RIAA Accepts $300 Offer of Judgement In Carolina

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a North Carolina case, Capitol v. Frye, the RIAA has accepted a $300 offer of judgment made by the defendant. This is the first known use, in the RIAA v. Consumer cases, of the formal offer of judgment procedure which provides that if the plaintiff doesn't accept the offer, and doesn't later get a judgment for a larger amount, the plaintiff is responsible for all of the court costs from that point on in the case. The accepted judgment in the Frye case (PDF) also contains an injunction — much more limited than the RIAA's typical 'settlement' injunction (PDF) — under which defendant agreed not to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights."

Comments

Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA sucks

The user who mods this flamebait or troll or offtopic must be an RIAA supporter.

Re:Hey

[fohat]

Your post is redundant if anything.
Now that I've meta-moderated your meta-moderation, I need a nap.

Re:Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

I'm no lawyer, but

[Bombula]

Does this mean this rather lenient deal the RIAA has accepted can be used as a precedent for future cases? Will it prevent them from successfully reaming people's grandmothers with 7-figure lawsuits? Hope so.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ari_j]

Nope. It just means that one particular defendant convinced them to drop the matter for $300. No legal precedential effect.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Nefarious Wheel]

The blog said no precedent was being set, that it was clear it was the best the RIAA could expect from the case given that the subject was not likely to give much return on the collection effort, and another high-handed collection effort from a penniless mum would work against them. There was very little that could be taken from her, being another single mother receiving housing and income assistance. I'd say that that $300 was a pretty big whallop out of her budget though, and will make the RIAA look even worse as a result.

Providing that's possible, of course...

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[GizmoToy]

True, but on the other hand it's entirely possible she was guilty, knew she was guilty, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out. Which is not to say that the RIAA could have proved it to the satisfaction of the judge, but rather that the defendant knew she was wrong and owned up to her mistake.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Camael]

Actually, RIAA won. In simple terms her offer was "Okay I'm willing to plead guilty and pay you $300 inclusive of everything" and RIAA accepted. So the award is made against her. It's different from convincing the RIAA to "drop the matter".

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[timmarhy]

if you didn't think it could be proven, how the hell did you come to the conclusion that she was guilty?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Daychilde]

I believe it was a hypothesis, not a conclusion, and I'd expect everyone to have figured out that the courts aren't always able to determine truth... Or do you think someone is only guilty or innocent after the findings of a court, regardless of what actually happened in real life? Put another way - if courts are able to reach accurate verdicts 100% of the time, no matter the nature of the case, why is there so much unsolved crime? The Justice System is pretty good, all things considered; but it's not at all like television. You don't always get fingerprints; you can send stuff off to the lab and get a clearcut answer all the time...

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[GizmoToy]

Nowhere in the entire post did I say either that I didn't think they could prove their claims or that I thought the defendant was guilty. You should re-read the post.

I said that since I don't know the details of the case I have no idea if it was possible for the RIAA to prove their claims, and that the defendant may have been guilty and wanted to end the suit. Neither is unreasonable given the posted article and the case's resolution.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[QuantumG]

I love the way people keep throwing around this word "guilty". Like this is a criminal case. The longer people apply criminal law terminology like "guilty" and "innocent" and "theft" the easier it will be for the copyright owners to get new criminal laws passed.

Stop playing their game.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Knara]

Right, but the important thing is that AFAIK it can't be relied on as precedence like it could be if there was an actual judicial decision in the RIAA's favor.

IANAL

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ari_j]

Not really. First off, you don't plead guilty in civil cases such as this. Second, courts have held (see, e.g., Scosche v. Visor Gear) that Rule 68 judgments do not have a preclusive effect on litigating issues they dispose of. Therefore, the RIAA probably cannot take the Rule 68-based judgment and use it against this defendant in a future case to avoid actually litigating the issues in the future case. Numerous sources indicate that Rule 68 has the sole purpose of encouraging settlement.

Finally, the real issue that was raised and to which I responded: There is no precedential effect, no matter how you take the Rule 68-based judgment. Legal precedents are only as to issues of law. It seems that no interpretation of law was made here, and any issues that were disposed of by the judgment are factual in nature. There is no such thing as a legally binding factual precedent.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[GizmoToy]

There are other definitions of the term 'guilty' than merely the legal definitions. You'll notice the sentence doesn't even make sense using 'liable.'

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I love the way people keep throwing around this word "guilty". Like this is a criminal case. The longer people apply criminal law terminology like "guilty" and "innocent" and "theft" the easier it will be for the copyright owners to get new criminal laws passed. Stop playing their game. I agree wholeheartedly, QuantumG. I wince every time someone says "guilty" or "innocent".

These are civil cases. The terminology should be "liable" and "not liable".

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason we can say you're guilty of using to word "guilty" in a post.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ari_j]

Even if the RIAA took it all the way to trial and won a judgment of $8 billion dollars, it would likely still have next to no precedential effect. It's not like you can go to another court with a different defendant and say "See! We over there against that chick, so, Your Honor, you have to give us money from this guy too!" Thankfully, whatever faults it does have, the American legal system doesn't work quite like that.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

In simple terms her offer was "Okay I'm willing to plead guilty and pay you $300 inclusive of everything"

Correct, except for the "plead guilty" part. That's only in criminal cases.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There are other definitions of the term 'guilty' than merely the legal definitions. You'll notice the sentence doesn't even make sense using 'liable.' I disagree. I think it would have made perfect sense to use the civil litigation language, instead of criminal terms:

it's entirely possible she was liable, knew she was liable, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Dun Malg]

There are other definitions of the term 'guilty' than merely the legal definitions. You'll notice the sentence doesn't even make sense using 'liable.' "True, but on the other hand it's entirely possible she was liable, knew she was liable, and thus saw this as the cheapest way out."

WTF are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In simple terms her offer was "Okay I'm willing to plead guilty and pay you $300 inclusive of everything" Correct, except for the "plead guilty" part. That's only in criminal cases. Well, a formal Rule 68 offer of judgment is something different than that. It's kind of a dare. It's saying to the RIAA:

Here's a judgment for $300. I'm throwing $300 on the floor. Either pick it up, or go forward.
I dare you to try to recover more than that.
If you don't recover more than that, you're going to be liable for all of the court costs from this day forward.
If you've got the guts, bring it on.
If you don't, pick up the $300 and get out of my life.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Dun, you and I just wrote almost the exact same post, at the exact same time. I hope we don't get modded "redundant".

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad English?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[GizmoToy]

Yea. I think you're right, it would have made sense. I don't know what I was thinking.

Although I think the original usage was acceptable as I was not discussing the findings of the case, but rather her thought process on the matter. Still, using 'liable' would have been clearer. Apologies all around, hehe.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[QuantumG]

I don't doubt that was her thought process... specially, she was probably thinking about it as a matter of guilt, because that's the RIAA wants her to think about it. "I did something wrong" not "I caused significant damages to a music company". The first is easy to plant in people's minds, the second isn't.

Which is why I was saying that you shouldn't help them do that.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[GizmoToy]

True enough. I certainly don't want to be doing them any favors.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ari_j]

Of course, courts will speak of people being "guilty" of, say, contributory negligence. The difference is that they are not using it as a legal term of art in those cases,* and I don't get as upset about it as I do when people speak of "plead(ing) guilty" in the civil litigation context. That's the one that really makes no sense, no matter how you slice it. At least "she knew she was guilty of copyright infringement and offered to settle" makes sense, so long as the context makes clear that no legal terms of art are being used.

* - Haha, I can do it, too!

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[lionheart1327]

Yeah, thats one thing I don't get.

How come such a huge percentage of the people being sued by the RIAA are penniless, single parents living on government assistance? Or elderly grandmothers? Or cute puppies and kittens?

Quite frankly, it defies all the laws of probability!

By randomly suing IPs that they found online, how can they possibly be finding so many?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[TechForensics]

The minimum damages the Courts must award for the RIAA's type of copyright infringement claims is contained in the statute, and is $750.00 per song. When cases of this kind have gone to default judgment (Ray, correct me if I'm wrong), judges generally award ONLY the minimum $750.00. This means you can easily trash the RIAA's absurd settlement demands EVEN IF YOU REALLY WERE filesharing by making an offer of judgment of $750.00 per song-- they almost have to let you go for that amount because if they don't they risk paying ALL of your costs and expenses. (You're not the kind of dummy who downloads more than one song at a time, are you?)

Note, in cases in which the suit is simply wrong in alleging you've fileshared, an "offer of judgment" is going to SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE RIAA to make DAMN sure they haven't been careless in their statement of claim. An offer of judgment is apparently going to be POWERFUL in fighting these b*****ds. And if you're a one-file-at-a-time kind of guy, $750.00 is cheap to buy out of this fscked-up RIAA misery.

Congress should rein in the **AAs, but I doubt they are going to. This is a great evil. Corporate America has co-opted our culture and is fighting hard to keep control in perpetuity.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

they're randomly suing all kinds of people, but the cute penniless grandmother kittens make for better anti-riaa press, so those are the cases that you hear more about

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Propaganda13]

All the people with money settled with the RIAA for $3000.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Without suggesting anything incriminating, I much prefer having entire albums or compilations to individual tracks. It suits the way I listen to music much better.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Phil John]

Exactly, otherwise companies wanting easy lawsuits in the future could be very dishonest and pay someone to be sued (and lose).

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Binkleyz]

Just a quibble, but since we're all seeming to quibble here..

You wrote: "**AA"s

Wouldn't it be more proper to use "??AA"s

Z

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Paradise Pete]

a formal Rule 68 offer of judgment is something different than that. It's kind of a dare.

It seems like such a powerful tool that it would be almost automatic to offer a small amount. What happens in cases where it isn't done? Are costs typically shared evenly?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Lumpy]

Dude, this is America.

If you are in court and a defendant you are automatically guilty unless you can outspend the plaintiff.

I don't give a rats ass what the "law" and other documents say. I have seen enough of the inner daily working of the court system to know that if you arrive in front of a judge as a defendant your chances of winning are incredibly low.

Which is why even in divorce cases it is very important for you to file first and name the spouse as a defendant. Justice is not blind, it's happy to tip the scale in the direction of the one that has the most cash on the table.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a cynic, but I sort of assumed that already happened....

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Lloyd_Bryant]

(You're not the kind of dummy who downloads more than one song at a time, are you?) To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA have not yet sued a single person for *downloading* music. What the suits revolve around is *uploading* (or "making available").

If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs.
Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300.

The fact that the RIAA accepted this offer is suspicious. It make me believe that they had no real case against the defendant, and knew it (gee, big surprise there). It's a shame that the defendant was unwilling/unable to actually fight it out...

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear. I believe the optimal term to use is dunnit.

It's possibly that she dunnit, knew she had dunnit and this was the cheapest way to make up for having dunnit.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

a formal Rule 68 offer of judgment is something different than that. It's kind of a dare. It seems like such a powerful tool that it would be almost automatic to offer a small amount. What happens in cases where it isn't done? Are costs typically shared evenly? Normally the court costs are awarded to the prevailing party.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA have not yet sued a single person for *downloading* music. What the suits revolve around is *uploading* (or "making available"). Correct. The complaint mentions "downloading", among other things, but the RIAA knows of no downloading.

If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs. Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300. Yes they are theoretically suing for large numbers, but they are actually suing for $750 per song for their 'exhibit A' list (the songs their investigator allegedly downloaded), which is usually in the $5k to $8k range. That is what they go for in the default judgment cases. And they'll usually take around $4500 in a settlement. However, if a defendant fights back and gives them a hard time, they may try to get more.

The fact that the RIAA accepted this offer is suspicious. It make me believe that they had no real case against the defendant, and knew it (gee, big surprise there). It's a shame that the defendant was unwilling/unable to actually fight it out... Correct.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Nitack]

There is a much more important aspect here than precedent. This is a "screw you RIAA/MPAA" card that will hurt badly. This makes going after people more expensive than it is worth because of "Rule 68. Offer of Judgment". This person offered the RIAA $300, possibly a discounted but reasonable amount for what this person downloaded. How much did the RIAA spend to get that $300? Between IT experts and legal fees my guess is in the area of $20k. Really worth it huh? This means that any action brought by the RIAA can be deflected with a reasonable offer for damages with in 10 days of the trial. They don't want to risk having to pay the court costs from that point out. In most cases the "offenders" have not downloaded enough music to make it worthwhile to file suit.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Reziac]

Re the last comment on your blog, from AMD FanBoi -- to the effect that this could be used as evidence that 1) that's all the shared songs are worth, and 2) that the RIAA is knowingly suing the wrong people. Your thoughts?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ucblockhead]

It didn't set a legal precedent. It may, however, have set a precedent in that once people hear about this, many more people will likely try to make similar offers.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ucblockhead]

It's also likely they realized that even if they fought and won and could expect to collect, their legal costs would be higher than the amount of the judgment. Large legal teams are expensive.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[sethg]

If a plaintiff refuses a defendant's offer of judgement and ends up losing at trial, does the plantiff also have to cover the defendant's legal bills? Or is the plaintiff only on the hook for court costs?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If a plaintiff refuses a defendant's offer of judgement and ends up losing at trial, does the plantiff also have to cover the defendant's legal bills? Or is the plaintiff only on the hook for court costs? Good question.

In a copyright case, the answer is probably yes, since the Copyright Act includes attorneys fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[jedidiah]

Let's see...

Are poor people more prone to try to get things for free?
Are poor people more prone to be unaware that this is potentially illegal?
Are poor people more prone to be sloppy about how they go about all of this?

Are poor people a greater portion of the population to begin with?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Jansingal]

I am a lawyer, and I can tell you, The RIAA are scum. Jay

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's also likely they realized that even if they fought and won and could expect to collect, their legal costs would be higher than the amount of the judgment. Large legal teams are expensive. 1. You're giving them credit for rational thought processes, which have not been in evidence.

2. They knew they had no case here.

3. They have never to my knowledge fought a fully contested case through to verdict.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[ari_j]

The original discussion was about "precedent" as in the legal term of art. Yes, the dictionary definition may be met in the way that you describe, but that wasn't what the question about precedent was about.

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're a lawyer, or you've spent way too much time reading law books.

Translated into English, what I *think* you meant was something like:

"No, it can't be used as a legal precedent. There are two reasons for this. First, no point of law has been decided here - it's just an agreement between two parties who agree to cut the case short. Second, the courts have held (see citation, if you must) that a settlement like this does not amount to an admission of anything by anyone - their only purpose is to get the case over with."

Isn't that simpler?

Re:I'm no lawyer, but

[wvmarle]

if courts are able to reach accurate verdicts 100% of the time, no matter the nature of the case, why is there so much unsolved crime?

That is because the court does not solve crimes. That is the task of the police force (and other investigation services). The courts only judge the evidence put forward to them by the two parties. If the police et. al can not come with sufficient evidence to solve a crime, there is nothing a court can do about it other than urging them to get more evidence.

Decent Resolution

[GizmoToy]

Seems like a reasonable resolution for the defendant. $300 to make a lawsuit like this go away could be worth it if you don't really have the financial means to mount a decent defense and there's no way the RIAA had spent less than $300 to that point, so they lost money on the deal. This a very low settlement amount for the RIAA, so it's possible others may be able to utilize this.

It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA accepts it if anyone else tries it.

Re:Decent Resolution

[Darundal]

I would be willing to bet they excepted not to be reasonable, but because they probably realized that they didn't have enough for a case with someone who would fight and they believed that she would. I would be willing to bet that this is actually a sign that at this point, if you make it clear you will fight, the RIAA will try to back down and save as much face as possible as opposed to going through having another botch on their end show up all over the web and on newspapers nationwide.

Re:Decent Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of that old saying:

$300 for RIAA is better than two in the bush.

Or is it the other way around?

Re:Decent Resolution

[dattaway]

No. A reasonable resolution would be compensation for time and money to respond to a poor case with awful "evidence" and absolutely no detective work. $3,000 for the defense perhaps?

Re:Decent Resolution

[QuantumG]

Hey, they was detective work!

Sure, it wasn't do by registered detectives and is therefore illegal, but we tried!!

Re:Decent Resolution

[Myopic]

Oh, great, you must have more details than the rest of us, which is good because the story offered very little. Me, I assumed the defendant was guilty, that's why he even offered the three bills. Can you provide a link to information showing how poor the case was, and how there was absolutely no detective work?

Re:Decent Resolution

[Reziac]

I found this comment (on Ray's blog) by AMD FanBoi most interesting:

=========
Seems to me that this just could put the RIAA into a difficult position. Either they sued the wrong person and still made them pay $300 for the privilege of being wrongly sued,OR They sued the right person and admit that the true cost of the alleged infringement is ONLY $300. Either the RIAA admits that they are suing the wrong people, or they admit that the actual value of the infringement at this level is $300, -- a figure for which many sued people might actually settle at. I would love to see this settlement cited in other cases, and see just what the RIAA does to distinguish this case from all the other boilerplate cases.
=======

Re:Decent Resolution

[tokul]

Seems like a reasonable resolution for the defendant.

If racketeer asks for one million and goes away with one thousand, he still gets one thousand and reputation of successful racketeer. Learn from your government. No deals policy.

thanks for the summary!

[Karma Sucks]

I'll be sure to ask my lawyer to translate it for me.

Re:thanks for the summary!

[hxnwix]

Someone's getting sued by the RIAA. He said to the RIAA, "look, buddy, I'll give you $300 to go away, and if you wont take it and you can take me to court instead. However, bear in mind that there are two ways things could go from there: the court could say I owe you more than $300, or they could say I don't. If for any reason they say I don't, you have to pay for my lawyer."

The RIAA crunched the numbers and decided to take the $300.

Re:thanks for the summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say Joe sues you for $10,000 for your kids trampling his rose bush.

You think Joe is full of shit, that his mangy rose bush is only worth $100. So you offer to pay him $100 to end the lawsuit.

If Joe accepts, that is the end of it.

If Joe turns you down, then he will have to pay all of your costs (and is some states, attorney fees) from that moment on if when the case goes to trial, he does not win MORE than the $100 you offered.

The basic reasoning is that if someone who injured you offers to pay you what your claim is worth, you should take it. If you don't accept the offer, you should have to pay him for the trouble you cause to HIM by not taking his reasonable offer.

If Joe wins MORE than the $100 you offered, he is in the clear.

It makes people examine exactly what the claim is worth, and gives both sides incentive to offer (and accept) a reasonable offer.

Re:thanks for the summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA shit its pants and decided to take the $300.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Kalriath]

For no known reason, both words mean the same thing. Judgment sounds like an Americanism though, as judgement is how it's spelled in countries that still speak English.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[stuntpope]

Get thee to Wikipedia!

"The spelling judgment is found in the Authorized Version of the Bible. However, the spelling judgement (with e added) largely replaced judgment in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context, possibly because writing dg without a following e for the /d?/ was seen as an incorrect spelling. In the context of the law, however, judgment is preferred."

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[PMBjornerud]

Speaking english is fine, but written "English" seems to be a competition in inserting irellevant letters into words.

Not to mention that every combination of vowels seem to have different pronunciations for every single word, except the different ones except when you pronuncs different ones identically. ("see", "sea", "me", "ski")

Be grateful for anyone trying to clean up that mess of a writing system you call "English" anyway. Some words are so written so different from their pronunciation that it's easier to memorize Chinese. And "Color" is awesome, by the way, and if you don't like it, go back to spelling it "couleur" the way the original french do.

End rant. This is a pet peeve of mine.

(But big thanks for going easy on Grammatical Gender and Cases, there are harder languages out there.)

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that every combination of vowels seem to have different pronunciations for every single word, except the different ones except when you pronuncs different ones identically. ("see", "sea", "me", "ski")

Ever tried learning modern greek? Same goes. Multiple combinations of vowels have the same sound.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Atmchicago]

We should note that their are other situations where the "j" pronunciation with "dg" is found, such as the English town of Bridgnorth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgnorth) So there are still places in England where "dg" is the correct spelling. This probably stems from earlier times when spelling in English was less consistent and not as standardized.

ha

[nomadic]

The really funny thing is it cost them $350 to actually file the lawsuit...

Re:ha

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The really funny thing is it cost them $350 to actually file the lawsuit... They lost many thousands of dollars on this case.

Re:ha

[ari_j]

You would know better than anyone on Slashdot: How many lawyers does the RIAA sic on people in cases like this? Is $500/hr/atty a reasonable estimate of what they're being billed? Running some reasonable-but-very-much-guessed numbers in my head gets me to a cost of around $3,000-4,000 to the RIAA to respond to the Rule 68 offer alone. Then again, they may be acting in a more streamlined fashion than any other corporation with a major litigation strategy, or even using in-house counsel for these suits, for all I know.

Re:ha

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You would know better than anyone on Slashdot: How many lawyers does the RIAA sic on people in cases like this? Is $500/hr/atty a reasonable estimate of what they're being billed? Running some reasonable-but-very-much-guessed numbers in my head gets me to a cost of around $3,000-4,000 to the RIAA to respond to the Rule 68 offer alone. Then again, they may be acting in a more streamlined fashion than any other corporation with a major litigation strategy, or even using in-house counsel for these suits, for all I know. I know that they're spending a fortune, and I know that they're using law firms all across the country. In most cases they're using two law firms. They're also using in house counsel to direct the law firms. I don't know the hourly rates. I'll probably have a better idea after the Court issues its attorneys fees decision in Capitol v. Foster.

Re:ha

[ari_j]

I'll watch for your comments, stories, and blog posts on the matter. I'm sure most of Slashdot is at least passingly curious about how much the RIAA is spending to harass their grandmothers.

Re:ha

[empedocles]

I know that they're spending a fortune, and I know that they're using law firms all across the country. In most cases they're using two law firms. They're also using in house counsel to direct the law firms. I don't know the hourly rates. I'll probably have a better idea after the Court issues its attorneys fees decision in Capitol v. Foster.

Except I doubt such costs matter to them, and that the RIAA isn't so much looking to recoup "costs" on supposed lost music sales, but to create such a culture of fear in order to seriously slow down music sharing. So they spend $100 million on law suits to stop an alleged $1 billion of music copying... (note, those numbers are totally made up).

Of course, I haven't seen anywhere it's been proven that people who download a song really would have bought it instead. Anyone?

Re:ha

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I doubt such costs matter to them, and that the RIAA isn't so much looking to recoup "costs" on supposed lost music sales, but to create such a culture of fear in order to seriously slow down music sharing. So they spend $100 million on law suits to stop an alleged $1 billion of music copying... Correct.

But I've been toying with other possible explanations for why they're spending so disproportionately to their achievement of results:

1. They're trying to regain monopoly power, this time in the digital music space.

2. Their lawyers are playing them for suckers.

Of course, I haven't seen anywhere it's been proven that people who download a song really would have bought it instead. Anyone? The reason you haven't seen it, is that it isn't there.

Re:ha

[Kintar1900]

They lost many thousands of dollars on this case.

And there was much rejoicing. :)

Re:ha

[Sycraft-fu]

I think it is because they are idiots. Ok, so idiots isn't quite the right term, but basically because they are out of touch with reality. They seem to really, honestly, believe that they can stand in the way of progress. They believe that they can keep the status quo with their business model so long as they fight. Now that right there shows a surprising amount of ignorance of history and business. Thus I also think they ignorantly believe that these lawsuits are working and will win in the end. They think that all they've got to do is sue enough, and everyone will get really scared and stop using P2P networks. That's they they keep doing it, they think that they just have to keep the pressure on and it will work, P2P will cease to exist because people will be too scared to use it.

Basically they are just living in a dream world. They are facing a world that has changed and they don't want to change with it. So they delude themselves in to thinking they can fight it.

All I know is if I was an investment company who had holdings in these companies, I'd be asking the directors what the hell they thought they were doing.

Re:ha

[AmberBlackCat]

And they probably make all the money back from people who don't stand up to them in some way. If it's really possible to beat them, there should be some campaign to let people know the real risks and options so it will seem less scary to not completely submit.

Re:ha

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think it is because they are idiots. Ok, so idiots isn't quite the right term, but basically because they are out of touch with reality. They seem to really, honestly, believe that they can stand in the way of progress. They believe that they can keep the status quo with their business model so long as they fight. Now that right there shows a surprising amount of ignorance of history and business. Thus I also think they ignorantly believe that these lawsuits are working and will win in the end. They think that all they've got to do is sue enough, and everyone will get really scared and stop using P2P networks. That's they they keep doing it, they think that they just have to keep the pressure on and it will work, P2P will cease to exist because people will be too scared to use it. Basically they are just living in a dream world. They are facing a world that has changed and they don't want to change with it. So they delude themselves in to thinking they can fight it. All I know is if I was an investment company who had holdings in these companies, I'd be asking the directors what the hell they thought they were doing. I think "idiots" was a pretty good word for it. I think their shareholders must be starting to ask some questions.

Re:ha

[Reziac]

I think the shareholders might be very interested in an audit with respect to what these suits cost them -- not only in profits/dividends but in raw price per share. Market analysis timelined against lawsuits could also be quite interesting (even if the correlation is spurious, it could be used to pressure the RIAA cartel).

======
(BTW could you please mark your quotebacks somehow, even if just by a blank or dashed line? It's often hard to tell where the quote ends and your own comment starts. Thanks!!)

Isn't the minimum judgment $750?

[slashqwerty]

I thought civil copyright infringement carried a range of statutory damages from $750 to $150,000 per work infringed. Why not offer a judgment of $1 and no injunction? The offer clearly says she thinks she will win at trial but she doesn't want to go through the expense.

And clearly the RIAA accepted only because they thought her legal fees would be outrageously high. No doubt they would be.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[morari]

...Because we all known that the Holy Bible is a great source of factual information!

Offer of Judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about cash, but I'd be willing to offer to fill up a hard drive full of mp3s for them. That ought to be worth millions from their perspective!

They need to sue me

[steveaustin1971]

I hope I get letter from them, in my current state of health it will need to be this year, but it would give me the opportunity to shoot an RIAA lawyer in the face at close range. This is only one of the possible scenarios that would be more satisfactory to me than my current fate, anyone have any suggestions on how to go about being sued by the RIAA? I can't possibly download more movies, my harddrive is full!

Re:They need to sue me

[ari_j]

Why would you shoot the RIAA's lawyer? The chances are good that the lawyers actually working on this are junior partners in firms hired by the RIAA, with no RIAA people ever really talking to the lawyers who actually go to court for them. The RIAA talks to the "cosmic partner" (so called because nobody actually ever sees him, especially not doing any actual work), who then divvies the cases out to junior partners who work with associates to take them to court. The chances are slim that you'd be shooting anyone evil. It'd be like shooting a Microsoft internal IT guy because you don't like Vista.

Re:They need to sue me

[ari_j]

Addendum: The RIAA will probably not sue you for downloading movies. While they could, because of the sound tracks, you have a better chance of being sued by the MPAA for movies and the RIAA for mp3s. Plus, you can fit more mp3s than movies on your hard drive.

Re:They need to sue me

[steveaustin1971]

yes, but it would get some pretty widespread media coverage wouldn't it...

Re:They need to sue me

[Oldav]

If its OK for your "Vice" President, Why Not? "Vice" president is so apt in this cans(-:

Re:They need to sue me

[Reziac]

As someone speculated up above, maybe the lawyers are taking them for a ride... "Look, more free money from the RIAA!" These suits =are= kindof like class action suits (too many of which are equally bogus), but without all the bother of establishing a class or arguing in front of a jury.

Sanctions?

[whoever57]

I notice that the settlement offer explicitly excludes any claims for sanctions that the defendant has already requested. Can you give more information on possible sanctions against the RIAA and/or their lawyers?

Re:Sanctions?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I notice that the settlement offer explicitly excludes any claims for sanctions that the defendant has already requested. Can you give more information on possible sanctions against the RIAA and/or their lawyers? Those of us who believe the RIAA's litigation tactics are frivolous would like to move for sanctions under Rule 11 (c), but the rule is quite limited, providing the offending party with a "safe harbor", and many judges are reluctant to invoke it altogether, as the consequences of a Rule 11 sanction against an attorney are very severe. So it is invoked rarely. I am not aware of any successful invocation of Rule 11 in the RIAA cases by a defendant. I am aware of one instance in which the judge disagreed with the defendant's lawyer on the merits of the underlying motion, found the Rule 11 motion to itself be frivolous, and has held that the defendant's lawyer should be sanctioned, based on several things he had done that irked the judge.

Something Doesn't Compute

[lorcha]

Surely I must be missing something here. What is to stop every North Carolina civil defendant from offering a $1 judgment to the plaintiff? What does the defendant have to lose?

It would seem that the worst case for the defendant is that the plaintiff doesn't accept and then the defendant is no better of worse off than he was before. But for the plaintiff, the stakes are huge.

What did I miss, here?

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Surely I must be missing something here. What is to stop every North Carolina civil defendant from offering a $1 judgment to the plaintiff? What does the defendant have to lose? It would seem that the worst case for the defendant is that the plaintiff doesn't accept and then the defendant is no better of worse off than he was before. But for the plaintiff, the stakes are huge. What did I miss, here? Actually, I would not be surprised to see a lot of defendants doing just that.

But there are consequences if the RIAA accepts the offer. There is a judgment against you, which shows up in a credit report, and in view of the judgment you can't claim to be the prevailing party and assert entitlement to attorneys fees.

But for many the Rule 68 offer of judgment will be a useful tool.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[moderatorrater]

Because they're less likely to take it than an actual, reasonable offer, and if the judge sees you being a twit it'll factor into future decisions.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Shihar]

First, I believe that the judge has to accept the deal. In other words, it needs to be a good faith attempt to offer reasonable compensation for the 'damage' that has been done.

Second, offering $1 is silly because the 'you pay for me' effect only kicks in if the finial judgment is that less then $1 of damage is done.

Think of it like this. The woman offers up that she did $300 worth of damage. The RIAA at this point can either go to trial or take the $300. If they go to trail and the judge rules that the damage done was less then $300, the RIAA has to pay for her legal defense (which will likely be a pile of money after it is all said and done). The idea is to force the person bringing the lawsuit to really examine how much damage has been done and accept a fair offer instead of wasting the courts time.

The interesting piece to this is that this means that the RIAA might actually have been afraid that the 'damage' done by a little copyright infringement was less than $300. Well, either that or the RIAA just felt like they had made their point by stomping on some single working mom's head enough, and were ready to move on knowing that she had blown $300 + legal bills that she already can't pay for.

Crap like this makes me all warm and fuzzy feeling know that I have not bought music from an RIAA label in years.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[lorcha]

You have missed the point completely.

Because they're less likely to take it than an actual, reasonable offer, The defendant wins whether or not the plaintiff accepts the offer. If the plaintiff accepts, then the defendant gets off with a measly $1 judgment. If the plaintiff declines, then the defendant is guaranteed free legal counsel if he prevails, but suffers no penalty if he loses.

if the judge sees you being a twit it'll factor into future decisions. I would be surprised to learn that a judge reacted in a hostile manner to any motion that could potentially settle the dispute.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[lorcha]

First, I believe that the judge has to accept the deal. In other words, it needs to be a good faith attempt to offer reasonable compensation for the 'damage' that has been done. Why should a judge second-guess whether or not $1 is reasonable? The judge can't speak for the plaintiff.

In this case, $300 is almost certainly not reasonable compensation. Statutory damages for even 1 infringement are between $750 and $150,000. How could $300 be any more or less reasonable than $1 when the minimum judgment, assuming the defendant was guilty at all, would be $750?

Second, offering $1 is silly because the 'you pay for me' effect only kicks in if the finial judgment is that less then $1 of damage is done. But what does the defendant have to lose by offering? Worst case scenario for the defendant is that plaintiff rejects the offer and is awarded more than $1 in damages. This is the same result as if the defendant had never made the offer to begin with. There appears to be no penalty for the defendant to make a stupid offer of $1.

Think of it like this. Defendant offers plaintiff a $1 judgment. The three possible outcomes for the defendant are:

1. Plaintiff accepts. Defendant pays plaintiff $1 and everybody goes home.
   
2. Plaintiff rejects and the case goes to trial. Plaintiff is awarded more than $1. This is the same outcome as if the judgment offer was never made at all.
   
3. Plaintiff rejects and the case goes to trial. Plaintiff is not awarded any judgment. Plaintiff has to pay defendant's legal costs.

My point is, the defendant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[moderatorrater]

I would be surprised to learn that a judge reacted in a hostile manner to any motion that could potentially settle the dispute. I would too, but judges are typically intelligent enough to realize that a $1 offer, at less than 1% of what they could get for a win on a single song, isn't likely to settle the dispute.

If the plaintiff accepts, then the defendant gets off with a measly $1 judgment. If the plaintiff declines, then the defendant is guaranteed free legal counsel if he prevails, but suffers no penalty if he loses. Two penalties if he loses: the judge regards him as a twit for offering a settlement that's ridiculously low compared to the amount that the RIAA could get for a single song, and the defendant has to pay his lawyers for the time spend writing and defending the motion.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[lorcha]

I would too, but judges are typically intelligent enough to realize that a $1 offer, at less than 1% of what they could get for a win on a single song, $300 is also much less than the statutory damages for a single violation. Why is $300 more reasonable than $1, then?

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[mithras invictus]

Surely if people being twits could affect a judge's decision the RIAA would have been shut down years ago.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[hengist]

Statutory damages for even 1 infringement are between $750 and $150,000. How could $300 be any more or less reasonable than $1 when the minimum judgment, assuming the defendant was guilty at all, would be $750?

As I understand it, statutory damages are not equal to actual damages.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Time_Ngler]

Except that it's not the defendants choice as to what the plaintiff will choose. So:

• If the plaintiff would go to court if the defendant offered $1, and would not if the defendant offered $300, and
• the plaintiff won (with a judgment greater than $1), and
• the total amount the defendant had to pay (judgment + legal fees) was greater than $300

then the defendant would lose.

You may think the difference between $1 and $300 is trivial to the RIAA, but since being awarded $1 may be perceived as losing the case by the general public, whereas being awarded $300 may not be, it might have had a bearing on whether the RIAA accepted the offer. The RIAA is concerned with their image after all. If they start losing a bunch of cases, more people would try to fight them, costing them more money in the end.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[freedom_india]

How does a civil judgement go into my Credit Report?
Does paying $300 by cash/bankers pay order make the judgement enter my credit report???
If that is the case then all the traffic fines for no-parking, etc., would be in my credit file that is now idling in my hands.
All i see in my credit file are my credit applications to www.apple.com and www.overstock.com and a overdue credit card which i can't seem to even remember i had (which is the prime reason i pulled it from Experian)

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Shihar]

Think of it like this. Defendant offers plaintiff a $1 judgment. The three possible outcomes for the defendant are:

      1. Plaintiff accepts. Defendant pays plaintiff $1 and everybody goes home. 2. Plaintiff rejects and the case goes to trial. Plaintiff is awarded more than $1. This is the same outcome as if the judgment offer was never made at all. Filing pointless motions does two things. First, it pisses off the judge to have to wade through your bullshit. Pissing off the judge is never a good idea because they can and will make your life miserable. Second, it costs money to file anything. Even if the filing itself is free, it costs lawyer time... and by lawyer time costs money out of your pocket.

3. Plaintiff rejects and the case goes to trial. Plaintiff is not awarded any judgment. Plaintiff has to pay defendant's legal costs. If no damages are awarded, then this rule does not apply. There is a separate mechanism for potentially recouping losses from a civil suit that fails. You can potentially recover lawyer costs (and potentially more in some cases) if someone files a civil suit and you successfully defend yourself, but this is not the mechanism that does it. This mechanism only kicks in if you are found to have committed damage and the amount of damage was less then what you offered.

The point of this mechanism is not punish someone for demanding more money than they are entitled to. The point of this mechanism is to prevent needless litigation. Imagine if your neighbor threw a baseball through your window because he was sick of hearing loud music coming from your house. You take him to court and claim $10,000 worth of damage. Normally, you could be a dick and just carry on suing him because you want to make him pay his legal expenses as extra punishment and see how large of a settlement you can score. You know you are asking for a bullshit amount of money, but lets pretend your a rich jerk and just want to make your neighbor suffer. Your neighbor knows he is going to lose because he did indeed break your window and you can prove that it did damage to you. What he can do is offer to pay up $200 in damages via this mechanism. You can still bring it to court if you want, but if the judge decides that you only did $150 in damages, your neighbor just pays that $150 and then drops a few thousand dollars worth of legal expenses with your lap. So, being wise you grumble and accept the deal because it is a fair amount. By accepting the deal you don't waste the court's time and do your small part to help keep state legal costs down.

The point is just to force people to accept fair settlements before it ends up costing a judge time and the state money to sort out the mess.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, seems odd to me. but not surprising... I am an MPA, not a lawyer, and my experience is that the gov't is heavily tied into the credit industry and basically uses it as outsourced/privatized financial and security management for both business and hiring decisions.

As far as I can tell, you can be denied employment for a non-sensitive position that doesn't involve finance, regardless of a lack of an criminal history or civil rulings, based entirely on your credit report. I've had credit reports required for non-sensitive volunteer positions. The gov't supposedly has to tell you if you are rejected for employment or a promotion, but somehow I doubt that always happens--as there appears to be limited oversight. Amusingly though, I recall a university in NC having a position paper stating that credit based hiring may represent a system of discrimination against minorities that is illegal (this is highly likely, but a test case might be hard to find and argue). In addition, misuse of credit reports may not apply to federal or "security" evaluations--even irrelevant ones, because it's hard to show they are irrelevant. I have horrible credit, but that's due to my economic situation and the less-important nature of business contracts (they are always entered into with an amount of risk to be understood) and not reflective of my ethics or a predictor of my potential to be blackmailed. Regardless, I'm going back into the private sector, mainly due to incompetent personnel and hiring practices that make even the most respected government organizations, such as the GAO, seem unprofessional.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Alterion]

True, but we would all acknowledge that a) copyright infrignment is wrong b) there is a significant (though in not way necessarily a majority) of people who are sued by the RiAA and know it. In these cases a reasonable judgement (say $300 which is roughly 20cd's worth which is likely to be similar to the amount d/l'ded for most non-musical types) seems a much more fair penalty. If the MAFIAA had proper evidence collected legally and went after people for $300 they would get a lot less complaints about it from me than when they go around with dubious evidence collected in a dubious way to claim thousands of dollars to ruin lives.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Slashdot Parent]

How does a civil judgement go into my Credit Report? Does paying $300 by cash/bankers pay order make the judgement enter my credit report??? Civil judgments are supposed to appear on your credit report in the "Public Records" section. It's not a perfect science, however. Not all civil judgments have a SSN attached, and not all counties' judgments are picked up efficiently by the credit bureaus, but they are supposed to be.

If that is the case then all the traffic fines for no-parking, etc., would be in my credit file that is now idling in my hands. That is incorrect. Traffic fines are criminal, not civil judgments. It may not seem like it in traffic court, but the prosecutor actually is supposed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, you can go to jail if you're convicted--the whole nine yards. When you are convicted, that is a criminal conviction (generally a misdemeanor). Criminal convictions do not normally appear on a credit report.

Civil judgments are what appears on a credit report. When a tenant doesn't pay rent, and I get a civil judgment against them, that goes on their credit report and it dings their FICO about 150-175 points. If they pay it, the hit gets reduced to about 100-125 points.

In contrast, your overdue credit card is probably causing you about a 50-75 point drop in score.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Slashdot Parent]

As far as I can tell, you can be denied employment for a non-sensitive position that doesn't involve finance, regardless of a lack of an criminal history or civil rulings, based entirely on your credit report. Of course you can. "People With Bad Credit" are not a protected class.

The gov't supposedly has to tell you if you are rejected for employment or a promotion, but somehow I doubt that always happens--as there appears to be limited oversight. Actually, it is not the government, but the entity who is relying on credit bureau information who is responsible for notifying you if you were denied credit/employment/housing/whatever in whole or in part based on your credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates this reporting, and the penalties are pretty harsh, especially in relationship to the ease of this notification.

I am a landlord, and I always notify applicants if I reject based on their credit report. It's just a form letter that I drop in the mail. No biggie.

I recall a university in NC having a position paper stating that credit based hiring may represent a system of discrimination against minorities that is illegal (this is highly likely, but a test case might be hard to find and argue). I do not know about hiring, but it has been tested over and over that relying on credit bureau information is not discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act. People with bad credit are not a protected class.

Good luck!

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a Landlord, so I've been involved in plenty of small claims court type situations like this.

Imagine if your neighbor threw a baseball through your window because he was sick of hearing loud music coming from your house. You take him to court and claim $10,000 worth of damage. Normally, you could be a dick and just carry on suing him because you want to make him pay his legal expenses as extra punishment and see how large of a settlement you can score. This is generally not the case. In simple property damage disputes like this, the actual damages are easily quantifiable. You don't get to just sue for whatever arbitrarily large number you feel like writing down.

When I take a tenant to court who has damaged my property, the judge asks me to show what the actual damage was (show receipts), and demonstrate that the tenant is responsible for the damage. For a broken window, I bring in my receipts for $150 for the window and $25 for my guy to pop it in.

If, instead of suing for actual damages in SCC, I were to sue for $10,000.00 in circuit court, I doubt the judge would react too favorably. He'd want to know why this small claims matter was clogging up his docket. I would not want to be the plaintiff in such a case.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Lockejaw]

Of course you can. "People With Bad Credit" are not a protected class.

Neither is "People who live in Cabrini Green," but you may get into trouble if you discriminate based on that.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Slashdot Parent]

Neither is "People who live in Cabrini Green," but you may get into trouble if you discriminate based on that. Why would I get into trouble? The seven federally-protected classes are:

1. race
2. color
3. national origin
4. religion
5. sex
6. familial status
7. handicap

If you'd like to explain to me how not renting to people who live in Cabrini Green discriminates against one of those protected classes, I'd be all ears.

Before you answer, I'd like to remind you that membership in a protected class does not mandate that an applicant must be accepted. It merely states that an applicant cannot be denied because of his or her membership in a protected class. In other words, I can reject a black applicant, but I cannot reject an applicant for being black.

Along those lines, if I have a policy to reject everybody from Cabrini Green no matter what race or color they are, my policy is legal.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Lockejaw]

Race/color, most likely

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Slashdot Parent]

Like I said, if I reject anyone from that neighborhood no matter what their race/color is, I'm in the clear.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[Lockejaw]

If they just happen to live there, sure. However, if it is just your policy to reject people from that neighborhood, you are skating on thin ice.

Re:Something Doesn't Compute

[jp10558]

Mmm, As I recall from my Criminal Justice 101 class (so not a nuanced education by any means, and feel free to correct me), traffic fines (like speeding) are called Violations, which are under Misdemenaors. They are criminal, but usually they are treated almost like a slap on the wrist - maximum 14 day jail sentance etc - fines limited to less than ~ $3,000 or some such.

Re:Isn't the minimum judgment $750?

[moderatorrater]

The offer clearly says she thinks she will win at trial but she doesn't want to go through the expense. And if a pit bull's looking like it's going to attack me, I'm going to take a threatening stance whether I'm urinating myself or not. It's just posturing.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[The One and Only]

Since most written languages in the Western world were standardized by their translation of the Bible, the Bible is a great source for this information.

Summarize this summary

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> The basic reasoning is that if someone who injured you offers to pay you what your claim is worth, you should take it. If you don't accept the offer, you should have to pay him for the trouble you cause to HIM by not taking his reasonable offer.

I am intrigued by this posters ideas, and would like to subscribe to their newsletter, but being an anonymous coward I have no forwarding address.

Question: Is this a real principle of the they are quoting? (or something they made up?)

Re:Summarize this summary

[flink]

I don't buy it. If it doesn't have a fancy-sounding Latin name, it can't be legal (regus somethingsomething QED)

Re:Summarize this summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It is found in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule68.htm The legal system favors voluntary resolution of disputes. 90% of cases filed, never reach trial. The idea that you have to pay someone for their expenses when you wast their time unnecessarily is present in several rules. For example, if you "deny" an allegation that is later proven to be true, you have to pay the costs of the person who was "put to the trouble' of having to prove something you should have just admitted.

so

[ScottyMcScott]

um how many songs did she pay for $300?

I used to think American spelling was...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a corruption of the English version.

Then I learned better.

Most American spelling is, in fact, correct...
.
.
.
.
. ...for the seventeenth frikkin' century!

Get with the times, folks, you're sounding positively dated (especially when you throw in that whole Metric / Imperial units thing... ;-)

I was in a grocery store in Detroit back in 2000. The cashier assured me that we Aussies must have found the US confusing, as her uncle had assured her that Australia was 10 years behind Canada, and *everyone* knows that Canada is 10 years behind the US... This she tells us as she is standing in front of a small sign saying "We now accept electronic payment at the register". Hello? What? In 2000? Gosh, that's amazing. I mean, Australia has only had a nation-wide electronic payment system since 1984. And payment by check? Apart from the weird spelling, who uses personal cheques anymore? FYI, the only time I ever had a personal chequebook was to pay rent to a landlord who suggested we slip the cash under his door (yeah, right), and I've never paid *cash* for groceries in my life.

Re:I used to think American spelling was...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway. You've just generalized the whole US based on a visit to one store in one city. I live near Detroit. I can tell you that Michigan is behind both the east and west coast. You also did not define what part of detroit you were in. In some areas, let's just say the customers might not be into "high tech" payment systems. Electronic or check payment is not very common among the poor or people with bad credit. There is a trend to use debit cards or pay cash here. Credit cards have 20-30% interest for many people and we don't use wire transfer very often. Different parts of the world prefer different payment methods. Accept this.

There is nothing weird about our spelling, it is just different from yours. Many parts of the world were influenced by various cultures and have adopted unique language adjustments. Compare Quebec to France. It is night and day. A French person typically hates Quebec and vise versa.

If I were to generalize about your culture, I might think you all drink Fosters and only lesbians drive cars (subaru) there.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Tom]

As much as I consider the bible one of the very few, possibly only, book(s) that really ought to be banned or burned, it did set spelling standards in several countries due to the fact of being so widespread that whatever its spelling was, it was taken as consensus for a long time.

Re:Isn't the minimum judgment $750?

[ktappe]

Why not offer a judgment of $1 and no injunction?

Because the RIAA, much like a 3rd world strongman dictator, is trying to save face. The defendant probably told her attorney "make this go away" and $1 wasn't going to accomplish that. A $1 judgment would raise more eyebrows and get more publicity than a $300 one. Anyone can tell that a $1 win for the RIAA is really a loss, but $300 will make a notable percentage of the public think the RIAA won. Thus, everyone involved on both sides knew $1 wasn't going to be accepted under any circumstances and would therefore have been a waste of time. It's all about appearances for the RIAA. Their whole campaign is to give the public the impression they are not only going after violators but are winning, and not just winning $1.

It's called Habeas Lucrus :-) [EOM]

[Pogue Mahone]

The joke is in the Subject. Nothing more to see. Move along, folks.

Well...

[Xenographic]

Unless I'm missing something, you still have to pay your own lawyers, no? The settlement may not be that great, but I thought this thing only got you out of court costs and that you still had legal bills to foot.

But I may have misunderstood that, so if NYCL corrects me, listen to him.

Re:Isn't the minimum judgment $750?

[LouisJBouchard]

Gosh, $300 does not look like a win to me.

In most places, that is similar to the cost of a average speeding ticket by the time court fees and the like are taken into account. That low of an amount certainly does not stop speeding.

Also, by the time you consider that the settlement offers are requesting thousands of dollars, one could simply ignore them, wait for the lawsuit, contact a lawyer to make the settlement offer, and be done with it for less money. Why would I answer a settlement letter after this (assuming I get one first considering the way things are going regarding ex parte subpoenas for the RIAA).

And yet, never any sanctions against RIAA lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

the defendant's lawyer should be sanctioned, based on several things he had done that irked the judge.

Irking the judge has defensible standing in law?

If it does, how come that the RIAA's lawyers bringing meritless suits based on an almost total absence of evidence against a sizeable proportion of the young population has not yet irked any judge, and sent their lawyers packing?

Re:I really don't follow this??

[Anonymous Coward]

They have never done anything else for the world except line their own pockets!

And the roads. And sanitation. And irrigation, medicine, the aqueduct...

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As much as I consider the bible one of the very few, possibly only, book(s) that really ought to be banned or burned"

Okay Nazi.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[AndersOSU]

Colour me surprised. I can't imagine thier was a time when English spelling was less consistent or standardized. It boggles the mind, thru and thru.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[manowar821]

It... It was..? Dude, I have to get out of here.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[vigmeister]

I can't imagine *thier* was a time oomphasis mine.

Surely, you must mean 'their'?

-Your friendly neighbor from the 'hood and atrocious grammer nazi

So far that seems to be the case

[Sycraft-fu]

I haven't heard of them winning a case, and it seems any case that gets sufficiently far along, they just drop it. I'm sure this is because the evidence really IS weak (I mean it only takes about 5 minutes of thought for a tech person to poke about 10 serious holes in it) and because they know they are really screwed if they actually litigate and lose a case because then it is precedent, and can be cited in future cases.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[morari]

I have the Rosetta Stone for that kind of thing. ;)

Lost Thousands

[olddotter]

Thats what I like. I would prefer that we make this approach as expensive as possible for the RIAA. Its all a question of money. If the money the Companies are pouring into the RIAA don't buy them much, then this approach will stop.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ough, really?

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[WML MUNSON]

Doesn't each version of the Bible have it's own linguistic style? Exactly which Bible are you referring to? Seems to me that there are quite a few variations floating around.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[SQLGuru]

Based on context, that should have been THERE......if you're going to be a NAZI, do it right.

Layne

Guilty of what?

[nurb432]

I thought this was a civil case, where they talk about liability, not 'guilt or innocence'.

Re:Guilty of what?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I thought this was a civil case, where they talk about liability, not 'guilt or innocence'. You are correct.

Re:Isn't the minimum judgment $750?

[nasch]

If you believe the Mythbusters, that doesn't work. Of course, that was a sample of only one dog, so who knows.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[vigmeister]

What part of

atrocious grammer nazi dost thou no comprende?

Cheers!

I had a offer of judgment procedure

[t0qer]

One of the dot coms I worked for imploded. During the implosion there was a lot of confusion over who owned what, at the center of all this controversy was a little sun box that contained the source code for the company product.

At the time I was the IT guy for this company. I took my orders from the CEO because the CTO was just psycho. In one of the meetings between me, the CEO and CTO the CTO accused me of being on "Mind Altering drugs" at work because I had a can of get this.. Jolt Cola on my desk (This CTO was a devout mormon)

The CEO fired the CTO, then decided to pack up our office and head north from Sunnyvale to Alameda. Being the IT guy, it was my job to make sure the computers made it up there safely. A few months later the company completely imploded, everyone went off to work for different companies, and that was that or so I thought.

About a year later I got a court summons. The CTO was suing me for $15 million dollars. I was being accused of "Stealing his source code" because apparently the company didn't own that little sun box I moved. After a few initial rounds in pre-trial we were all set to go to trial.

My lawyer and I were sitting out in front of the courtroom when we got a surprise. The judges assistant came up to us and started telling us the CTO was willing to settle for $1500. He explained it like this..

"You know toq, we're really sick of this asshole. Me, the judge, the other lawyers all think he's a cocksucker, but you already know that. Just take the settlement"

Me, "But I didn't do anything wrong"

Assitant, "Well let me put it to you another way. If you don't take this settlement, it's going to mean a trial, which is going to mean jurors, and a whole bunch of menusha I don't want to get into, but it's going to cost ALOT of money. The judge is going to look at the fact that you didn't take this $1500 settlement, and wonder why you costed all these people time and money"

Me: "So the judge just wants this out of his hair, is that what you're saying?"

Assistant: "Yes"

So I took the settlement, nothing went down on my record.

I'm guessing this $300 RIAA case is the same deal. The judge probably got sick of the team of lawyers that represent the RIAA tying up his courtroom with petty bullshit, and i'm guessing the person taking the settlement got the same speech I did.

Re:I had a offer of judgment procedure

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So I took the settlement, nothing went down on my record. I'm guessing this $300 RIAA case is the same deal. The judge probably got sick of the team of lawyers that represent the RIAA tying up his courtroom with petty bullshit, and i'm guessing the person taking the settlement got the same speech I did. This was not a settlement.

It was a Rule 68 Formal Offer of Judgment, and acceptance.

Re:I had a offer of judgment procedure

[grey3]

Does the fact that the plaintiff offered a $1500 settlement help the defendants case if he were to deny the offer and continue? It seems, by the plaintiff offering the settlement, the source code is not worth $15 million, and it was the plaintiff who was wasting the courts time.

Re:I had a offer of judgment procedure

[Evets]

It's disturbing how much the court gets involved in pressuring the accused party to settle a dispute outside of normal procedures.

Take traffic court for example:
1) if you show up, you are presented with a judge who is not a judge. You have the option to talk to a real judge at your own peril.
2) you are presented an offer of settlement by the not-judge. Don't accept it and traffic school is off the table. No judge and no prosecutor present.
3) if you reject the offer, you have to come back another day. When you come back, you are presented with another not-judge. Ask to talk to a real judge at your own peril.
4) settlement offer by not-judge 2, reject and you'll have to come back a third time.
5) if you reject, on your third trip you are presented with yet another not-judge. This judge offers you another settlement - before you find out if the officer has even showed up to court. Reject it, and you'll have to face (oh no!) a real judge. You are warned that the real judges punishment will be more harsh.
6) if you reject, you are sent to another court room. If the officer showed up on time, you will get your case presented first. Your odds of winning with documented facts contrary to those the officer stated, even when the officer agrees with you, and even when your facts are backed by basic math and simple logic, are not good.
7) if the officer did not show up on time, you get rescheduled and have to come back yet again. Getting rescheduled once does not mean that it can't happen again. If you finally are having your day in court and the officer didn't show up on time, you can very well expect to be in court all day - just in case he's running late.

My point is that court representatives have absolutely no business pushing for a resolution outside of a decision by the court. We have the justice system set up for a reason. It baffles me why the judicial system works so hard to undermine itself.

Re:I had a offer of judgment procedure

[t0qer]

I figured i'd elaborate a bit more..

I think judgement procedures are there for the very reason I got one. The judge, lawyers on both sides *know* that the plaintiff is crazy and wasting everybodies time. I'm not a lawyer or know anything about court costs, but lets try and itemize things here.

Santa Clara County Judge salary --$120,000 yr
Court Reporter -- 60,000yr
Baliff -- 60,000yr
Court Clerk -- 60,000 yr
Lawyers (both sides) $300,000yr

I'm sure this isn't even scratching the surface of what court costs are but, all of those combined we're looking at $600,000@year. Divide that by 365 days in a year (or by number of business days in a year) and you'll get a number around $1600 @ day.

Now lets say my trivial case dragged on for a few weeks. It could have easily costed the county $20,000+ when the judge could have been handling *REAL* cases.

$1500 is a drop in the bucket compared to that. That's not even considering how much the CTO must have spent in time and money getting his lawyer to prepare his case. Sure, i'm out $1500 bucks, but I could care less. Nobody is ever going to hire this CTO again(unless they're mormon). This judgement procedure ensures he can never come after me again.

I would have easily spent more than $1500 on my lawyer had this gone to trial, with no clear outcome. This way I had a clear outcome, and everyone was happy. (Especially the judge)

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[The One and Only]

Well, to name two examples, the King James Bible standardized written English when it was first published, and the Luther Bible standardized written German. While both languages have changed since then, it is perfectly valid to cite the King James Bible to demonstrate that, for instance, the spelling of "judgment" as "judgment" is attested to English as written in England for centuries, and that "judgement" is a more contemporary innovation (i.e. the exact point made earlier).

Re:And yet, never any sanctions against RIAA lawye

[rifter]

If it does, how come that the RIAA's lawyers bringing meritless suits based on an almost total absence of evidence against a sizeable proportion of the young population has not yet irked any judge, and sent their lawyers packing?

Because they never make it to a courtroom.

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[PMBjornerud]

Ever tried learning modern greek? Same goes. Multiple combinations of vowels have the same sound. Haven't tried greek, but if that's a fact I'd just be annoyed if I did ;)

My impression is that Korean is the only language on earth that has a proper mapping between the written and spoken language. Already studying another asian language, though, I probably will never get around to study Korean.

Re:And yet, never any sanctions against RIAA lawye

[ultranova]

If it does, how come that the RIAA's lawyers bringing meritless suits based on an almost total absence of evidence against a sizeable proportion of the young population has not yet irked any judge, and sent their lawyers packing?

Aren't most judges pretty old ? If so, why should they care if RIAA bullies kids - they're propably happy that someone is putting the brats in their place.

Why do people keep on assuming that while the police propably are corrupt people who abuse their power for kicks, and the lawmakers certainly are corrupt people who abuse their power for money and kicks, but judges are above such petty things ? Judges aren't shining pillars of ethical perfection and impartial fairness; they are people who wield the power of life and death - at least in some states - over others, so why wouldn't the pee rise to their heads ?

Re:THE RIAA JEWS ARE LOSING BATTLE

[mojine]

for fux sake, learn to use the word *than* --- not *then* more dangerous THAN the RIAA ... > Very few things are stupider THAN using THEN instead of THAN. Thousands of people posting here that do it constantly, but do they ever see these attempts at correcting THEIR usage? Noooooo !

Re:Sorry for being picky, but...

[WML MUNSON]

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. My girlfriend and I were having a discussion about the comment and your reply cleared a lot of confusion up.

Learn something new every day, ya know?