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."
I'm no lawyer, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, the real issue that was raised and to which I responded: There is no precedential effect, no matter how you take the Rule 68-based judgment. Legal precedents are only as to issues of law. It seems that no interpretation of law was made here, and any issues that were disposed of by the judgment are factual in nature. There is no such thing as a legally binding factual precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct, except for the "plead guilty" part. That's only in criminal cases.
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.
Sanctions? (Score:3)
Re:Sanctions? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, never any sanctions against RIAA lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
Irking the judge has defensible standing in law?
If it does, how come that the RIAA's lawyers bringing meritless suits based on an almost total absence of evidence against a sizeable proportion of the young population has not yet irked any judge, and sent their lawyers packing?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems like such a powerful tool that it would be almost automatic to offer a small amount. What happens in cases where it isn't done? Are costs typically shared evenly?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Providing that's possible, of course...
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop playing their game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I think the original usage was acceptable as I was not discussing the findings of the case, but rather her thought process on the matter. Still, using 'liable' would have been clearer. Apologies all around, hehe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why I was saying that you shouldn't help them do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm no lawyer, but (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These are civil cases. The terminology should be "liable" and "not liable".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, courts will speak of people being "guilty" of, say, contributory negligence. The difference is that they are not using it as a legal term of art in those cases,* and I don't get as upset about it as I do when people speak of "plead(ing) guilty" in the civil litigation context. That's the one that really makes no sense, no matter how you slice it. At least "she knew she was guilty of copyright infringement and offered to settle" makes sense, so long as the context makes clear that no legal term
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in court and a defendant you are automatically guilty unless you can outspend the plaintiff.
I don't give a rats ass what the "law" and other documents say. I have seen enough of the inner daily working of the court system to know that if you arrive in front of a judge as a defendant your chances of winning are incredibly low.
Which is why even in divorce cases it is very important for you to file first and name the spouse as a defendant. Justice is not blind, it's happy to
Guilty of what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I said that since I don't know the details of the case I have no idea if it was possible for the RIAA to prove their claims, and that the defendant may have been guilty and wanted to end the suit. Neither is unreasonable given the posted article and the case's resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are poor people more prone to try to get things for free?
Are poor people more prone to be unaware that this is potentially illegal?
Are poor people more prone to be sloppy about how they go about all of this?
Are poor people a greater portion of the population to begin with?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You wrote: "**AA"s
Wouldn't it be more proper to use "??AA"s
Z
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(You're not the kind of dummy who downloads more than one song at a time, are you?)
To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA have not yet sued a single person for *downloading* music. What the suits revolve around is *uploading* (or "making available").
If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs.
Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300.
The fact that the RIAA a
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA have not yet sued a single person for *downloading* music. What the suits revolve around is *uploading* (or "making available").
Correct. The complaint mentions "downloading", among other things, but the RIAA knows of no downloading.
If there's only a single song at issue, then your analysis would be valid. But for most of the defendants in the RIAA suits, the allegation is that they "made available" (had in a shared folder) hundreds or thousands of songs. Since that's $750 per song, in these cases the bottom line is a hell of a lot more than $300.
Yes they are theoretically suing for large numbers, but they are actually suing for $750 per song for their 'exhibit A' list (the songs their investigator allegedly downloaded), which is usually in the $5k to $8k range. That is what they go for in the default judgment cases. And they'll usually take around $4500 in a settlement. However, if a defendant fights back and gives them a hard time, they may tr
Re: (Score:2)
Decent Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA accepts it if anyone else tries it.
Re:Decent Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
So far that seems to be the case (Score:2)
Re:Decent Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Decent Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, it wasn't do by registered detectives and is therefore illegal, but we tried!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
=========
Seems to me that this just could put the RIAA into a difficult position. Either they sued the wrong person and still made them pay $300 for the privilege of being wrongly sued,OR They sued the right person and admit that the true cost of the alleged infringement is ONLY $300. Either the RIAA admits that they are suing the wrong people, or they admit that the actual value of the infringement at this level is $300, -- a figure for wh
thanks for the summary! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Summarize this summary (Score:2)
I am intrigued by this posters ideas, and would like to subscribe to their newsletter, but being an anonymous coward I have no forwarding address.
Question: Is this a real principle of the they are quoting? (or something they made up?)
It's called Habeas Lucrus :-) [EOM] (Score:3, Funny)
Something Doesn't Compute (Score:2)
It would seem that the worst case for the defendant is that the plaintiff doesn't accept and then the defendant is no better of worse off than he was before. But for the plaintiff, the stakes are huge.
What did I miss, here?
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: (Score:2)
Does paying $300 by cash/bankers pay order make the judgement enter my credit report???
If that is the case then all the traffic fines for no-parking, etc., would be in my credit file that is now idling in my hands.
All i see in my credit file are my credit applications to www.apple.com and www.overstock.com and a overdue credit card which i can't seem to even remember i had (which is the prime reason i pulled it from Experian)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a civil judgement go into my Credit Report? Does paying $300 by cash/bankers pay order make the judgement enter my credit report???
Civil judgments are supposed to appear on your credit report in the "Public Records" section. It's not a perfect science, however. Not all civil judgments have a SSN attached, and not all counties' judgments are picked up efficiently by the credit bureaus, but they are supposed to be.
If that is the case then all the traffic fines for no-parking, etc., would be in my credit file that is now idling in my hands.
That is incorrect. Traffic fines are criminal, not civil judgments. It may not seem like it in traffic court, but the prosecutor actually is supposed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, you can go to jail if you're
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I can tell, you can be denied employment for a non-sensitive position that doesn't involve finance, regardless of a lack of an criminal history or civil rulings, based entirely on your credit report.
Of course you can. "People With Bad Credit" are not a protected class.
The gov't supposedly has to tell you if you are rejected for employment or a promotion, but somehow I doubt that always happens--as there appears to be limited oversight.
Actually, it is not the government, but the entity who is relying on credit bureau information who is responsible for notifying you if you were denied credit/employment/housing/whatever in whole or in part based on your credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates this reporting, and the penalties are pretty harsh, especially in relationship to the ease of this notification.
I am a landlord, and I always notify applicants if I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is "People who live in Cabrini Green," but you may get into trouble if you discriminate based on that.
Why would I get into trouble? The seven federally-protected classes are:
If you'd like to explain to me how not renting to people who live in Cabrini Green discriminates against one of those protected classes, I'd be all ears.
Before you answer, I'd like to remind you that membership in a protected class does not mandate that an applicant must be accepted. It merely states that an applicant cannot be denied because of his or her membership in a pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're less likely to take it than an actual, reasonable offer,
The defendant wins whether or not the plaintiff accepts the offer. If the plaintiff accepts, then the defendant gets off with a measly $1 judgment. If the plaintiff declines, then the defendant is guaranteed free legal counsel if he prevails, but suffers no penalty if he loses.
if the judge sees you being a twit it'll factor into future decisions.
I would be surprised to learn that a judge reacted in a hostile manner to any motion that could potentially settle the dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be surprised to learn that a judge reacted in a hostile manner to any motion that could potentially settle the dispute.
I would too, but judges are typically intelligent enough to realize that a $1 offer, at less than 1% of what they could get for a win on a single song, isn't likely to settle the dispute.
If the plaintiff accepts, then the defendant gets off with a measly $1 judgment. If the plaintiff declines, then the defendant is guaranteed free legal counsel if he prevails, but suffers no penalty if he loses.
Two penalties if he loses: the judge regards him as a twit for offering a settlement that's ridiculously low compared to the amount that the RIAA could get for a single song, and the defendant has to pay his lawyers for the time spend writing and defending the motion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, offering $1 is silly because the 'you pay for me' effect only kicks in if the finial judgment is that less then $1 of damage is done.
Think of it like this. The woman offers up that she did $300 worth of damage. The RIAA at this point can either go to trial or take the $300. If they go to trail and the judge rules that the
Re: (Score:2)
First, I believe that the judge has to accept the deal. In other words, it needs to be a good faith attempt to offer reasonable compensation for the 'damage' that has been done.
Why should a judge second-guess whether or not $1 is reasonable? The judge can't speak for the plaintiff.
In this case, $300 is almost certainly not reasonable compensation. Statutory damages for even 1 infringement are between $750 and $150,000. How could $300 be any more or less reasonable than $1 when the minimum judgment, assuming the defendant was guilty at all, would be $750?
Second, offering $1 is silly because the 'you pay for me' effect only kicks in if the finial judgment is that less then $1 of damage is done.
But what does the defendant have to lose by offering? Worst case scenario for the defendant is that plaintiff rejects the o
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, statutory damages are not equal to actual damages.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of it like this. Defendant offers plaintiff a $1 judgment. The three possible outcomes for the defendant are:
1. Plaintiff accepts. Defendant pays plaintiff $1 and everybody goes home.
2. Plaintiff rejects and the case goes to trial. Plaintiff is awarded more than $1. This is the same outcome as if the judgment offer was never made at all. Filing pointless motions does two things. First, it pisses off the judge to have to wade through your bullshit. Pissing off the judge is never a good idea because they can and will make your life miserable. Second, it costs money to file anything. Even if the filing itself is free, it costs lawyer time... and by lawyer time costs money out of
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if your neighbor threw a baseball through your window because he was sick of hearing loud music coming from your house. You take him to court and claim $10,000 worth of damage. Normally, you could be a dick and just carry on suing him because you want to make him pay his legal expenses as extra punishment and see how large of a settlement you can score.
This is generally not the case. In simple property damage disputes like this, the actual damages are easily quantifiable. You don't get to just sue for whatever arbitrarily large number you feel like writing down.
When I take a tenant to court who has damaged my property, the judge asks me to show what the actual damage was (show receipts), and demonstrate that the tenant is responsible for the damage. For a
I had a offer of judgment procedure (Score:5, Interesting)
At the time I was the IT guy for this company. I took my orders from the CEO because the CTO was just psycho. In one of the meetings between me, the CEO and CTO the CTO accused me of being on "Mind Altering drugs" at work because I had a can of get this.. Jolt Cola on my desk (This CTO was a devout mormon)
The CEO fired the CTO, then decided to pack up our office and head north from Sunnyvale to Alameda. Being the IT guy, it was my job to make sure the computers made it up there safely. A few months later the company completely imploded, everyone went off to work for different companies, and that was that or so I thought.
About a year later I got a court summons. The CTO was suing me for $15 million dollars. I was being accused of "Stealing his source code" because apparently the company didn't own that little sun box I moved. After a few initial rounds in pre-trial we were all set to go to trial.
My lawyer and I were sitting out in front of the courtroom when we got a surprise. The judges assistant came up to us and started telling us the CTO was willing to settle for $1500. He explained it like this..
"You know toq, we're really sick of this asshole. Me, the judge, the other lawyers all think he's a cocksucker, but you already know that. Just take the settlement"
Me, "But I didn't do anything wrong"
Assitant, "Well let me put it to you another way. If you don't take this settlement, it's going to mean a trial, which is going to mean jurors, and a whole bunch of menusha I don't want to get into, but it's going to cost ALOT of money. The judge is going to look at the fact that you didn't take this $1500 settlement, and wonder why you costed all these people time and money"
Me: "So the judge just wants this out of his hair, is that what you're saying?"
Assistant: "Yes"
So I took the settlement, nothing went down on my record.
I'm guessing this $300 RIAA case is the same deal. The judge probably got sick of the team of lawyers that represent the RIAA tying up his courtroom with petty bullshit, and i'm guessing the person taking the settlement got the same speech I did.
Re:Hey (Score:4, Funny)
Now that I've meta-moderated your meta-moderation, I need a nap.
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: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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, you must mean 'their'?
-Your friendly neighbor from the 'hood and atrocious grammer nazi
Re: (Score:2)
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sorry for being picky, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that every combination of vowels seem to have different pronunciations for every single word, except the different ones except when you pronuncs different ones identically. ("see", "sea", "me", "ski")
Be grateful for anyone trying to clean up that mess of a writing system you call "English" anyway. Some words are so written so different from their pronunciation that it's easier
Re:ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ha (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt such costs matter to them, and that the RIAA isn't so much looking to recoup "costs" on supposed lost music sales, but to create such a culture of fear in order to seriously slow down music sharing. So they spend $100 million on law suits to stop an alleged $1 billion of music copying...
Correct.
But I've been toying with other possible explanations for why they're spending so disproportionately to their achievement of results:
1. They're trying to regain monopoly power, this time in the digital music space.
2. Their lawyers are playing them for suckers.
Of course, I haven't seen anywhere it's been proven that people who download a song really would have bought it instead. Anyone?
The reason you haven't seen it, is that it isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is because they are idiots. Ok, so idiots isn't quite the right term, but basically because they are out of touch with reality. They seem to really, honestly, believe that they can stand in the way of progress. They believe that they can keep the status quo with their business model so long as they fight. Now that right there shows a surprising amount of ignorance of history and business. Thus I also think they ignorantly believe that these lawsuits are working and will win in the end. They think that all they've got to do is sue enough, and everyone will get really scared and stop using P2P networks. That's they they keep doing it, they think that they just have to keep the pressure on and it will work, P2P will cease to exist because people will be too scared to use it. Basically they are just living in a dream world. They are facing a world that has changed and they don't want to change with it. So they delude themselves in to thinking they can fight it. All I know is if I was an investment company who had holdings in these companies, I'd be asking the directors what the hell they thought they were doing.
I think "idiots" was a pretty good word for it. I think their shareholders must be starting to ask some questions.
Re: (Score:2)
======
(BTW could you please mark your quotebacks somehow, even if just by a blank or dashed line? It's often hard to tell where the quote ends and your own comment starts. Thanks!!)
Re: (Score:2)
Lost Thousands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the RIAA, much like a 3rd world strongman dictator, is trying to save face. The defendant probably told her attorney "make this go away" and $1 wasn't going to accomplish that. A $1 judgment would raise more eyebrows and get more publicity than a $300 one. Anyone can tell that a $1 win for the RIAA is really a loss, but $300 will make a notable percentage of the public think the RIAA won. Thus, everyone involved on both sides knew $1 wasn't going t