p2pnet - rss feed: RIAA chutzpah — or stupidity
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- ‘RIAA thumbs its nose at judge’ was the headline for p2pnet’s last story yesterday.
As Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman described the circumstances, “The RIAA is going to have to face the music in Tampa, Florida, and answer the charges of extortion, trespass, conspiracy, unlicensed investigation, and computer fraud and abuse which have been levelled against them there.”
What stood out in the background to this was judge Richard A. Lazzara’s actions after Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA tried to have a counterclaim dismissed.
Their demand turned up at the judge’s office the night before last, and he’d trashed it less than 12 hours later, “significantly, telling the defendants they needn’t bother filing any kind of response, instead ordering the RIAA to come up with answers and defenses to the counterclaim within 10 days,” we posted.
Says Beckerman, “The RIAA’s unvarying MO, when hit with counterclaims, is to make a motion to dismiss them. It did just that in one Tampa case, UMG v Del Cid, but the judge upheld five of the six counterclaims. The RIAA quickly settled that one.
“When a new case came up in the same Tampa courthouse before the very same judge, and the same five counterclaims were levelled against the record companies, I opined that ‘it is highly unlikely that the RIAA will make a motion to dismiss counterclaims’, since I knew they’d be risking sanctions if they did.
“Well I guess I underestimated the chutzpah - or the propensity for frivolous motion practice - of the RIAA lawyers, as they in essence ‘thumbed their nose’ at the judge, going ahead and making the dismissal motion anyway, telling District Judge Richard A. Lazzara that his earlier decision was wrong.”
In a Reader’s Write, “I guess I underestimated even their stupidity,” says Beckerman, adding >>>
Well I hope I’ve learned something from this experience.
I’ve drafted this pop quiz for the litigation buffs out there:
The facts.
A lawyer just filed a 30-page brief in which he (a) devoted 28 pages to repeating the same arguments he had made in a motion that was decided less than 8 months earlier, and (b) devoted 3 pages to telling the judge that his previous ruling was “wrongly decided”.
Question #1
What will happen?
(a) The lawyer will win the motion.
(b) The lawyer will lose the motion.
(c) The lawyer will have to find a new line of work.
(d) Both (b) and (c)
Question #2
If you are the client who pays lawyers to do things like that you are
(a) A smart businessperson
(b) A moron
(c) A fool
(d) Both (b) and (c)
Stay tuned 
Jon Newton - p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The answer is a and a!
I am gifted! I am goint to attempt law school right now!
I believe that I will do just as well as these incredible ( Incredibly stupid and disrepectful) RIAA lawers!
Also I will fill the same brief again and again to see how many time it take to be debared.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I hope the defendants don’t settle this one out of court, I want to see blood.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
CHUTZPATHETIC!
May 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Questions 1 - B, 2 - C
Am I right? Aside from possible or hopefuls
They love to waste people’s time it seems. The Judge is required to read all evidence put before him, but how much of it would he need to read to realize he’s read it before?
It seems they want to delay, waste time, and steal people’s money. Wasting time is like stealing a part of someone’s life, so that’s pretty cool I guess to them. It’s what jail does. They already do it to consumers by unlawfully and unethically stealing their bandwidth, not to mention ripping off artists, and consumers through overpriced garbage