RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4000 default judgment they'd gotten against some lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an 'enforcement' proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. Today, it turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA's collection lawyer, the motion 'contained factual inaccuracies ... which plaintiff needs to sort out' (PDF). The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."

Comments

Better late than never

[achten]

They are learning the lessons.

Re:Better late than never

[Walkingshark]

I think learnding is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Better late than never

[phantomflanflinger]

Indeed; the British government never underestimated the IRAA. Thankfully, the permanent ceasefire brought peace to Northern Ireland. Or rather, it stopped IRA bombs going off in England, which is all the British Government (and the British public) ever cared about.

I'm just glad I live in Britain - yes, the IRA used to be a threat to me, but the RIAA never will.

Re:Better late than never

[GigaplexNZ]

A lawyer with ethics...a novel concept.

Says an Anonymous Coward to everyone's favourite NewYorkCountryLawyer...

Re:Better late than never

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual

For me the real news is that the lawyer cared that there was an error. Normally, to these people, that would not be cause for dropping a case, since they are always misrepresenting the facts. You use the word "embarrassing"; this is a foreign concept to most RIAA lawyers. The part of their brains that is capable of feeling shame appears to have been surgically removed.

Re:Better late than never

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Whether intentional or not I love the "must be new ... here" reference. I can only hope that you are peppering your speeches with such memes on a regular basis. ;)

In the Soviet Union, the speeches would be peppering me.

As for the story, forgive my naïveté but how much difference would (will) this make?

I have no idea.

My pessimistic side makes me just think that the RIAA will go away and find someone who will do their bidding

Yes there are many such people pretending to be lawyers.

- can they reinstate the motion as though it was never withdrawn once the inaccuracies are (purportedly) sorted out?

Yes.

My optimistic side was unavailable for comment.

That's okay. I don't even have one.

In any case, if this guy is new to the process, it is nice to hear of another lawyer who is concerned with ethics.

Well let's not go too far in praising him, just yet. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

Re:Better late than never

[Kalriath]

That's "In Soviet Russia". You must be... ah, forget it.

Re:You really think so?

[Darundal]

If by incapable of learning, you mean severely mentally (and morally) handicapped, then yes.

Sloppy work

[Ollabelle]

I'll wager the facts that need sorting out include which Monica Buckley got sued and where she is.

Pulling the first one from the phone books is probably not a good way to proceed.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It really sucks when you hire someone that turns out to have integrity and won't roll over and be your lackey. Sounds like RIAA could not afford to properly vet this lawyer.

Yeah. If he's going to be squeamish about little details like getting the facts straight, he won't have the RIAA as a client for very long.

Re:What I find problematic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Finding a lawyer that cares about the law might not be newsworthy, but finding one (probably accidently!) employed by the RIAA *IS* newsworthy.

Yes, I find it 'stop the presses' newsworthy.