Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case
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.
They never dreamed that she could/would stick with it this long so they are getting worried. They are used to just bulling people into submission.
I agree they need to compensate her for their unacceptable tactics.
This needs to be plastered across every news station in the country ( but we know it wont, as the *AA is the TV industries buddy )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mr. Beckerman (or other attorneys familiar with this case and the relevent law), can you comment on the merit of this request?
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".
I'm sure the plaintiffs are putting the facts of the case in the most favorable possible light to avoid a "with prejudice" dismissal. But without seeing/hearing the actual testimony it's difficult to judge just how overt the defendents actions were, and to what extent the plaintiffs persual of this case had actual merit - i.e. how justified it was and, therefore, to what extent a prejudicial decision might or might not be warranted.
It's an imperfect system, and definitely being abused at the moment by the large 'rights holders', who have engaged in a maelstrom of litigation in reaction to their imminent demise
If they get their way in Canada, by getting the government to draft laws which protect their obsolete business plan, they may be developing a foothold by which they can force us to keep them alive.
At what point would it be reasonable to start proceedings against those lawyers? You make some fairly strong statements of their misdeeds here. With firm proof would those offenses not be more than enough to get them disbarred, if not jailed and/or fined for perjury?
Who is responsible for calling those lawyers to task? And who is capable of officially raising the matter for consideration?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
All the defendant needs to do is show that the RIAA has *systematically* dragged out lawsuits, and then dropped them when the defendant "calls their bluff", knowing full well it's chances of winning at trial are unfavorable, and the defendant has no intention of settling. The RIAA knows it will be liable for attorney's fees if they lose at trial, so they drag everything out to the very last moment, hoping to save money by dropping the claim when the defendant doesn't settle.
However, asking for dismissal at this point in procedure doesn't show the intent to save money from dismissal. The fact that the RIAA had done it *many* times over shows a clear, premeditated plan to shift wasteful costs for reckless prosecution to the defendent in the event that no settlement occurs and a legal victory is improbable.
The RIAA drops it suits when:
1) The defendant calls their bluff by refusing to settle and forces them to support a baseless claim at trial, which the RIAA knows it will lose.
To save money, the RIAA then asks for a dismissal without prejudice.
It might be a stretch, but a good legal beagle could probably argue that this constitutes Conspiracy To Defraud.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Yes, and in a down-turning economy, as the value of their "holdings" declines, they will turn increasingly to this type of litigation-for-profit to try to keep their stock price up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I agree. But I am expecting the RIAA's lawyers, who on a daily basis have been making many false statements of fact to the courts, working with unlicensed investigators, misstating the law, and using illegal procedures, to be called to task eventually. It will no doubt be too little, too late, but I'm expecting repercussions for what they've done.
Why have you (and other attorneys fighting them) not already filed complaints with their state bars?
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
That's why other juristictions have the principle that the cost gets shared between plaintiff and defendant by comparing the sums initially demanded and finally awarded. If you demand 100,000 initially and get awarded 5,000 in the end, then you have lost 95%, thus you have to pay 95% of the legal costs.
Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.
Actually, it's not in the court records, but in their bottom line, the dammage will run much longer than 3 years.
Nobody likes to sup with the devil. The dammage to their PR is huge and long lasting. In the heyday of Napster, sales were up. In the heyday of the litigation campaign, the major CD retailiers are folding. Tower Records, and many other retailers are gone. Many retailers have shifted to carying a large inventory to shifting to video games and DVD's. (MPAA is not in as much PR goo as RIAA).
I haven't bought a new retail CD in years, and that will continue until this mess is over. (online tracks same thing)
The truth shall set you free!
What I think would be fair was if any case brought that was dismissed with prejudice would automatically cost the accusers a fine of exactly as much as the damage they sued for.
That would not only reduce the amount of false claims, but also the preposterous amounts the accused are being sued for.
(I say fines and not compensation. Fines should go to the public and never to the accused, who only should get actual expenses covered. In Ius Commune, a firm principle is that neither the accuser nor the accused must ever benefit economically from the justice system. Rewarding the victim makes becoming a victim desirable, just like rewarding the accuser makes accusations more profitable than avoiding the initial issue.)