RSS
Twitter
RIAA Agrees To Settlement, Then Asks For Twice As Much
from the anything-they-can-get-away-with dept
Ray Beckermann is, once again, highlighting some highly questionable activities by the RIAA, noting that after getting defendants to agree to a settlement amount, the RIAA sometimes immediately asks for double the agreed upon amount, and submits that proposal to the court. It's unclear how widely this is happening, but at least in one case, it's good to hear that a judge has prevented the RIAA from getting away with this practice by denying the agreement, noting the different sum than the one agreed to by the parties:
Judge Nancy Gertner: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re Stipulation To Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs as to defendant LaShaana Straw. "The parties' Stipulation to Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs request that the Court approve a Stipulation requiring the Defendant to pay $10,700, yet state in their Response that they have agreed to accept half that amount, $5,350, in full satisfaction of the monetary portion of the proposed judgment. The Plaintiffs do not provide any reason for this highly unusual arrangement, and the Court will not approve a stipulation which fails reflect the actual terms of the agreement. The Plaintiffs must present to the Court a proposed judgment which accurately states the amount the Defendant will be required to pay to settle the claims."This would be the same judge, by the way, who slammed the RIAA for its questionable legal tactics just a few months ago. You would think that the RIAA would know better than to try to play legal games with Judge Gertner.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
RIAA = Real Ignorant Arrogant Assholes
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Ditto
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Amazing...
Nothing like seeing the RIAA redefine 'good faith" and "settlement agreement" - then again, no one should really be surprised by it. Sssaaaayyy, maybe the RIAA can ask for a federal bailout too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Amazing...
They've already asked for and gotten a bailout, without even being in dire straits. Didn't you see the DMCA, PRO-IP and other such asinine legislation?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Amazing...
You said "Dire Straits". You now owe the RIAA $1,000. Or is it $2,000?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
Its $2,000.00 .
now give me $4,000.00 !
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
More bad news - you just commited secondary copyright infringement; since you already agreed to $2000, we'll be needing $4,0000. Make that payable to Isle Of Man Offshore Banking, please.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
Whoops - my bad - I see someone already said $4000 in the conversation - call it $8000.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
$8000, do I hear 10?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
One day these assholes will go too far and they'll get nailed hard for their raping of our legal system. Worhless POS excuses for humans. I hope they all suffer a collective brain aneurysm and their families get saddled with the bills.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
One day they'll go too far? Just how do you define too far, dude? You think there's still a-ways to go before they reach that hypothetical state of 'too far', which is when they ought to be nailed hard? What's wrong with here and now when it comes to utterly, completely obliterating any and all signs of these pricks from the face of the Earth?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow, I'm sure glad the judge nailed them to the wall after they pulled this kind of stuff the second time on her...
What? She didn't!?!1 Well no wonder they keep doing these sorts of things...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I wonder
What they would ask for the 50,000+ tunes I have collected over the years :)
Like they would even get 1 cent. Why anyone even pays is way beyond me, they cannot make you do anything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That's Called Bait and Switch "Settlements"
RIAA Lawyer: But your honor, it says right here that they ADMIT their violation. All we want you to do is order them to pay what they agreed to already in writing, PLUS our attorney fees on top of that. It's only fair, your honor.
Judge: No, the agreement stands as it is written.
RIAA: But judge, the law only applies to them, not US.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pathetic. (The RIAA, that is.)
If I was judge, not only would I throw the case out, I'd have the RIAA pay the defendant the amount of the settlement, no ifs, ands, buts, appeals, further chicanery, or crying like arrogant babies.
I can dream, can't I? :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ok, I'd like to purchase this CD.
And I'll take that one too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Extortionists
"It's unclear how widely this is happening"
The RIAA lawyers have told me that they have gotten many defendants to agree to that 'double judgment' provision.
I asked them how many of those defendants who agreed to it were represented by counsel.
My recollection is that they never answered that question.
I would not be in the least surprised if they have gotten people to sign off on that; that's what extortion is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This Judge Shouldn't Be Allowed
Any judge that doesn't instantly get the RIAA's arguments is obviously incompetent, corrupt or just plain insane, and should be sacked or impeached or whatever the hell it is you do with these rogue mavericks who won't follow orders and toe the establishment line.
The law is too good for criminals who won't follow it. If they won't respect the legal rights of the good guys, then why should we respect theirs? Good guys doing bad to bad guys isn't bad, it's good. Lock them up and throw away the law books. There should be more places like Guantanamo Bay, I say!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
mr big content
two "bads" don't make a good. the law also applies to you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: mr big content
It was satire silly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RAII
Why doest Techdirt name the actual lawyers and lawfirm who use these untoward tactics? It's the lawyers telling the clients what tactics should be used - hih?
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS? WE WANT FIRMS and NAMES!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Judge Gertner
For what it's worth, Judge Gertner is a bit technologically aware. She presided over the Courtroom 21 Lab Trial in 2002, involving holographic and immersive virtual reality evidence. Case description here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RAII:
Why? I'm sure you could find it out by doing some research about the case. Generally there are public case filings of various sorts that say that kinda thing.
And the lawyers/law companies for the whole SCO thing are well known, doesn't seem to have stopped them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
call it what it is
its called bait and switch
wonder why courts let the riaa break the law so much
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment