[LINK] Do we have Rule 11 here?

[Kim Holburn]

The RIAA or ARIA as they're acronymiously known in Australia, haven't  
embarked quite the same kind of direct, systematic litigation of their  
best customers, yet.  (Except for doctors, chiropractors and PABXs,  
and I think they were so successful with that they have been raking in  
the licensing lolly since then.)

It looks like all over the world the music monopoly industry have  
orchestrated a coordinated campaign to lobby, bully or in this case  
litigate ISPs into disconnecting their own customers.  Since this is  
the first one of its type and will be somewhat of a precedent setter,  
in fact a law creating kind of litigation, I don't think punitive  
damages for vexatious litigation is really going to be appropriate  
here.  If it's successful they'll probably keep doing it to all the  
ISPs, if it's not they'll just keep lobbying or possibly try suing  
their customers but it hasn't really been a great success in the US,  
I'm not sure it'd be any better in Australia.

On 2009/Mar/27, at 3:18 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:

> Yo Jan,
>
> Sounds a bit like punitive or exemplary damages .... the purpose of
> which is to dissuade a party to an action from continuing an
> undesirable course of action against other potential parties after
> the action in question has been decided. Think legal aversion therapy.
>
> Punitive damages (or exemplary damages as they're now called here)
> have been a remedy available under English/Australian/US law for any
> number of torts and other civil litigation for more than a century.
> The trick is getting a judge to agree that they are merited.     :)
>
> 				Regards,
>
> At 7:49 PM +1100 27/3/09, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>> NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After receiving a
>> Rule 11 Sanctions Motion (PDF) in a Houston,
>> Texas, case, UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, the RIAA
>> lawyers thought better of proceeding with the
>> case, and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case
>> 'with prejudice', which means it is over and
>> cannot be brought again. The defendant's motion
>> papers detailed some of the RIAA's litigation
>> history against innocent individuals, such as
>> Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic Recording
>> v. Andersen, and argued that the awarding of
>> attorneys fees in those cases has not
>> sufficiently deterred repetition of the
>> misconduct, so that a stronger remedy - Rule 11
>> sanctions - is now called for."
>>
>> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/25/1733206&from=rss
>>
>> I don't know what a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion is,
>> but I'm assuming it's some sort of extra cost to
>> the plaintiff as if these are nuisance suits.
>> I.e. RIAA needs to have better evidence.
>>
>> iiNet, might be worth a shot here if you can find a Rule 11.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
>> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
>> blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
>> business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
>>
>> Our truest response to the irrationality of the
>> world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we
>> find truth.
>> ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
>>
>> _ __________________ _
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request