Slashdot Log In
First New Dismissal Motion Against RIAA Complaint
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Sep 21, 2007 08:33 AM
from the listen-to-it-on-npr dept.
from the listen-to-it-on-npr dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Mischaracterizes Letter Received From AOL 287 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."
[+]
RIAA Complaint Dismissed as "Boilerplate" 197 comments
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.'"
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.
It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers from (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been said before that there's a reason the individual record labels file suit through the RIAA: The RIAA as a group is INTENDED to appear scary and evil. They
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Informative)
But of course insensitive clods like you don't care about quality of life.
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, this is a person who never even heard of, let alone participated in, file sharing, let alone used file sharing to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers fees, court costs, travel and other expenses to fight back can affect the persons ability to get treatment and/or medication
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is also true, then it could also be used to help drive up any damages due!
This is a good moment to share... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
However, considering the tactics and FUD the RIAA is using in the cases they've filed, and that the general public doesn't respond to what is legal, it responds to what the media feeds them, I have no problem with it being pointed out.
Or, to put it another way, it makes no difference what Race a person is, when they are arrested for a crime, yet you will almost always have it pointed out. You can find similar examples involving religion, sex (Female Murder suspects are really big news in my area), or a host of other things that are not directly pertinent to the case itself. Commenting about these things increases the attention the case gets, and, although not directly relevant, it is a true comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:2, Flamebait)
And this is why pretty hot female teachers having sex with 15 year old male students are not punished while handsome male teachers having sex with 15 year old female students go to prison for a decade.
Because the law is blind and impartial.
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, while MS can cause legal blindness, in many people it doesn't. I know an MS patient whose vision briefly became impaired then returned to "normal"
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:4, Funny)
You've forgotten the most popular one for this group: real or imagined Asperger's or ADHD etc: license to troll and flame on Slashdot, AND right to take Highly Theatrical Umbrage when someone questions whether or not perhaps you're just annoying, instead.
Irrelavence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else get tired of all the "Joe Schmoe is 72 years old, has a goiter and an infected big toenail, but the RIAA still presses on!" sensationalism?
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself. How about focusing on the fact that the RIAA has no proof, or legal grounds, and leave it at that!
Not irrelivant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irrelavence... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about focusing on both?
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
Re: (Score:2)
How about focusing on both?
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
The issues is why do we need to focus on both?
If not
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the RIAA spacifically
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As if they are specifically targeting those wh
Re:Irrelavence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I am repeating myself, but good manners have to be hammered through thick skulls. And I know that these members of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevance? (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't... Would they?
Good until the last line. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that she has MS is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
It doesn't matter what OS she is running!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barratry class action (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine it would be more judicially efficient to resolve all these cases as a class action. It would also give access to justice to those who would otherwise be unable to properly defend (or counterclaim in) their action.
Finally, and less adventurous, do the relevant statutes address classes of defendants? This would seem to be, if the boilerplate accusation is correct, a quintessential case for judicial efficiency by way of a defendants' class.
Pity? (Score:2)
This appeal to pity has no place on slashdot!
Read TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
The last two sentences of the article have nothing to do with the main point of the story, which is defendant's attack on the insufficiency of the RIAA's boilerplate complaint, which is the first such attack of which I am aware since the Interscope decision was handed down. Those last two sentences are merely background to give you a point of reference to which of the RIAA's 30,000 cases this happens to be. The next to last sentence describes a lie the RIAA told last year in this case to the Judge -- that, too, has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the RIAA's complaint, but none of you have singled that out or suggested that the article emphasizes that.
So it's baloney to say the author is relying on the defendant's MS for anything. I.e., it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that this article emphasizes the defendant's MS.
******************
Now a digression.
Had I chosen to emphasize her disease, as I might have, I don't see that there would have been anything wrong with that. And to those of you who think it's okay to bring nonsensical litigation like this against children, stroke victims, hurricane victims, MS sufferers, disabled people on welfare, and others.... to you I can only say that your value system is not unlike that of my opponents, who likewise see nothing wrong with what they are doing.
As I have previously mentioned, I use the "friends" and "foes" feature in Slashdot for the purpose of managing my reading load. Although I haven't in the past, going forward I am going to mark as a "foe" -- and therefore be spared reading the comments of -- any user ID who says that it is irrelevant that the defendant is disabled, or impoverished, or a child, or one of the other categories of disadvantaged and/or defenseless victims. Anyone who feels that way is not my kind of people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope I am not "foe'd" yet, so I can clarify what I was trying to say.
The fact that there are people with MS, old ladies, those who have never even had an internet connection, being sued by the RIAA is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I'm not a PR person, I'm a lawyer.
2. I'm a simple man.
3. The article is about the RIAA's standard complaint -- which it has used in 30,000 case
Re:Read TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, when you go for the counter-suit for malicious prosecution, barratry, or whatever else you think will stick, I hope you will use the fact she has MS to add at least one more zero onto the end of the settlement.
More than ad misercordiam... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it is. Now hear me out.
As has been reported many times, stress is a factor in MS. By bringing this lawsuit, they can worsen her condition. In other words, it's like the RIAA is helping kill her. Add to that the fact that the disease is very expensive and that means that MS sufferers have limited means to defend themselves. So now they'll have a hard time affording medicine AND a hard time affording legal representation. Thus, the circumstances make it worse. After all, you KNOW they're not going to make any money off this case, even if they win.
Honestly, I do think it more objectionable to pick on the weak and the sick who have a hard time fighting back. Not because they have or should have more legal rights than anyone else, but because it is so dastardly of the RIAA to do this to begin with. There's absolutely nothing stopping the RIAA from dropping cases. They can be as discriminatory in bringing them as they want to be, so far as I know, without giving up any legal rights.
In other words, the heartless bastards just don't care. And they wonder why people cheer when MediaDefender got owned. At least that was a company that should've been able to defend itself against one lousy torrent with all their dirty secrets in it. I mean, that was their job, and they couldn't do it to save their own skin.
See the difference? It's the difference between only picking on those who cannot fight back and standing up to a bully. People boo one and cheer the other, even though all people are equal under law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. I disagree with you on the moderation question. I don't use other peoples' moderation as a basis for screening comments; that would increase the likelihood of being subjec
Re:Slight problem here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's a good way to start the weekend! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, personally i don't have a problem with the downloading/sharing, but currently the law does. I also don't feel that it effects their profits ( other then a net increase due to people getting to listen to a lesser quality copy, 'hey, i want the real thing now' ) but i cant prove that with hard numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, my point was that the sharing is actally taking place in most of the cases. The original poster seemed to think that the violation
Re: (Score:3, Informative)