RIAA Suffers Another Setback

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A judge has given the RIAA the option to either dismiss its case against Patti Santangelo with prejudice or go to trial. The RIAA moved to dismiss the case but wanted the option to sue at a later date left open.

The judge ruled that either (a) the RIAA must stipulate to discontinue with prejudice no later than April 1st, or (b) the parties must attend the April 13th status conference with a pretrial order in hand.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure I understood what happened. Did the RIAA want to drop this case, knowing they would lose, so they could re-sue in the future? Did the Judge prevent that?
 
Levii said:
I'm not sure I understood what happened. Did the RIAA want to drop this case, knowing they would lose, so they could re-sue in the future? Did the Judge prevent that?
Click to expand...

Thats how it sounds to me. The RIAA wanted to drop the case for some reason but leave it open so that they could resue her if they later actually had some proof in the future, but the judge told them no. That they either had to drop the case without the ablity to resue her again or they had to take the case to trial.
 
Steve said:
The RIAA...wanted the option to sue at a later date left open.
Click to expand...

Haha. Maybe we could somehow have the RIAA butt heads with the EU. Just let them sue each other.

Seems the RIAA has more lawyers employed than executives. Or maybe the executives just let the lawyers take over since they're the most active anyway.
 
I think the judicial system itself is starting to rebel against the RIAA's abuse of said system!

I also think this will really tell if the RIAA is trying to bully people into paying them with extortion, or if they really will go the distance and follow through when people refuse to submit.

Now if they don't go to trial, a lot more people are going to refuse to be bullied by them, because they know the RIAA will back down when it comes down to actually having to go to trial. Maybe thier "proof" is all just a smokescreen and won't even hold up in a court of law, and they know this.
 
I am glad to see that RIAA victims are beginning to fight back. I hope this is the harbinger of big problems for the legal teams of the recording industry.

If a few of these cases fail in court then all the folks who were extorted by these ‘legal eagle scumbags’ my want to reconsider their settlements. Many could possibly demand refunds and damages for imagined ‘RIAA loses’ thus beating RIAA at it’s own dirty game.

Does anybody know of a class action suit or an organization that is current standing up to this institutionalized extortion racket (RIAA) so I can contribute a few dollars to help the cause?
 
Levii said:
I'm not sure I understood what happened. Did the RIAA want to drop this case, knowing they would lose, so they could re-sue in the future? Did the Judge prevent that?
Click to expand...

The key here is that if the case is dismissed with prejudice, they cannot sue in the future, but also, it leaves the door open to the defendant being able to sue them for attorney fees and the hassle of going to court.
 
Martyr said:
Steve said:
A judge has given the RIAA the option to either dismiss its case against Patti Santangelo with prejudice or go to trial. The RIAA moved to dismiss the case but wanted the option to sue at a later date left open.[/quote]

isnt that, like, very illegal?
Click to expand...

Only in criminal cases. In a criminal case, you can dismiss a case and bring it to trial later, but ONLY if you talk with the judge and have a convincing reason to do so (like you think a witness has been threatened, and you want to get them alone without the defendant standing over them).

In civil cases, you can drop and refile a case an infinite amount of times, as long as that one year period from the time of the offense is not exceeded or whatever the amount of time is that you have to sue in the lawbooks.
Click to expand...
 
Levii said:
I'm not sure I understood what happened. Did the RIAA want to drop this case, knowing they would lose, so they could re-sue in the future? Did the Judge prevent that?
Click to expand...
Caffeinated said:
The key here is that if the case is dismissed with prejudice, they cannot sue in the future, but also, it leaves the door open to the defendant being able to sue them for attorney fees and the hassle of going to court.
Click to expand...

Caffeinated is quite correct, but also, there's another factor.

The RIAA pulls a lot of these lawsuits out with the idea of forcing a quick settlement. They're Goliath, taunting the little people and gambling that someone won't come along with good aim and a stone in a sling. If someone fights them and is even semi-successful (dismissed with prejudice being semi-successful, with a true victory being a win against them in court) It could change the actions of future defendants they attempt to sue. So if someone appears to become a real challenge and steps up to the plate with a good lawyer and a good argument, they attempt to drop the case without prejudice, leaving the defendant in debt, responsible for their legal charges, and discouraging others from fighting lawsuits when they come around again.

If the defendant even manages to have the case dismissed with prejudice, it may give future defendants the courage to take their cases at least that far, especially if the defendant wins the right to have their legal fees recouped. If the defendant wins in court (or another one in the future due to that courage) it could set a legal precedent the RIAA wishes to avoid. In either case, it appears the RIAA has become a victim of their own tactics, and actually backed themselves into a losing proposition this time around. In this case, I hope it finally goes to court and results in a win, which will finally put the RIAA in their place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top