Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back

samzenpus posted about 6 years ago | from the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept.

The Courts 203

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA, unhappy with the Court's decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict over $23.76 worth of song files, and throwing out the legal theory on which it was based, has made a motion for permission to file an appeal from the Judge's order, in Capitol v. Thomas. Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391585)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391683)

So, you're voting for McCain, right?

Re:fp (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391811)

I don't think this is a true story, but it's very creative.

Re:fp (0, Offtopic)

D'Sphitz (699604) | about 6 years ago | (#25391981)

naw it's not even creative, it's a ripoff: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=222961&mc=6&forum_id=2#3387236 [autoadmit.com]

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392107)

Warning, parent is a troll.

Re:fp (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | about 6 years ago | (#25392185)

why? because he showed a 3-year-old internet post that contains the exact story posted by the OP?

parent seems like a textbook case of Freudian projection to me.

Re:fp (2, Funny)

Tdawgless (1000974) | about 6 years ago | (#25392213)

Warning, parent is a troll.

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392345)

WARNING: Don't click that link. It's a really sick description of some fag eating a turd out of toilet (and then masturbating).

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

exabrial (818005) | about 6 years ago | (#25391831)

offtopic... but funny none-the-less

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391923)

That's disgusting!

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392145)

Looks like the RepublIcAAns are at it again, reminding everyone that Barack Obama doesn't look like an Joe Sixpack, that he has a funny name, that his supporters are nutcase fanatics who have masturbation fantasies about eating his shit.

Bottom line: you're a racist but you don't want to admit it, so you try to blame it on other things, like his supporters eating turds out of a toilet. Meanwhile, the economy is dying. Does it matter if Barack Obama supporters like to eat his poop when your bank fails?

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392335)

This makes you wonder, what would McCain's shit be like?

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392531)

A foul mix of the fetid soils of the Vietnam jungle and the demonic broth of medicines and chemicals that slow the decay of his decrepit body, in the form of a misshapen slug.

Re:fp (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392683)

umm, Depends...

How many Courics? (2, Funny)

Maestro485 (1166937) | about 6 years ago | (#25393067)

How can you go on a rant about a piece of shit without telling us how many Courics it was? Was it bigger than Bono? Had Obama recently been to P.F. Changs?

You'd think people who post on a tech site would at least mention technical details. Sheesh.

IANAL but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391593)

Objection, your honor!

About to get reamed (2, Funny)

deadcrickets (1307745) | about 6 years ago | (#25391619)

I hope the RIAA is McLovin' it.

It's not about the money (5, Insightful)

Bonker (243350) | about 6 years ago | (#25391621)

It's NEVER been about the money. It's not about compensating the artists. (Ha!)

This is 100% about trying to keep control of an entire industry in the hands of a very rich, very corrupt few.

Re:It's not about the money (5, Insightful)

jskora (1319299) | about 6 years ago | (#25391867)

This has been proven over and over so many times, eventually someone in the courts should notice. SCO finally fell, unfortunately the RIAA has bigger war chests.

Re:It's not about the money (5, Funny)

philspear (1142299) | about 6 years ago | (#25391869)

Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!

Re:It's not about the money (2, Informative)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 6 years ago | (#25392113)

Whichever tool marked the above post "flamebait" needs to have their sarcasm detector checked. Someone mod this clearly funny post "underrated" and give him his points back. Besides, it's always amusing when a post reaches "+5, Flamebait"

Re:It's not about the money (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392175)

Oh, come on mods, the parent isn't flamebait he was trying to make a point.

Technically, they are right. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392101)

The RIAA's claim that it's all about compensating the artists is indeed true.

What they aren't saying is that it's all about compensating the con-artists. :)

Re:Technically, they are right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393111)

What they aren't saying is that it's all about compensating the con-artists. :)

Con-artists? Well, at least you didn't call them grifters, Gondorf and others would be most insulted! Careful you don't get stung.

Re:It's not about the money (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25392309)

>>>only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature

I'm sure RIAA's lawyers are well aware of this.
They should be disbarred the same way Jack Thompson was disbarred.

Re:It's not about the money (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 6 years ago | (#25392409)

FWIW, Jack Thompson actually went as far as violating restraining orders. I'm not sure this is up there yet.

But, IANAL.

Re:It's not about the money (5, Interesting)

SL Baur (19540) | about 6 years ago | (#25393271)

I'm not sure this is up there yet.

They are definitely working on it. Read the deposition NYCL gave their "Expert" witness. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html [blogspot.com]

It's long, but it's awesome. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but after reading that deposition and all the stuff about "MediaDefender" I wonder why the RIAA has gotten as far as it has. If I were a judge my reaction to an RIAA lawsuit landing in my court would be more along the lines of uncontrolled laughter than anything else. I suppose that's why I'm a programmer, not a lawyer.

Their methods are unsound and sooner or later those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

Spitballing (1)

enigmastrat (1254198) | about 6 years ago | (#25391653)

Why won't anybody give the RIAA what they deserve? I mean come on! They must have put at least an hour and a half and three Starbucks runs into spitballing different ways of racking up $222,000 in damages.

Everything they deserve... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392505)

Why won't anybody give the RIAA what they deserve?

Because that would've resulted in having all their lawyers shot, drawn and quartered.

Why is this news... (4, Insightful)

Darundal (891860) | about 6 years ago | (#25391665)

...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

Re:Why is this news... (4, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 6 years ago | (#25391717)

It's still news because they have the gall to even apply for it. The judges are clearly not on their side, even if the government is.

Re:Why is this news... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 years ago | (#25391789)

They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

Re:Why is this news... (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#25391911)

They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

Well, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise. But yeah ... the RIAA's brand of law is pretty much in the gutter.

Re:Why is this news... (3, Insightful)

david.emery (127135) | about 6 years ago | (#25392333)

... Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise.

I'm not convinced. I believe the current approach in legal training and education is that -anything- in support of the client's position is permissable. And frankly that approach is equally applicable in politics these days (not a surprise when the majority of politicians are lawyers.)

On both sides of the case I've been involved with, I've seen the lawyers say outrageous things, because there's NO CONSEQUENCES for doing so.

dave

p.s. tell your mother I'm sorry :-)

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393471)

Hah I've seen her in broad daylight, you're the one that's sorry.

Re:Why is this news... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393927)

With all due respect, what is your experience with "the current approach?" How many lawyers do you personally know?

I ask because I'm a lawyer and while I do represent my client as zealously as I can, I am bound by ethical and personal standards that I cannot, and will not breach. And I feel 99% of the people I work with are the same.

What actual experience do you have with "legal training and education" that prompted your theory?

Re:Why is this news... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 6 years ago | (#25392863)

Indeed. Some are all about the fathers instead.

Re:Why is this news... (5, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 6 years ago | (#25391959)

HEY!

My dad's a lawyer and my mom's dead..... Oh.

Re:Why is this news... (5, Funny)

Pervaricator General (1364535) | about 6 years ago | (#25392031)

That explains why "Umbrella Corporation" is on your birth certificate...

Re:Why is this news... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393161)

So how much was the bill?

Re:Why is this news... (1)

funkatron (912521) | about 6 years ago | (#25392257)

They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

How much?

Re:Why is this news... (2, Informative)

maglor_83 (856254) | about 6 years ago | (#25392513)

$222K for the murder, $222K for the necrophilia, $222K for the dismemberment, $222K for the invoice, and $222K for postage and handling.

So $1,110,000.00

Re:Why is this news... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393955)

Wow thats over 100 MP3s

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393957)

$222K for the murder, $222K for the necrophilia, $222K for the dismemberment, $222K for the invoice, and $222K for postage and handling.

So $1,110,000.00

Having a partner that doesn't talk during sex: priceless

Re: gall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393617)

Plus postage.

Re:Why is this news... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391829)

Not so much. You should see the sorts of motions that are filed on a daily basis. If their attorneys did not file for such appeal, its not only bad strategy but missing such opportunities is the foundation of malpractice. That being said, the appellate courts have a rule (FRAP 37) that grants the courts power to sanction attorneys for frivolous appeals. Up to the point of FRAP 37 sanctions, it is normal to file as many motions as one has time to in major cases.

Further - exhaustive motion practice is a legitimate strategy where Repeat Players (RIAA is regularly involved in litigation, and needs to be careful to "control" precedent) are up against One-Shot players (individuals who will only be involved in this sort of litigation once). The Repeat Player has extra incentive to invest in the litigation, and may overwhelm the incentive the One-Shot player has. It is for this reason that sanctions exist - courts may order attorney's fees awarded to a winning party where the losing party's conduct was vexatious or in bad faith.

by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391949)

why on /. can i not post in firefox?

Can't help but think you're doing it wrong.. (Posted from Firefox)

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392157)

actually so was that comment, i just got impatient waiting for it to load... editing it while waiting was apparently a bad idea, with this crowd, sorta undercuts anything legitimate in the substance of the post hunh?

cheers

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393453)

by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

I've posted in Firefox many times (including right now), and I've never had any problems. What version are you using?

Re:Why is this news... (3, Informative)

danomac (1032160) | about 6 years ago | (#25393785)

by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

Some plugins (like noscript) will prevent you from running scripts unless explicitly allowed. Allow slashdot.org and post away!

Re:Why is this news... (-1, Offtopic)

non0score (890022) | about 6 years ago | (#25391773)

I'm trying really hard to not invoke Godwin's Law here, so I'll ask this instead: Are you saying that you shouldn't call 911 (or whatever it is in the reader's country) about your neighbor's fire until it's burning your lawn?

Re:Why is this news... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 6 years ago | (#25392549)

Hey, it's not news either when Steve-o gets angry, and yet we love the chair-related posts :)

Re:Why is this news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392703)

Extra! Extra! RIAA bashing article makes the front page of Slashdot. Dozens are surprised.

You don't come here often, do you?

Re:Why is this news... (2, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 6 years ago | (#25392829)

Because NYCL submitted it.

Re:Why is this news... (1)

TechForensics (944258) | about 6 years ago | (#25393017)

...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

Unfortunately the RIAA [plexipages.com] do set forth a cognizable rationale for a new trial. It may be that a judge who has set aside a jury verdict won't want to take the rap for a wasteful second trial stemming from that decision, and will let the Appeals Court rule. Now, I'm not predicting the Appeals Court is going to reverse his setting the verdict aside, but we may very well see them taking up the issue.

Let the punishment fit the crime. (5, Insightful)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about 6 years ago | (#25391765)

What lawyer, where, thinks its a good idea to sue some lady for $222,000 for $23 worth of illegal filesharing? Its bad enough the RIAA tried it in the first place, but the court shot them down, and they're still at it? You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391913)

... You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

What's your point?

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1)

gblfxt (931709) | about 6 years ago | (#25391991)

Thompson seemed to enjoy throwing around frivolous lawsuits as well. Too bad this isn't in Florida, maybe the RIAA lawyers could have been disbarred too!

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about 6 years ago | (#25392479)

You took the words right out of my mouth.

A little OT, but I have to say it (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 6 years ago | (#25392561)

Thompson seemed to enjoy throwing around frivolous lawsuits as well.

It hadn't really hit me until I saw this sentence with the word 'seem' in the past tense.

Damn but that just looks beautiful. Thompson...seemed.

It just hadn't hit me until right now that he's history. Jeez, but I hope I live long enough to say the same about the RIAA. "The RIAA seemed to like to file frivolous lawsuits."

Ah, that's going to be great. Can't wait.

Re:A little OT, but I have to say it (1)

mangu (126918) | about 6 years ago | (#25393479)

I hope I live long enough to say the same about the RIAA. "The RIAA seemed to like to file frivolous lawsuits."

Problem is, Thompson was one lawyer. The RIAA has as many as they want, disbar one, they get another

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | about 6 years ago | (#25392053)

The lawyer being paid by their client to perform the service requested. For the right pay a lawyer will beat your ailing grandfather with a nine-iron until he vomits up his own spleen.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (4, Insightful)

Godji (957148) | about 6 years ago | (#25392371)

It's not about the money. It's about the precedent and the fear.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 6 years ago | (#25392857)

Those are well within the statutory damages. And it's only going to get worse with the just passed PRO-IP act. I predict we'll be seeing plenty of horribly unjust judgments become a matter of course as the war on copyright infringers picks up speed.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#25393007)

You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

See, you just answered your own question.

This particular batch of attorneys only came preloaded with a fifth of one standard conscience at the factory (50% is the normal setting.) Basically, if you're buying them in quantity, they come a lot cheaper that way: consciences are expensive items, after all. In practice, it's been found that if you install more conscience than that, they start exhibiting undesirable characteristics such as "honesty" and "business ethic". Not a good thing, if you're a soulless, money-grubbing oligopoly. If you don't buy any conscience at all ... well, really really bad things happen.

Most people don't know this, but some time ago a group of attorneys was ordered for special-purpose use in Congressional and major banking applications. Unfortunately, while the order specified a 75% conscience load, they were accidentally shipped without any. Company personnel colloquially refer to these jobs as the "Manson line" because they have all the personality traits of a typical advanced sociopath. Corporate hatchetmen are frequently M-series, for example.

If anyone was wondering what caused the recent worldwide financial crisis ... well, now you know. It was a simple clerical error, really.

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (1)

ziah (1095877) | about 6 years ago | (#25393297)

It's all about precedent.

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere, and this is so much more true when it comes to precedence.

Imagine they win... that means they could sue just about everyone for 965,217% of the cost of what they were "stealing"...

Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. (2, Informative)

dirk (87083) | about 6 years ago | (#25394037)

I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).

Whether you agree with the RIAA tactics, or think they should win the cases is another matter entirely. But saying "the songs only cost X dollars to buy" is a pointless argument, since that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The people are not taking the copy of the song they download, they are taking the right to distribute music that they don't have, and that is what the penalty should be based on (assuming the RIAA does win the case).

I love this excerpt: (5, Interesting)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 6 years ago | (#25391815)

The parties agree that the only evidence of actual dissemination of
copyrighted works was that Plaintiffs' agent, MediaSentry, copied songs.
Plaintiffs argue that even if distribution requires an actual transfer, the trial
evidence established transfers of copyrighted works to MediaSentry. Thomas
retorts that dissemination to an investigator acting as an agent for the copyright
owner cannot constitute infringement.

"It is well–established that the lawful owner of a copyright cannot infringe
its own copyright."

Re:I love this excerpt: (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | about 6 years ago | (#25392255)

Damn, no mod points

Thanks for pointing this one out, I've been waiting for ages for some lawyer to argue that point.

Re:I love this excerpt: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392699)

Karma whore.

Hail Mary (4, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | about 6 years ago | (#25391821)

Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings.

Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them.

Boggle.

And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

Re:Hail Mary (2, Insightful)

TechForensics (944258) | about 6 years ago | (#25393059)

If plaintiffs [plexipages.com] were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

Re:Hail Mary (2, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | about 6 years ago | (#25393217)

If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

Except that the current trial is scheduled for a jury, at which point it can all go to appeal together. Since the first jury trial (that the RIAA wants to stand) is already done, all that the appellate court would have to do after both are done is choose :-) It's called judicial efficiency, and in practice it means "don't make multiple passes through the system if you can avoid it."

Perhaps more to the point, the Appeals Court doesn't get a vote in the matter -- the permission for an interlocutory appeal has to come from the District Court.

Re:Hail Mary (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 6 years ago | (#25394027)

Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings. Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them. Boggle. And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

. We have a word for it where I come from.

Chutzpah.

Don't see much wrong (3, Insightful)

cfulmer (3166) | about 6 years ago | (#25391855)

I agree that it would be unusual for the appeal to be granted. But, it does make some sense -- if, on retrial, Thomas wins with the new instruction, then the RIAA will appeal to the 8th circuit on the jury instruction. And, if the 8th circuit agrees with the "Making Available" theory, then the case would go back to the district court where a new jury would have to, again, decide if she made the works available. (Once the second trial has started, I don't think you can go back to the outcome of the first.)

How many juries do we need?

Re:Don't see much wrong (4, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 6 years ago | (#25392905)

How many juries do we need?

If you can afford them, keep running through juries till you get one that gives you the answer you want.

Fear (3, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | about 6 years ago | (#25391857)

They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.

--
Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .

Re:Fear (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#25391929)

They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.

I doubt it's even that. These guys are just paid to do a job, and they don't much care how they do it.

The real reason they're doing this (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 years ago | (#25391863)

This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.

A successful motion response to a similarly silly motion (at least in the State of New Hampshire), was the following letter:
Honorable Justice ____:

Plaintiff has got to be kidding.

Respectfully submitted,
________ ________, Esq

Re:The real reason they're doing this (1)

Pervaricator General (1364535) | about 6 years ago | (#25392087)

That will be $500, please.

Re:The real reason they're doing this (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 6 years ago | (#25392455)

Defendant's lawyer has got to be kidding.

Re:The real reason they're doing this (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 6 years ago | (#25392677)

Add a 0

Re:The real reason they're doing this (1)

Pervaricator General (1364535) | about 6 years ago | (#25392991)

I already said this was written by a LAWYER

Re:The real reason they're doing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392399)

And a suitable way to deal with it might just have already been established in the case of Arkell vs Peessdram:

http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm [nasw.org]

Re:The real reason they're doing this (4, Informative)

againjj (1132651) | about 6 years ago | (#25392587)

Re:The real reason they're doing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392969)

(Eastern District of Michigan)

Michigan, actually

Re:The real reason they're doing this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25393303)

GET A BRAIN MORAN!

Re:The real reason they're doing this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392691)

They've got to be hoping that the court doesn't find in favour of the defendent and award all legal costs in that direction too.

Well the jerk store called (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25391967)

They want them back.

RIAA is the biggest wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392657)

Person downloaded $24 in songs.....
RIAA wants $222,000.....
Person downloaded $24 in songs.....
RIAA wants $222,000.....

How the hell does $24 suddenly become $222,000?!

Re:RIAA is the biggest wtf (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25392929)

it's in the fucking law. are you too stupid to know this? why the fuck do we have to keep answering the same old questions around here. the wheres, whos and hows of this case are already known. stop asking the same stupid fucking questions. it's like being in high school with some disruptive asshole in class.

Why they're worried (4, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | about 6 years ago | (#25392855)

If the monopolists let this stuff continue, they begin to lose their monopoly, too. A loss for the RIAA here will push music and other media (likely movies) back into the hands of the competitive market. Then you'd see the industry start to equalize, with less-common artists making more money, and famous artists making less. Mostly, though, the monopolists wouldn't make as much money anymore, and that's what counts.

Re:Why they're worried (2, Interesting)

SirCowMan (1309199) | about 6 years ago | (#25393135)

This weeks 'Economist' has a little tidbit saying that they may have recognized they won't be able to sell music to consumers anymore; instead, the recording industry is planning on bundling unlimited music "free" with thirdparty products, for say a year. The cost will thus be built into consumer electronics. The foundation may be crumbling, but we're not looking at the monopoly state failing yet, desperate as they seem.

Worried about Precedents on Punishments? (3, Interesting)

arthurh3535 (447288) | about 6 years ago | (#25392869)

That's the only thing that I can see them really being worried about. Of course, if word got out that they would only charge you 2X or 4X the "real" worth of the purloined materials for non-business transgressions, their whole new business model probably implodes.

But they would have to admit that they are using corporate-punishments on non-corporate people.

Somehow, I think that is their worst fear.

Pop culture reference: (0, Offtopic)

alisson (1040324) | about 6 years ago | (#25392957)

I AM ABOVE THE LAW!

Why WOULD the artists get this money? (2, Interesting)

HomerJ (11142) | about 6 years ago | (#25393009)

Ok, I need an explanation. The artists signed a contract to the label to produce a record. The label holds the copyright to the material and the artist is paid for this. Then the record is promoted, and either sells or it doesn't.

If there's a suit for copyright infringement and there's money awarded, why WOULD the artist get any of it? It's the label's copyright that's been infringed. Any damages SHOULD go to them. If I'm hired to write some program for Adobe, it's pirated, and Adobe sues someone--why would I see any money? It's not my program. I wrote it, but it belongs to Adobe. Any lost income is theirs not mine.

It can be argued that these record contracts are pretty lopsided and go against the artist. But they are the ones that signed it. Just because they are in a bad contract doesn't mean they should get money from these suits which are for copyrights they aren't the holders to.

Re:Why WOULD the artists get this money? (5, Informative)

FSWKU (551325) | about 6 years ago | (#25393151)

That would be because the RIAA have been shouting from the mountaintops since the dawn of time that it's all about the artist. They want to stop filesharing because, according to them, it directly takes money away from the artists in the form of lost sales. Every single anti-P2P campaign you see from them is preaching the same thing. "Please don't hurt the poor artists."

But in reality, they're just trying to line their own coffers. When someone settles for some outrageous fee, not a damned cent of that goes to "making the artist whole" or making up for their lost sales. Nope, it goes directly into either the lawyer's wallets or the legal war-chest. The artist continues to get screwed to the tune of pennies per album sold, and tough shit about those lost sales killing your already paltry (unless you're Metallica or some other hyper-famous act) royalty payments.

Re:Why WOULD the artists get this money? (2, Informative)

notamisfit (995619) | about 6 years ago | (#25393911)

Actually, the artist usually keeps the copyrights, or transfers them to a publishing company (generally wholly owned by the artist/artists, after what happened with Lennon/McCartney and the whole Northern Songs clusterfuck).

You're doing it wrong (4, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | about 6 years ago | (#25393769)

The joke goes: "The RIAA called. They want their $222,000 verdict back."

Yeah? (1)

Own3d-You (1082423) | about 6 years ago | (#25393943)

Well I want a pony!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?