What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
107 Comments
- Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+192So these RIAA thugs want their case dropped without prejudice and at the same time asking the judge to drop the counterclaim WITH prejudice
let's hope the judge does not allow this awful RIAA tactic! And rules that Ms. Stubbs is the prevailing party with regards to copyright law and that Ms. Stubbs will get his attorney fees paid by the RIAA.
Otherwise those Thugs will "play" this big money vs. average people extortion business for decades!
It must be possible to fight against them and not accept their 3750$ extortion money if you are not guilty but can't afford a regular lawsuit where THEY must prove your wrongdoing! - negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+92Law = High Paid Lawyer
High Paid Lawyer = $$$ - RexKwando, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75Hell Yeah!
We have the power to beat the riaa. We just have to stand up! Way to go! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+86People are not REALLY standing up, are they. Just hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people on the Internet all acting really really pissed off and whiny. How about actually CONRIBUTING? How about setting up an organization that helps these people pay their legal bills and encourages them to counter-sue?
Oh well. I guess people would just rather whine and act angry than actually DO something. - RexKwando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+71If enough people stand up, money becomes null.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+58Looks like they dont like the taste of their own *****.
- kimastergeorge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56"Power" also = "law".
We have this on our side - RexKwando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48@ilyag
So.. what about the EFF? - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41I beleive I speak for many when I say
***** got whats comin to 'em! - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"Oh well. I guess people would just rather whine and act angry than actually DO something."
I love that sheep who jumps out of the flock, screams at them that by following each other, they're being led to their doom, but then hops back in line when he's done screaming.
Which is more important to you? Criticizing people for apathy, or being apathetic yourself? - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Sadly, in our faux democracy, justice is always served to the higher bidder.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37It's called the EFF you idiotic git.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25You've got to make them PROVE the case. Right now they're just playing money games. "Give us $4000 because we know you can't afford to hire an attorney..."
Looks like as soon as you actually do, they run backwards REAL fast. - Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25>> "I am a firm believer that a majority of the people who are named in these lawsuits are actually guilty and should just pay up."
Sure, the majority may well be "guilty", but of what? Downloading a few dollars-worth of music? It would be different if the RIAA said "All right, pay us $16 for that album, and $8 for this one." I mean cripes, it's pure profit; they didn't have to do basically anything - not even lose bandwidth. But instead they go around demanding thousands of dollars for what may well be a $22 loss. Thousands of dollars that go towards not the artists who are responsible for the music, but the crooked ***** in charge of this increasingly-unnecessary organization.
Sorry, but screw that. - jakefloyd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29@ilyag
Alright, sir, set up the necessary organization, accounts, sites, and we'll donate...
....
that's what I thought. - Strider817, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I wonder how that one lawsuit verse the multi-millionare will play out. Somehow I think it will end up like this.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22"Do you disagree?"
Absolutely. Flamefests as they may be, they also raise awareness. They get us angry, and when someone we know is hauled into court by this organization, we'll say, "Hey, don't let them shove you around. I read an article about a person who countersued, and the RIAA dropped their case immediately! So fight them, don't roll over."
You may think that on here, our constant bootstrapping is pointless, but I don't think it is, and I think my fellow diggers agree. I think each time one of these stories rolls around on here, we learn a little bit more about how to fight and win against the RIAA -- the smart way.
Though, I personally would agree that some sort of legal support organization would definitely be a step in the right direction. I just don't care for how you criticized people for not taking action when you, yourself, haven't shown any. - Rhine23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Owned :) Take that RIAA
- Pests, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18shawnhogan.com is who youre referring to I believe.
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Nope, the MPAA is not trying to drop the case against the millionaire:
Of course, the MPAA isn’t backing down either. “I hear Mr. Hogan has said, ‘I’m absolutely going to go to trial,’ and that is his prerogative,” says John G. Malcolm, the MPAA’s head of antipiracy. “We look forward to addressing his issues in a court of law.” - milkmage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@ilyag - donate to the EFF.. from their homepage: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with the American Association of Law Libraries, the ACLU, and Public Citizen, filed a brief with an Oklahoma district court Thursday, strongly urging a judge to award the innocent target of a file-sharing lawsuit the cost of her attorney's fees in battling the baseless allegations of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)."
- fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14No, this is the RIAA 0wn1ng the system. They sue 5,000 people. 4,999 each pay the RIAA $3,750. One, at great personal expense and risk, countersues. The RIAA then drops their suit against her and she's left without a clear way to pursue her lawsuit or recoup her legal costs.
What we need are cases to go to trial and the rulings in favor of the defendants. We need rulings that IP addresses are not a definitive means of identifying individuals. We need rulings that a list of file names does not constitute prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. We need rulings that WiFi means that there is no way to know who was engaged in filesharing over a particular IP address. Then, and only then, will we have valuable precedents which will put an end to this harassment and extortion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@Rexkwando:
Do you realize that the parent post right above yours showed that this was just more dirty RIAA tactics? Allow me to briefly explain the concept of 'prejudice' wrt law.
When a case is dropped with prejudice, that means the judge basically bans that lawsuit for all eternity. It will never be re-tried in his court. It's the court's way of saying '***** off, get this ***** outta my courtroom and I never want to see you again'.
When something is dismissed *without* prejudice, it means the current case is dropped, but nothing prevents whomever brought the case to court from filing again.
In the parent's post, we see that the RIAA wanted the counterclaim (defendant's) case dropped with prejudice, and their originating lawsuit without prejudice. This sets the stage for the RIAA to bring a new suit against the defendant without fear of a countersuit from the defendant. Nasty indeed. It seems they're just strafing around the case to avoid defending against an extortion charge. - CaffiendCA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Nope. RIAA wins if they can drop their case without prejudice. Had the defendant succeeded in her countersuit, the precedent would be set and others could use it in defense of further RIAA suits.
The RIAA is committing extortion. I hope the judge sees the light. - jbzd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Almost all public companies are in De. Good busines tax laws.
- jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14what Shawn Hogan should do is use his lawyer to do a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the people who have been sued by the RIAA. That will stop this stupid witch hunt.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"So these RIAA thugs want their case dropped without prejudice and at the same time asking the judge to drop the counterclaim WITH prejudice"
Actually, no. The RIAA is not asking that the counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice. The RIAA lawyers are claiming that, after dropping their case, a) the court will not have jurisdiction because "no case or controversy would remain". b) even if the court has jurisdiction, there is no point in continuing the counterclaim because the "investment in time and resources" would not be worthwhile.
Thus they ask that their suit be dropped and her suit be declared moot ( theoretical or hypothetical because the original case no longer exists).
Were they to file the case again, she could counterclaim again. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The funny thing about their motion to dismiss is that the RIAA is asking for their own claims to be dismissed without prejudice (this means that the RIAA is free to file th same claim against the same defendant in the future) while simultaneously asking that the defendant's counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice (barred from being refiled).
What's even funnier is that the RIAA wants the declaratory judgment of non-infringement dismissed as moot. For those of you without a constitutional law class under your belt, one of the tests for being able to maintain suit in federal court is that the case cannot be moot. Mootness means that whatever has been causing the injury has ended. In this case, RIAA is arguing that since they've withdrawn their suit, then defendant's claim for extortion, harrassment, or whatever abuse of the legal process theory their claim is founded in can no longer remain in federal court because nobody is continuing to sue them. The judge is going to see right through this one for two reasons. First, within constitutional law, a case is not rendered moot when the source is stopped (1) voluntarily by the person causing it (here, the RIAA) or alternatively (2) is an injury of short, repeated duration that can recur in the future and avoid the relatively slow by comparison calendar of litigation. Here, the case will not be moot because the suit is dismissed by the RIAA who, if they get their way, reserve the right to refile it in the future. Moreover, the RIAA can threaten lawsuits all day long against this claimant, forcing her to retain legal counsel everytime but avoiding court time. It seems like a classic case of non-mootness, and I foresee an adverse ruling here for the RIAA.
Finally, their "no longer a case or controversy" argument is strained, at best. Withdrawing their own case is not necessarily equated to no longer being a controvery, especially after you've tried to extort money out of a person by threatening litigation, actually instituting litigation, and then dropping it when you put up any sort of fight. My guess is this is another example of filing suit with intent to intimidate, one that's wholly lacking in any sort of actual evidentiary support, and I'm of the opinion that regardless of whether they drop their suit, the defendant clearly has a case or controversy having had to incur financial obligations by retaining legal counsel in the face of the RIAA's tactics. - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Looks like you're up next for a court battle.
- ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10jakatak - he is being sued by the MPAA not the RIAA.
- BenWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Germanopinion:
Nowhere in RIAA's pleading is there a request for dismissal _with_ prejudice. They are claiming that, by withdrawing their suit, that the defendant's counterclaim loses merit. That is, "because we're not suing, she can't claim our suit against her is harassment;" the logic being that there is no suit. FRCP 12(b)(1) does not say anything about dismissal with prejudice.
Rule 41says "Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits."
In other words, lack of jurisdiction (what RIAA claims) does not create a with-prejudice dismissal. Usually what happens when a plaintiff's action has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff can either file in state court or in the appropriate jurisdiction--thus no prejudice.
Additionally, a court-ordered dismissal does not create prejudice. "Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice." (Rule 41(a)(2)) Since RIAA did not move for dismissal of counterclaim _with_ prejudice, there is little incentive for the judge to tack that onto his order. If he does, he invites reversal on appeal as her attorney will point to the gross injustice of allowing RIAA to come back at her while simultaneously barring her from raising the same claim of malicious litigation.
Give the court some credit. - Ductapemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@negativefx
"Law = High Paid Lawyer
High Paid Lawyer = $$$"
$$$ = Power (at least in america!)
Sad but true...
If we keep fighting them, we'll eventually win, so keep it up! - fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10> I am a firm believer that a majority of the people who are named
> in these lawsuits are actually guilty and should just pay up.
So much for the presumption of innocence.
But ignoring that, why is it up to the RIAA to set the monetary figure? How much of that $3,750 is compensatory and how much is punitive? Shouldn't a court be determining the amounts of the awards? The RIAA thinks that kids should have to spend their college savings accounts to pay for sharing some music online, but a judge may very well think that's excessive.
You may be guilty of trespassing in my yard, but that doesn't mean that you should just pay me $(some-number-I-pulled-out-of-my-ass). - jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If you can pay $4000 to the RIAA, then you might as well give the $4000 to a lawyer and sue back.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why is jbzd being dugg down? He's right. DE is a *very* popular state to incorporate in.
"More than half a million business entities have their legal home in Delaware including more than 50% of all U.S. publicly-traded companies and 60% of the Fortune 500." - http://www.state.de.us/corp/ - heathenx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8http://defectivebydesign.org
join today... - shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6oh noes! unauthorized lyrics!
- Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nightfall
even when you accept their deal because you are guilty of copyrightinfringement you are NOT safe!
Those other players like performing artists/composers can still sue you once you admit your guilt by signing the RIAA papers and paying them the "please go away"-money!
Read the eff.org PDF regarding RIAA v The People - 2 years later - repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree that most of the people are probably guilty, but that's no excuse for their tactics. There has to be a way that they can get their point across about buying music without tying up the courts for years on end. You have to admit that their tactics of harassing consumers, no matter their liability, are draconian. Remember the girl from Michigan who was being bothered by them? She was only 14 and they were abusing her like she was a drug dealer. Someone has to stand up and make them pay for that.
I seem to have lost focus, but the point is that no matter if they're right or not for their claims, it doesn't excuse what they do to the people who they depend on to buy their product and to the court system. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Can an RIAA victim defend themselves in court without a lawyer in a civil suit? Can an RIAA victim counter sue without a lawyer? If so, what other costs are associated for a countersuit?
- nonsequitor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I thought the real issue here was the RIAA was trying to force settlements without going to court. If they drop their suit and her countersuit is dismised, she should sue on the grounds that they were trying to extort her with their Settlement Centers, and had no intention of ever taking it to trial.
- theawp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So whats the point if the artists arent getting paid back? Thats a bunch of *****. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
- johnarthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Delaware has more favorable tax regulations in place that make it a better state to register in than the other states.
- Ascus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Go! Go! Countersuit. If they had something on th consumer, they would have not just have withrawn, they would have negotiated as withdrawn. I think th RIAA is in trouble with this, and it shows the blueprint to fight back. It might lead the way for some enterpising lawyers you take some RIAA cases on contigency.
- Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sure, the majority may well be "guilty", but of what? Downloading a few dollars-worth of music? It would be different if the RIAA said "All right, pay us $16 for that album, and $8 for this one."
I agree! Let the punishment fit the crime. I am all for that. I am sure this would open a whole other can of worms though as you would have people who would tell the RIAA to go crawl into a hole and die instead of pay up $16. Still, the punishment should fit the crime. It shouldn't be a shoplifting conviction like the RIAA would like to see. - trendspotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There's no way the RIAA could handle hundreds of trials. The settlements allow the RIAA rapidly file one suit after another. This should be very interesting should the case not be thrown out...
- curlyman500, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7helllllll yeah!!! score one for the good guys! lol
- repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that if the RIAA wants their suit dismissed there must be something behind her claim of extortion. Maybe the judge will dismiss the RIAA's suit and let hers proceed.
Is it possible for a civil suit claiming extortion to get class action status? It would be great to see the RIAA have to pay everyone back that they were harassing. I bet all of that money plus damages would about bankrupt the *****. - Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DaveV
I'm sorry if I misread the last paragraph in the courtdocument then.
english is not my motherlanguage and lawyer lingo is even more hard to understand ;) - Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6On a sort of related note, Stubbs makes great barbeque sauces and rubs. "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a cook," it says right there on the bottle.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is