It's Official: RIAA Trying To Join Righthaven Lawsuit
from the pr-of-no-matter dept
This is no surprise given the RIAA's previous statements and actions, but it's now official. The RIAA has filed an amicus brief, along with a motion for leave to file the brief, since Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza, refused to allow the amicus brief. Both filings are embedded below (thanks to a few of you for sending these over). As expected, the filing, from both the RIAA and the AAP, argues that the court erred in even deciding the fair use issue, once it had decided that RIghthaven had no standing. Basically, the RIAA really, really, really wants this fair use ruling off the books. To be fair, I can see their overall argument here. If Righthaven has no standing, then should the court even consider the specific issues? But, that said, if the court does decide to do so, is that really so harmful? It's still making a ruling based on the same basic info, and just clarifying the details, should the "rightful" copyright holder seek to take on the same lawsuit. In this case, the court accomplishes a key point: making it clear that such an effort would waste the court's time. That seems like a reasonable move. Either way, this looks pretty silly from the RIAA's standpoint. They're so afraid of a ruling that allows fair use that they're willing to get into bed with Righthaven.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: copyright, fair use, hoehn
Companies: riaa, righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hari-Kari
The RIAA is perhaps the most selfless organization known in late Western Civilization, as evidenced by its willingness to fall on its sword to defend the hard-working artists of this great nation.
And getting into bed with Righthaven (unprotected mid you) qualifies as much as any act imaginable as hari-kari, or falling on your sword.
You're either down with suicide or down with death, either way they're going down protecting the artists who work hard every day.
(Really not too bad for my first mock rant imho. Any critiques, improvements?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hari-Kari
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I argue their mass lawsuits and settlement (and by "settlement" I mean shakedown) letters are extortion. Plain and simple.
I am every bit as adamant and firm in my convictions (perhaps more so) than they are in theirs.
But I am willing to compromise here.
The day the people responsible for these bogus suits stand up in public, admit what they did was/is extortion, and agree to suffer appropriate penalties (and by "appropriate penalties" I mean jail time)for their actions?
That is the day I'll concede (grudgingly, but like I said I'll compromise) that infringement is theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hari-Kari
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a pretty basic thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But we'll find out at the appellate stage should they find a court that will listen to them.
Righthaven's presence or exclusion of the issue of fair use is moot as other interested parties will still there for the ruling.
But we'll see now as this grinds it's way through the rarified air of the upper echelons of the legal system.
Should be interesting. If not fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Filing an amicus brief is not the same as getting in bed with a party.
When the Center for Democracy and Technology filed an amicus brief in US v. Stevens, no one said they were getting in bed with the makers of animal crush videos.
When David Post and Eugene Volokh filed an amicus brief in Snyder v. Phelps, no one said they were getting in bed with the Westboro Baptist Church.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The lack of standing and a ruling stand in opposition of each other. Either they had standing and there was a ruling, or they have no standing and as a result, there is no ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe That Should Be An “Inimicus” Brief
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hari-Kari
It could have used more troll buzz words like "broad brush", "communist", or "freetard."
Also, it was too coherent.
troll grade 9/10
[ link to this | view in thread ]
special circumstances
big hugs.
(hint, file a brief, be on the hook for the defense atty fees please)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If no rights holder responded, wouldn't the court have given the same opinion?
The rights holder was obviously aware of the litigation and wanted RightHaven to represent them, even if they bungled the contract. It seems to me that if an invalid representation contract is enough to invalidate the entire proceeding for the other side, then wealthy litigants could "accidentally" write an improper contract every time a very important case came up and then say "whoops" if they lose to get more bites at the apple.
IANAL, but it seems very suspect to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes. Yes it should.
It's quite common for courts to give alternative reasons in their opinions. They'll say, for example, that the case is dismissed because the plaintiff has no standing. And in alternative, if it is later determined that the plaintiff does have standing, that fair use is complete a defense to this action.
If the initial basis for the dismissal or ruling stands, the alternative bases become dicta.
If there are multiple reasons to dismiss an action or rule upon an issue, a good court deals with all of them. That keeps the case from being remanded back from an appellate court because of an unaddressed issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Instead of politely and professionally consenting to this brief, Randazza staged a letter and got the anti-Righthaven and anti-RIAA mouthpieces at Techdirt and TorrentFreak to try and turn this into a negative PR thing for the RIAA. That is the definition of petulance in my book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Read my comment directly above you. It's quite common for courts to give alternative bases for its opinion. There is nothing wrong with doing so and there is no law or court rule which forbids it.
If the primary basis is upheld, the alternatives are not vacated, they're merely considered dicta.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They are arguing that Righthaven had no standing to pursue its claims of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a separate concept from, say, personal jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
At any rate, they are not trying to disturb the ultimate judgment against Righthaven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Other federal circuits might come to a different conclusions on that same issue, so the trial court in this case did what trial courts are supposed to do. It gave alternative bases for the dismissal.
Once again, you've cited no law that says a court cannot provide alternate bases to rule on an opinion. How many times to I have to repeat this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says: "JURISDICTION 8. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this copyright infringement action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a)."
Section 1331 provides: "Federal question. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Since Righthaven is suing Hoehn for violating the Copyright Act, a "law . . . of the United States," i.e., a federal law, then the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.
The other statute listed, Section 1338(a), is just an alternate statute that gives the district court subject matter jurisdiction. It provides that: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks."
Either one of those statutes alone suffices to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Standing, by comparison, comes out of Supreme Court jurisprudence. It's judge-made law. Put simply, it's based on the idea that you must have the proper parties before the court before the court has the power to hear the "case or controversy." Without having the proper parties, the court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction.
That's just a sketch. Hope it helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My understanding is different, and I think is amply supported by the text I quoted above. You can have alternate bases in general, but not when it comes to jurisdiction. A court has a duty to determine up front and on its own whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, even if the parties don't raise the issue themselves. Once a court determines it does not (and let's assume there was leave to amend and all that), then the only proper move is to dismiss. The judge can't be wishy-washy when it comes to jurisdiction. A "federal court may not hypothesize subject-matter jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits." Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999). That says it all. The court must decide either: (1) the court has subject matter jurisdiction, or (2) the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. There is no "maybe I do and maybe I don't" as you suggest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's broader than that. For example, there must be standing and an actual "case or controversy" for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, thank you. What I said applies only to subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction works differently since the court generally won't consider it unless the defendant challenges it. And if the defendant doesn't challenge it early on, it's waived. Here, Hoehn at first reserved the right to challenge personal jurisdiction but then later waived that right, if I recall correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummm - how about contempt of court then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, no, this is actually good.
Then another might do that. And another. Splintering = good, right?
Whoa! I just had the weirdest dream. Was I talking in my sleep just now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]