Judge Slams RIAA Tactics

from the about-time dept

Wed, Oct 29th 2008 4:08pm — Mike Masnick

Early on, in the RIAA's legal campaign against file sharers, it appeared that judges were mostly siding with the RIAA, and taking the RIAA's claims at face value. However, due to widespread backlash, and an improved understanding of how the RIAA's tactics are legally questionable, it appears that opposing lawyers have become much better at pushing back on some of the dubious claims by the RIAA, including the basis for the whole campaign. It's nice to see judges are beginning to recognize this as well. While we've seen it in judges rejecting RIAA arguments in court, in one case, it appears that Judge Nancy Gertner pointed out how ridiculous the RIAA's position was and suggested they stop their legal blitz:

"...counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...."

The RIAA used to count on the "sympathy" vote in court, and played the role of a "victim" quite well (they're pirates! they're stealing!). However, it appears that many judges just aren't buying it any more.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: judge, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

WarOtter (profile), 29 Oct 2008 @ 5:00pm

Excellent
This, coupled with the fact that their arguement of "we represent the artists" has been debunked from the numerous instances of artist having to sue them to get royalties, should push them further into obsolescence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2008 @ 5:01pm

Its about f**king time!

Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erv Server, 29 Oct 2008 @ 5:09pm

Judge Nancy Gertner for president
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2008 @ 5:33pm

for president? Lets keep her as a judge! Lets give her praise. Lets let her set an example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 29 Oct 2008 @ 6:09pm

Read the remarks of the editor.
[Ed. Note. While it is heartening to see Judge Gertner show some recognition of the unfairness in the way these cases are being handled, it is unclear how she can say that the law is overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies when she recognizes that for the past 5 years she's only been hearing one side of the argument. It is also disheartening that she evidences no recognition of how she has herself contributed to the "imbalance" by consolidating all of the cases, thus (a) providing the record companies with massive economies of scale not available to the defendants, (b) providing virtually untrammeled ex parte access to the Court on all common legal issues, and (c) creating a one-sided atmosphere in the courthouse that causes all defendants to abandon hope. How can Judge Gertner conclude that the settlements have come about because the law is on the record companies' side, when she knows full well that the reason the settlements have come about is that there is no economically viable way for defendants to defend themselves? -R.B.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 29 Oct 2008 @ 6:29pm

Re:
Ditto. She's more valuable as a Judge. Any clown with some money can be president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slimcat (profile), 29 Oct 2008 @ 8:28pm

Even better news...
Harvard law professor Charlie Neeson and colleagues have determined that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, the law on which RIAA litigation rests, is actually intended for criminal cases and that civil use is unconstitutional. Further, they believe the act itself is also unconstitutional.
You can read the story here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 29 Oct 2008 @ 8:39pm

Yeah, about time.

But in the end, it can't be said there's no profit in all of this, there most certainly is for the lawyers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2008 @ 9:05pm

Re: Even better news...
Perhaps this is the good professor's views, but he is distinctly in the minority within the legal profession in attempting to say that a civil action should be construed as a criminal action. This argument is almost certainly DOA, though he may have a valid point in arguing that statutory damages may be excessive. However, even here he has a very difficult row to hoe in trying to overturn longstanding judicial precedent deferring to the clear language of the pertinent copyright statute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]