apartment). I think they are actually in cahoots !!!!
You exposed what is realing going on (Score:2)
(but really, thank you for pointing out how small the music industry really is). I'd also like to mention that more new books are published each year than music CDs. There are around 3 million authors in the US alone. (sorry I don't have the data to back it up, I read it somewhere and couldn't find any info t
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:4, Informative)
Who sells CD/DVD copiers? HP, Dell, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the $40 billion per year figure is right then it is smaller than Dell's annual revenue and less than half HP's. Of course, selling high performance CD and DVD copying equipment is only a part of their business but you will find it hard to get a consumer PC that does not include at least the hardware you need for the unauthorised copying that ??AA like to call piracy. Looking up the financials, it looks as if the consumer PC hardware business for just those two is over $10 billion per year and there are quite a few other companies out there too. I don't have time to look up the size of the blank media business - what the ??AA probably think of as "piracy supplies" - but given the shelves full of the things I see in my local supermarket, I suspect we have a respectable sized business there too.
I suspect that if someone does the real numbers the economic argument will not be so favourable to ??AA.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:4, Funny)
But you see, that's because they're losing $1.4 trillion due to piracy. There have been studies done proving this. For every song downloaded they are losing the $20 dollars the downloader would have payed for the CD. And don't get me started on the massive losses those leach radio stations are causing. They've got dozens of studies back this stuff up. Just ask them.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. the Holywood complex is made up of people who influence _other people_ for a living. That tends to keep the necessary skills sharp. On the contrary, the software industry makes money convincing _bits of silicon_ to do their bidding, which reflects in their (sorely lacking) marketing/PR/lobbying skills. Even among the successful software players a ham-handed, resource-intensive (read SPAM-ish) approach to public relations is all too common.
2. The Mafia. It wields a vast amount of power and is, for historical and practical reasons, wedded inextricably to Hollywood.
Media-player hardware producers (Sony and their ilk), otoh, _are_ gatekeepers to media already. The push for DRM is largely theirs, as they do not want to lose that position.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people are trying to justify their job. They're in major stress, and stupid. So they sue mothers and teenagers.
You know, it's the outcome of the system we exist in. Doesn't justify their nonsense, but I thought I'd put things in a little perspective for you.
The moment that worries me is that it took long, long time for the legal system to start (albeit slowly) reacting against those frivolous suits.
RIAA as a private or
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the stupid part, but the rest is spot on.
When rap and hip-hop caught on, some artists were actually anti-establishment enough to advocate stealing their CDs in their lyrics. Physical theft by shoplifing rose to five or six times what was usual for a CD release for some Rap CDs, and many retailers had to swiftly adopt bulky frames to surround the normal CD packaging. It was the same people who had to go before
Re: (Score:2)
It's less expense to file a boilerplate suit than a "real" one. They are used to winning. Connect the dots.
Re:Are these people morons? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers here are in the business of making money by doing legal work; the more hours they put in, the more they get paid. Clearly, the lawyers are -- from a business standpoint -- pretty smart. They are getting paid a lot for accomplishing nothing, and for actually causing their clients more harm than good.
The record companies, on the other hand, are in the business of selling music, building brands, creating goodwill among customers, bringing their product out through new technologies, and they're supposed to bring in more money than they spend. Clearly, the record companies are -- from a business standpoint -- pretty dumb.
The lawyers are smart businessmen; the record companies are, at least for the moment, being run by dumb businessmen.
As to having "access to the finest legal minds money can buy", yes they have "access" to the finest legal minds. But if you think they have the "finest legal minds" working with them..... as someone who has worked with and against some of the finest legal minds in our country, I beg to differ with you there. The "finest legal minds" would not even stoop to do the kind of garbage work these folks are doing.
Copyright infringement penalties are excessive! (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement [wikipedia.org]
Many people object to the application of copyright to not for profit (or at a loss) distribution or redistribution of copyrighted works. When copyright was created, it was to prevent book publishers from taking an author's work, publis
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Copyright infringement penalties are excessive! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're making me laugh. The fines were originally created to penalize organized crime groups creating bootleg video/audio casettes bring them enormous profits from the copying of a single product.
Fining them $10-$20 for distributing 30 thousand copies of Die Hard 4 would be hysterical.
The
Re: (Score:2)
10 to 20 for individual downloaders. Not huge fines for a single uploader.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We also allow private copying *and* unmodified redistribution of anything broadcast over public airwaves.
Just because these companies have spent so much money convincing you what you're doing is wrong does not mean it is in fact
Re: (Score:2)
Try comparing it to photographing a photo or taping a concert and NOT SELLING the music.
Your analogies are weak.
Re: (Score:2)
eg.. Full Metal Alchemist 51 episodes & a movie.. just over 18 hours of media for $419. I'll buy it when its $40.
You realize you could not buy if it's expensive, and not download at the same time? Or is music/movies like dr
Re: (Score:2)
I think this would be a very appropriate case of the old saying about lemons and lemonade.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "When life gives you lemons, find someone who has vodka and throw a party."...wait, that doesn't sound quite right...
I believe you're looking for sayings involving Pots, Kettles, and a the color #000000.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the judge just said that they didn't. So you're probably talking about some sort of levy, or (as I'm guessing from the rest of your post) to talk yourself into a moral position where copyright can't be enforced. Well sorry, but it's crap. It's like saying to the officer "hey you only
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, they just assume you are unless you can prove otherwise.
No facts? Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Text Log? could be edited.
If instead of that, you have a text log, verified by the ISP and with a signed statement asserting that this text log effectively shows that the given binary conversation took place at the given time, and that the receiving end has a given MAC address, and if that MAC address can be certainly confirmed as belonging to the accused, now THAT's a completely different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
And so unless they plan to take a network interface card to court, they still know nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: IANAL, I'm not even american and make absolutely no claim to being an expert in your laws. Plus, I still think suing your target market is one of the most idiotic tactics in the business world today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Text Log? could be edited.
Bear in mind that there is a difference between alleged facts and true facts. For example, imagine a murder trial where one witness says that the defendant was at the scene of the murder, and another witness says the defendant was at home. At least one of these witnesses has to be wrong, possibly both are. The testimony of both are alleged facts, and the trier of fact (often a jury) has to decide what is actually true or not for purposes of the tri
Re: (Score:2)
Boilerplate level has always been sufficient (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Self-damning? (Score:2)
Let's say they do, somehow, manage to use a prove-nothing Boilerplate get Joe Downloader into court. He argues that their evidence means nothing. They then put him on the stand, and ask "Did you download these mp3s?"
Let's say Joe actually did. Is the RIAA allowed to ask a broad, point-blank question like this? If he says "No", he's perjuring himself. Can he refuse to answer on the grounds that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C//
Re:Self-damning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ms. Rodriguez probably doesn't even know she's been sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence isn't at issue; this is a complaint, evidence hadn't even been presented yet. What this ruling says is that they didn't make specific enough allegations to even have a complaint that the defendant was obligated to respond to.
By Specific Allegations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Requiring the specific facts that make a "plausible" claim upon which relief may be granted to be pre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, either way is going to leave open avenues for litigious bullying. However, with the new requirement, when the little guy brings a lawsuit against the big guy, and the court decides that the little guy hasn't stated a plausible claim, that's it - there
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Plaintiffs have presented no facts." This is exactly right, and can likely be far more broadly applied than just this case. I think the best argument most folks have is that it is very hard to tie an IP address to a specific user. And they think that just because they provide a screenshot with a list of songs on it that that is damning evidence. Hooray for this judge who has seen through the rhetoric.
You've hit it right on the head, Bonewalker. The Emperor wears no clothes. And Judge Brewster had the courage to make the call.
Different day, same old stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
This internet thing blows their monopoly apart - there's a new method of distribution that's cheaper, faster, and out of the control of the music companies. This presents a problem to them: their "money for nothing" gravy train is threatened. It's no surprise that they're using every tool they can to stop reality from sending them to the realm of the irrelevant.
But since they haven't worked for their money for years, when it comes to taking legal action they don't seem to be willing to put forth an effort there either. This latest decision is an interesting one; significant enough by itself, but it'll cause some big changes for a lot of people...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair time-travel tacticts (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA is using time machines now to go forward in time and file complaints in the future? Now that's just not fair...
Streetmentioner (Score:2)
Does this make it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a criminal case, but a civil one so "crime" is mostly irrelevant. This isn't about proof, either. This is about the degree of specificity required in the allegations in the original filing for there even to be a case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The judge gave the plaintiffs 30 days to redo the complaint, but considering that it took them two years to come up with this abomination there is a good chance that they will let this case go. There is another reason to not refile - the judge made it known that he does not genuflect in front of the big business.
Sorry to rain on your parade, tftp, but
1. they filed an amended complaint
2. Judge Brewster is retiring, and the case is being reassigned to another judge.
the sad fact (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
1980s laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise:
There was a point at which pirating media WAS a serious crime because it took a serious CRIMINAL to do it.
That is no longer the case, and the laws should be changed to reflect that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note to RIAA Legal (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm. Someone should write a perl script to help them. Snag a baby naming database and write a perl script to randomize the names, files shared and IP addresses to output an official-sounding C&D&Pay-us Email. Kinda like foggy, but for a legal document. Yeah. That'd be cool. And probably as accurate and effective as the system they're using now...
Re: (Score:2)
Confessions of a convert (Score:5, Insightful)
They call themselves the RIAA, but really, they represent companies like Sony, UMG, Time-Warner, etc... The RIAA moniker is used to keep their activities from reflecting poorly on the sponsoring companies.
You know what's interesting? When I was younger, I had heard things about pop music being evil, then rock music being evil, and certainly, gangsta rap was evil. I just kind of dismissed them, thinking, how could listening to music be evil?
Turns out, I was asking the wrong question. The problem wasn't in listening to the music, so much as it was that my paying for music was funding evil things, directly and indirectly. Sure, rappers talking about killing cops isn't a good thing, but it wasn't as nearly as bad as what music purchasers were doing by feeding the record companies:
I can't remember the last time I bought a CD. In fact, I'm probably one of those lost sales the RIAA blames on piracy. The thought that someone might not buy their music because they object to their lack of morality and common decency doesn't even occur to them. They think everyone else is just like them - greedy, money grubbers who can't stand the notion of actually paying for music. (After all, the RIAA member companies do their best to avoid paying the musicians).
You don't need to explain why you don't patronize the RIAA member companies like Sony, etc... Instead, ask the question, "What good has the RIAA done for music, musicians, and society in general?"
The silence will be deafening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you. I do. And yet, my brother is a professional musician, and most of the artists I like are barely making ends meet.
How can the artists make a living. The RIAA, for all of its dirty behaviour, at least provided _some_ income for artists--your method provides none.
This has always been the struggle for me: How can I actually support artists (which I will willingly do!) but not the RIAA (who screws the musicians worse than they screw the consumers)?
Any ideas? Without the arti
Re:Confessions of a convert (Score:5, Insightful)
The ability to make a living as a musician in the past 100 years has depended on the difficulty of production and distribution of music recordings, and the willingness of the artists to go on tour. Needless to say, the record companies raked in the lion's share of the proceeds, leaving the recording, performing musician mostly broke. A few people became super stars, which a few generations of suckers for the record labels to exploit, preying on their hopes of becoming famous and rich. Few people became famous; even less became rich. And those that did become rich made their money from performing; record sales, not so much.
Now we have come full circle: music recording and distribution has become so cheap, you don't have that revenue stream available anymore. Musicians who do make a living as musicians will do so by going around performing, just as they did before the 20th century. And the idea that musicians were actually able to make a decent living as recording artists during the 20th century is really a myth -- successful musicians, even those who sold lots of albums, made their money from touring. The record companies took most of the profits from record sales. Sure there were a number of popular musicians, but there were many more who never made any money off of it.
Most people with a Masters of Fine Arts who actually still paint ( and I know a few of them ) have a day job. A few of them are lucky enough to teach college kids to paint. The rest sell weed and/or are starving.
So, being a full time artist is a pipe dream for many people. It many sound like a downer, but I look at it the other way -- for human history, art has always been a folk expression. People got together in the village after they were done in the fields and danced and sang. Simple as that. Your brother will have a hard time making a living solely as an artist, but he can get a 9-to-5 and perform at some bars a few nights a week, release an album every few years, and have a damn lot of fun doing it, all without starving
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It many sound like a downer, but I look at it the other way -- for human history, art has always been a folk expression. People got together in the village after they were done in the fields and danced and sang. Simple as that.
One very important aspect of the Renaissance was the very successful PR campaign (spearheaded by artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Durer) to increase the status and pay of the artist. They had been seen throughout the Middle Ages as humble craftstmen, on the same social and economic level as carpenters and others who worked with their hands. It was largely due to the efforts of these artists to gain status that the idea that art was necessarily an intellectual and creative pursuit came into being
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of ways. We just need to use them.
To quote "WarGames"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lightman: What's that?
Falken: Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up.
Don't get too enthusiastic (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't get too enthusiastic about this being a way out from under these lawsuits. It's a good win, but it's on very technical grounds and easy for the RIAA to deal with if they have even a shred of a tenuous case.
It's mainly about the technical requirements for a filing. Let's take the hypothetical case of me suing you for having stolen a car from my car lot. All I state in my complaint is that on information and belief I think you stole a car from me, and I attach a long list of cars (make, model, VIN, plate number, etc.). The problems with this complaint at this level are:
- I haven't specified a crime. I've made an accusation, but where in there do I say what car was stolen, when it was stolen or where it was stolen from? Essentially the complaint can't say "You stole a car." but has to say "You stole this car.". And what's that list? I never say in the complaint whether it's a list of cars I allege you stole, a list of all the cars I have of which the one you stole is one. It could even be a list of all the cars left on my lot after the theft. Without some mention of what the list is, it's meaningless.
- Even assuming the above is corrected, there are no facts alleged connecting you to the incident. The bar here is low. I don't have to offer enough to prove my case. I don't have to offer anything credible enough to survive even a cursory response from you. But I have to offer some speck of evidence that, if believed completely and not responded to at all by you, could possibly be grounds for finding in my favor.
That's basically what the judge found here: the RIAA had failed on those two points. The bad news is that it's fairly easy for the RIAA to fix this. Name a song, name a file on the list that contained it, and allege that you were offering it for download to them and the first part's dealt with. As for the second, alleging the files were offered by a particular IP address along with a statement by the ISP that that IP address was assigned to a particular person's account at the time in question suffices. There's lots of technical problems with it, but it meets the minimal bar involved. The good news is that even those minor fixes give the defendant more places to attack the RIAA's complaint. For instance, if they allege a particular file contains some specific song, the defendant can respond by asserting that that file contains something that'd justify it's name but isn't the song in question.I suspect the RIAA got tripped up here because they never intended these cases to go to court. The filings were supposed to be merely clubs to wave at people to get them to settle, they were never supposed to actually be looked at as real lawsuits. We're going to see a lot of these for a while, but we're going to see a second round from the RIAA with these sorts of obvious errors fixed as they react to people actually fighting back. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one piece of advice is warranted: don't pick questionable defendants to fight this second wave. Pick ones that really are clean and can prove it and fight the RIAA on those. It's much easier to win judges over when you can present solid evidence in your favor, and much easier to fight the questionable defendants when you've got previous clean wins to cite.
Re:Don't get too enthusiastic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't get too enthusiastic (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess you read Canada's own p2pnet.net [p2pnet.net] by Jon Newton.
Actually, I can only speculate what is going on in RIAA-land.
All I know is that, in the wake of the Interscope v. Rodriguez decision, which forced them to come up with an amended complaint, they filed an amended complaint [blogspot.com] which totally omitted the "making available" theory.
I'll be doing a post on the possible implications of this, but as to their reason, my guess is they did it because
1. they know that it's an invalid argument, having no basis in the statute, in caselaw, or in legal scholarship, and
2. the Bell Atlantic v. Twombly [cornell.edu] decision gives them a way to back down gracefully.
ha (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as a lawyer who has used that term in complaints: anytime you see the words "upon information and belief", that means "ummm...theoretically this might have maybe could have happened".
No default judgment, but probably not over (Score:2, Informative)
For only a couple of dollars, it is possible to review the current case information using the PACER electronic file access system [uscourts.gov]. Interscope Record, et al., filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2007. The amended complaint goes beyond stating that the plaintiffs were "informed and believe that the Defendant" pirated their works:
Crystal clear (Score:5, Insightful)
This situation, more than any so far, blatantly exposes the true motives of the RIAA. They never intended for any of these cases to actually go to trial. The whole effort is a shakedown, a scare tactic to quickly extort some cash through intimidation and fear and hopefully provide a deterrent to others not to infringe. If they wanted to, they could build more solid cases with more convincing evidence, but that would take far more time, effort, and expense than they are willing to put into it. Believe it or not, their legal eagles are probably involved in far weightier and more important matters than suing a handful of file sharers. To build a case that will hold up in court for each and every one of these people would be extremely cost-ineffective.
To me, this is very much like credit card companies or other creditors who threaten to sue for collection of very small debts. They don't want to actually go to court to get that couple of thousand bucks you owe -- they know that the expenses of doing so would far outweigh the debt. (And getting a judgement is one thing -- actually collecting the money is another.) They merely hope that having a deputy show up at your front door with some scary looking legal papers in hand will be intimidating enough to motivate you to somehow scrape up some dough to settle the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)