Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case

Posted by Soulskill on from the stick-it-to-'em dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After three years of pursuing a home health aide in Brooklyn who has never even used a computer, the RIAA has announced it's ready to throw in the towel. Only thing; it wants the dismissal to be 'without prejudice' so it won't be liable for attorney's fees. The courts have been saying that where a copyright plaintiff gives up, the defendant is presumptively entitled to an attorney's fee award. So, Ms. Lindor says 'no way.' She wants the dismissal to be 'with prejudice,' and she wants her attorney's fees." We've been discussing this case and Ms. Lindor's fight against the RIAA for quite some time.

6 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Without prejudice... by LinuxGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    also means could refile the suit if they want. It may just mean they want to try and get better legal leverage, like a new judge.

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Without prejudice... by metamechanical · · Score: 3, Informative

      an important distinction, something that confused me for awhile; "prejudice" in this sense is not the same as "discrimination", but instead means "pre-judged".

      Exactly as you said, when a case is dismissed "without prejudice", it allows another case to be filed later. My understanding is that this is generally in the event of a case being dismissed due to a clerical error.

      --
      If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
    2. Re:Without prejudice... by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Prejudice" never means "discrimination". Even when talking about race/ethnicity/religion "prejudice" only refers to the (often unwarranted) opinion one forms, or the opinion given to someone, not what one does about it (hint: "prejudice" can be noun or verb, depending on whether its the opinion formed or the act of imparting an opinion or slant). "Discrimination" refers to the treatment one gives a person or group based on something like a prejudiced opinion of them (hint: only a verb as an action has to take place). That's why prejudice (in race) isn't illegal in the U.S. but discrimination is: we still haven't outlawed all thoughts, just actions based on them.

      Bow to your grammar overlords. BOW I said! ;)

  2. Re:"With Prejudice" needed to send a message by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well said, Morgaine!

    The RIAA lawyers themselves need to suffer some kind of professional penalty that will stay on their record, or this kind of legal abuse will not stop.

    Abuse of the legal system is something that an attorney could be censured for by their state's Bar association -- with penalties ranging from fines to and including disbarrment.

    --
    My blog
  3. Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And if you read Beckerman's response at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/ms-lindor-opposes-riaa-attempt-to.html then you'd have your response. He clearly lays out how any prejudice is solely plaintiff's fault. Further, he points out the defendant is an individual not accountable for anyone else's actions, and that discovery was completed 2 years ago but that the palintiff waited until the end to complain about discovery. Further, the complaint is to the wrong judge and filed in the wrong fashion, with additional defects. All of those flaws in the plaintiff's argument make it unlikely sanctions are either warranted or will be granted.

  4. Re:Care to elaborate, Mr. Beckerman? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've read the plaintiff's letter and to the lay-person it reads pretty reasonably. In effect, "We can't prove our case because the plaintiffs lied, hid evidence, and generally didn't cooperate to the extent required by law".

    Well IAAL and the letter is not especially convincing. For one thing the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be blaming the defendant for acts by several third parties. Another thing is that a lot of the criticism uses generic weasel words, like "inconsistencies" and "deceptive and/or incomplete information," which lawyers tend to use when they don't have anything concrete to attack. The alleged inconsistencies aren't especially damning when you're talking about witnesses and parties describing events that took place a while ago. The case ID number makes me think it was filed in early '05, so I'd think that would be the earliest the discovery requests came, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to be uncertain as to who was at your house on certain exact dates several months ago.