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.
But how about something to compensate her for the harassment, stress, and general upheaval of her life for three years? The RIAA might cave in to paying her fees if they have no other way out of it, but a nice fat damage award would go a long way toward tempering the cartel's tactics, and to encourage others who have been sued. Of course, to get such an award she would probably have to file some sort of countersuit against them, and I doubt she has the stomach for that right now. Shows how in our legal system, even when you win, you still lose to some degree.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
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
We have been telling plaintiffs all along that the defendant is innocent of any
infringement. Unmindful of their duties as officers of the Court, they nevertheless persisted. Now
that the time has come to pay the piper, they seek to scurry away, rather than face the music.
Don't they own the music?
(I trust Mr. Beckermann will accept my quote as fair use...)
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The RIAA's lawsuits are purely speculative, based on a standard of "evidence" that would be laughed out of court in any other area. When there is no penalty for speculative litigation, litigation becomes a business method instead of an instrument of last resort. This case needs to be dismissed With Prejudice to counteract this misuse of the legal system.
In addition, the RIAA as plaintiffs suffer no discomfort from a failed lawsuit, as it's all just paperwork and their daily office job for them. In contrast, their defendants suffer horribly from the process win or lose, with years of their lives being damaged and unrecoverable, since the litigation process is entirely foreign to their normal lives. This is unbalanced, unfair, and inadequate.
Both areas need redress, starting with dismissal With Prejudice and including compensation to the defendant for harm caused. But really more than that is needed. 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. Without negative feedback, systems spiral out of control, and that is as true in law as in science.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
A hitchhiker should never go anywhere without his towel.
My blog
Nobody should be allowed to just drop a legal case with no penalty after three years.
No sig today...
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 ----
If that dismissal can be called "without prejudice", then so is a Klan cross burning. They should pay "I'm a Dick Tax" as well as attorney's fees.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Copyright (theoretically and used to be in fact) runs out and the work goes into the public doamin with Huck Finn.
I'm coming to think that the US should make a Peter-Pan type exception for Mickey Mouse, since US congress refuse to let the sun set on the rodent.
Yes, it would be a barmy exception, but it is still worse, by some considerable margin, that one cartoon character should make law for the whole system of copyright!
Hell, they should make an exception for Minnie and Pluto while they're at it...
Wikileaks, no DNS
I think the reason this suit got this far, and generated as much interesting legal materials and reactions as it did, have much to do with the lawyer working the case. She would have not got this far, if it was not for the efforts of her lawyer. You have demonstrated how to defend and win a case against the RIAA.
It is not often that we think of lawyers as the good guys, but in this case, the community owes you thanks.
Good Work.