Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation

Posted by samzenpus on from the catch-22 dept.

JeffreysTube writes "The RIAA's legal fight against a divorced mother has run into trouble, with the judge now telling the RIAA that its only two options are to proceed with a jury trial against Patty Santangelo or dismiss the case with prejudice. If the latter happens, Santangelo officially "wins" and could collect attorneys' fees. The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty. 'This case is two years old,' wrote Judge McMahon. 'There has been extensive fact discovery. After taking this discovery, either plaintiffs want to make their case that Mrs. Santangelo is guilty of contributory copyright infringement or they do not.'"

3 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Stopping the lawsuits... by gavink42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Problem is that the RIAA doesn't have any incentive to stop the lawsuits, as long as they are able to intimidate the majority of their targets into settling. They just happened to pick a determined person (with resources) in this case.

  2. Re:Declared guilty? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They're not really interested in suing her again.

    They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.

    In Capitol v. Foster it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision. (pdf)

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Ruling against the tactic by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    INAL but really I regard this as a ruling against RIAA's bullying tactics.

    It appears to me they are trying to draw out the costs of the case through two years of pre-trial discovery. The idea appears to be simply to bankrupt the defense and/or intimidate potential future defendants (i.e. the public) by showing that they don't have to go to trial in order to financially ruin their victim. Seems to occur commonly enough whenever one party in a case has especially deep pockets and the other doesn't.

    What the judge is saying is, the RIAA can't just run up a huge legal bill and walk away. Score one for the little guy.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.