RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies 69
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."
Re:What I find problematic (Score:4, Informative)
Is it really that bad in your profession Ray?
Not at all. It's just that the RIAA's lawyers represent the bottom of my profession. IMNSHO.
Re:Boycotts and framing debate on likelihood of fa (Score:5, Informative)
Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label.
And that element of choice is exactly what is at the core of the RIAA litigations. Digitalization and the internet have given musicians and listeners the choice of leaving the record company middlemen out of it. And more and more of both are making that choice. Which is why these corporations are doing their utmost to put the genie back in the bottle, and to try and make the internet the kind of closed, monopolistic marketplace that existed before. Be wary of attempts of the record companies to 'work with the ISP's' and to take away net neutrality, because what is at the core is the desire to recruit the ISP's to be their gatekeepers the way vinyl record manufacturing plants, payola to radio stations, and expansive distribution networks were in the past.