Slashdot Log In
RIAA Complaint Dismissed as "Boilerplate"
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Sep 13, 2007 05:49 PM
from the boil-this dept.
from the boil-this dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January 76 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."
[+]
Is "Making Available" Copyright Infringement? 320 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer updates us now that the legal issue — is it copyright infringement merely to "make available" a copyrighted work? — has been argued by the attorneys in Elektra v. Barker (on January 26). Whichever way the ruling goes it will have a large impact across the Internet. Appeal seems likely either way. No ruling has issued yet but "a friend" has made the 58-page transcript "available" (PDF here).
[+]
RIAA's "Making Available" Theory Is Tested 222 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's argument that merely 'making files available' is in and of itself a copyright infringement, argued in January in Elektra v. Barker (awaiting decision), is raging again, this time in a White Plains, New York, court in Warner v. Cassin. Ms. Cassin moved to dismiss the complaint; the RIAA countered by arguing that 'making available' on a p2p file sharing network is a violation of the distribution right in 17 USC 106(3). Ms. Cassin responded, pointing out the clear language of the statute, questioning the validity of the RIAA's authorities, and arguing that the Court's acceptance of the RIAA's theory would seriously impact the Internet. The case is scheduled for a conference on September 14th, at 10 AM (PDF), at the federal courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in the courtroom of Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The conference is open to the public."
[+]
Has RIAA Abandoned the 'Making Available' Defense? 125 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's standard complaint (pdf) was thrown out last month by a federal judge in California as speculation in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Interestingly, the RIAA's amended complaint (pdf), filed six days later, abandoned altogether the RIAA's 'making available' argument. (Whereby making files available at all for download is infringement.) It first formulated that defense against a dismissal motion in Elektra v. Barker. This raises a number of questions: Is the RIAA is going to stick to this new form of complaint in future cases? Will they get into a different kind of trouble for some of its their new allegations, such as the contention that the investigator "detected an individual" (contradicting the testimony of the RIAA's own expert witness)? And finally, what tack will defendants' lawyers take (this was one lawyer's suggestion)?"
[+]
First New Dismissal Motion Against RIAA Complaint 155 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Several weeks ago it was discovered that a California federal judge, in rejecting an RIAA application for default judgment, had dismissed the RIAA's standard complaint for failure to state a claim, calling it "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation" in Interscope v. Rodriguez. In the wake of that decision a New York woman being sued in Brooklyn federal court, Rae J Schwartz, has told the Court that she is making a motion to dismiss the complaint in her case, Elektra v. Schwartz. This is the first post-Interscope challenge to the RIAA's boilerplate, of which we are aware. This is the same case in which the RIAA had sent a letter to the Judge falsely indicating that AOL had 'confirmed that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed'. Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her."
[+]
Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient 169 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge David G. Larimer, presiding in Rochester, New York, has denied an RIAA application for default judgment on the ground that the RIAA's evidence was insufficient, in that it contained no details of actual downloads or distributions, and no sufficient evidence that defendant was in fact Kazaa user 'heavyjeffmc@KaZaA.' The decision (PDF) concluded that 'there are significant issues of fact regarding the identification of the defendant from his alleged "online media distribution system" username.' (In case you're unfamiliar with the term 'online media distribution system,' that's because it is a term the RIAA coined 4 years ago to describe p2p file sharing accounts in its lawsuits; the term is not known to have been used by anyone else anywhere else.) In August a similar RIAA default judgment motion was denied on the ground that the pleadings failed to allege sufficient factual details supporting a claim of copyright infringement, in a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez."
[+]
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed 67 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The antitrust counterclaims imposed by Lime Wire against the RIAA record companies have been dismissed. In a 45-page decision (pdf), the Court relied principally upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly that 'A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Ironically, the Twombly decision was the authority upon which the RIAA's copyright infringement complaint was dismissed in Interscope v. Rodriguez."
[+]
U.Maine Law Clinic Is First To Fight RIAA 129 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "'A student law clinic is about to cause a revolution' says p2pnet. For the first time in the history of the RIAA's ex parte litigation campaign against college students, a university law school's legal aid clinic has taken up the fight against the RIAA in defense of the university's students. Student attorneys at the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, under the supervision of law school prof Deirdre M. Smith, have moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint in a Portland, Maine, case, Arista v. Does 1-27, on behalf of two University of Maine undergrads. Their recently filed reply brief (PDF) points to the US Supreme Court decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, and the subsequent California decision following Twombly, Interscope v. Rodriguez, which dismissed the RIAA's 'making available' complaint as mere 'conclusory,' 'boilerplate' 'speculation.'"
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.
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: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:just keep it a little longer... (Score:4, Funny)
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: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 viola
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 !!!!
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. D
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.
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: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 anot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Self-damning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ms. Rodriguez probably doesn't even know she's been sued.
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...
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...
1980s laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
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_ inc
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To quote "WarGames"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lightman: What's that?
Falken: Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up.