RIAA Accepts $300 Offer of Judgement In Carolina 165
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a North Carolina case, Capitol v. Frye, the RIAA has accepted a $300 offer of judgment made by the defendant. This is the first known use, in the RIAA v. Consumer cases, of the formal offer of judgment procedure which provides that if the plaintiff doesn't accept the offer, and doesn't later get a judgment for a larger amount, the plaintiff is responsible for all of the court costs from that point on in the case. The accepted judgment in the Frye case (PDF) also contains an injunction — much more limited than the RIAA's typical 'settlement' injunction (PDF) — under which defendant agreed not to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights."
Re:Sorry for being picky, but... (Score:5, Informative)
"The spelling judgment is found in the Authorized Version of the Bible. However, the spelling judgement (with e added) largely replaced judgment in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context, possibly because writing dg without a following e for the
Re:thanks for the summary! (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA crunched the numbers and decided to take the $300.
Re:thanks for the summary! (Score:5, Informative)
You think Joe is full of shit, that his mangy rose bush is only worth $100. So you offer to pay him $100 to end the lawsuit.
If Joe accepts, that is the end of it.
If Joe turns you down, then he will have to pay all of your costs (and is some states, attorney fees) from that moment on if when the case goes to trial, he does not win MORE than the $100 you offered.
The basic reasoning is that if someone who injured you offers to pay you what your claim is worth, you should take it. If you don't accept the offer, you should have to pay him for the trouble you cause to HIM by not taking his reasonable offer.
If Joe wins MORE than the $100 you offered, he is in the clear.
It makes people examine exactly what the claim is worth, and gives both sides incentive to offer (and accept) a reasonable offer.
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sorry for being picky, but... (Score:4, Informative)
We should note that their are other situations where the "j" pronunciation with "dg" is found, such as the English town of Bridgnorth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgnorth [wikipedia.org]) So there are still places in England where "dg" is the correct spelling. This probably stems from earlier times when spelling in English was less consistent and not as standardized.
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:3, Informative)
Right, but the important thing is that AFAIK it can't be relied on as precedence like it could be if there was an actual judicial decision in the RIAA's favor.
IANAL
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:3, Informative)
These are civil cases. The terminology should be "liable" and "not liable".
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Informative)
I dare you to try to recover more than that.
If you don't recover more than that, you're going to be liable for all of the court costs from this day forward.
If you've got the guts, bring it on.
If you don't, pick up the $300 and get out of my life.
Re:Something Doesn't Compute (Score:5, Informative)
But there are consequences if the RIAA accepts the offer. There is a judgment against you, which shows up in a credit report, and in view of the judgment you can't claim to be the prevailing party and assert entitlement to attorneys fees.
But for many the Rule 68 offer of judgment will be a useful tool.
Re:ha (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Something Doesn't Compute (Score:3, Informative)
I am a landlord, and I always notify applicants if I reject based on their credit report. It's just a form letter that I drop in the mail. No biggie.
Good luck!
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Summarize this summary (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:3, Informative)
In a copyright case, the answer is probably yes, since the Copyright Act includes attorneys fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs.