Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Accepts $300 Offer of Judgement In Carolina

Posted by kdawson on from the when-will-they-just-give-it-up-and-go-home dept.

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."

6 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm no lawyer, but by GizmoToy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:ha by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The really funny thing is it cost them $350 to actually file the lawsuit... They lost many thousands of dollars on this case.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Re:I'm no lawyer, but by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Re:I'm no lawyer, but by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:I'm no lawyer, but by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re:I'm no lawyer, but by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.