LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"

For those lawyers out there

[iriefrank]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.

And for those of us who aren't lawyers?

[hellfire]

How about a quick explanation?

Re:For those lawyers out there

[iriefrank]

You can certainly get FRCP 11 sanctions on a counterclaim on the grounds that its frivolous. So, yeah, you can have a frivolous counterclaim.

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

FRCivP 12(6)(b)

[Anonymous Coward]

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Re:And for those of us who aren't lawyers?

[iriefrank]

FRCP 12(b)(6) basically is grounds to dismiss one or more claims in a lawsuit because even if all the factual assertions made by the plaintiff are true, they have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IANAL. This isn't legal advice.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[iriefrank]

It hurts to try because if you make a frivolous claim the attorney, law firm, or party may be subject to sanctions.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[BeeBeard]

Yes, IAAL: It's hard to gauge frivolity without knowing more about the case, and about any evidence that Limewire may have that could prove out their claims. If their claims have no basis in existing law or lack any evidentiary support (i.e. are frivolous), then the lawyers, their firm, or even Limewire could be sanctioned under Rule 11.

Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think. Few lawyers go out and just take a piss when it comes to filing motions. There is too much at stake. Sadly, it's only the frivolous suits or the cases involving plaintiffs who receive big judgments from what at first blush seem like frivolous suits that the public really cares to hear about.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

[BeeBeard]

That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.

Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!

(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

[BeeBeard]

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.

Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.

P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[Americano]

Or, as Thomas Jefferson wrote [virginia.edu]:

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

And . . .

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[plasmacutter]

Ok.. I've boiled your reply to the most relevant phrase which sums up your point..

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power

You do realize that modern marketing campaigns are designed by behavioralists and psychologists.

While the popular media depiction of "brainwashing" is a bunch of hodoo-voodoo nonsense, there is a real technique of what is termed "Conversion tactics" in psychological circles. It is a real process by which a person who has properly learned about the techniques can, with cold calculation, manipulate people's opinions, propensities, preferences, outlook, and behavior.

It's been in use by revivalist preachers since the 1600's, and studied and formalized by pavlov among others.

The guns and troops method is not the only method of subjugating the will of a population.. from a competitive market comes much more efficient and subtle ways to do it.

The few who recognize what is going on are diluted by the converted masses, and the even fewer who are able to excercise the carisma and talent to reverse the effects are carefully identified and unobtrusively "removed" from society before they can rock the boat.

It's not well publicised, but king was not assassinated for advocating civil rights for african americans.. it was only after he began speaking out for the poor and against the domination and exploitation of lower classes by moneyed interests that he was put down.

My argument may have been presented in the grandparent with a little more than a "bit" of hyperbole, but still the root stands.

Actually, that would be jury nullification...

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts" ...if a member of the jury decided to act thusly.

I was on a jury in a drug case.

Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound believable. A couple of years later, he was indicted for fraud.

Jury nullification works.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

[anagama]

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.

FYI, the court rules are created by the court (although there may be procedural rules enacted by the legislature as well). So for example, a State Supreme Court might promulgate rules of procedure to ensure a fair process, and local courts will all have their own special local rules (e.g., attach X cover page to Y motion, Motion Z are heard every Tuesday at 1:30, etc. etc. so long as they don't conflict with the generally applicable rules -- the Feds do the same thing essentially). It is very non-astonoshing that a court would then interpret rules it created, and FWIW, when a court interprets it's own rules, it is not engaging in the practice known as "legislating from the bench".

The purpose of Rule 11 is to prevent parties from engaging in abusive litigation. In the most general terms, Rule 11 means that if a party brings a suit, they need a minimal basis for that suit. Rule 11 is a court adopted rule and as such, it should be expected that courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying it. Remember, court procedure is merely about creating a fair forum so that a fact finder (judge or jury) can decide the ultimate issues. Shotgunning the court with baseless claims is detrimental to a fair process. Because it is the court's duty to provide a fair process, it must be able to step in when things get out of hand.

IAALs unite

[caitsith01]

IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.

As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.

In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.

Watch closely; Lime Wire has them dead to rights

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here [riaalawsuits.us].

Re:For those lawyers out there

[ElleyKitten]

Hell if anyone can remember past 6 years ago, Ross Periot of all people came damn close to becoming president.

"Damn close" was less than 5% of the vote. And he's got billions of dollars. How for do you think I'd get? Maybe I'd get arrested for going to the debates, like the Libertarian and Green Party candidates did in 2004? Maybe I'll get modded troll for bringing that up, like the sibling post did. Morons.

Re:Does anyone else want to say...

[DarkSarin]

If what you said was true, then I would agree, but the truth is more complicated--often downloading results in very little or no monetary damage to the actual artists. It is fairly well known that most artists make the majority (but not all) of their true earnings on proceeds from concerts and tours--not from cd sales. Several artists have tested this, and are doing well enough.

I have a great deal of respect for artists that are willing/able to break with the RIAA, and allow their music to be downloaded, secure that they have a great product and people will come to their concerts and support them.

I still feel that copyright infringement is technically different from theft. Furthermore, I am also uncertain that downloading is technically illegal. I think that it is a valid reading of the law, but I am also valid to say that downloading falls under fair-use technically. In other words, I feel that the law is ambiguous on this point, the DMCA not withstanding.

I will say that with the advent of iTunes, I have certainly decreased the rate at which I download songs--because iTunes makes it easy to get what I want at a reasonable price. That said, when I see that a band is directly selling their songs (Bare Naked Ladies being a good example of this) or concert recordings, I will buy direct from the artist rather than some other distribution channel, because that way the artist gets (hopefully) a larger chunk of the proceeds.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[ciellarg]

Hmmm, squelching technology? When is the last time you saw a consumer audio DAT (Digital Audio Tape) deck? The recording industry shut them down hard with the Audio Home Recording Act. This act imposed a royality on DAT drives, DAT media, and required a serialization scheme which would prevent copies of copies from being made (regardless of what the content is). Guess who gets approximately 40% of those royalties?

Now DAT is used primarily for tape backup.

I suppose it all boils down to what they perceive as having the ability to harm their business.