RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else 195
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Once again the RIAA has dropped a case with prejudice, this time after concluding
it was the defendant's daughter it should have sued
in the first place. In the case of Lava v. Amurao, mindful that in similar scenarios it has been held liable for the
defendant's attorney fees (Capitol v. Foster and Atlantic v. Andersen), the RIAA went on the offensive. In this case there was actually no attorney fee motion pending, making their motion all the more intriguing. The organization argued that it was the defendant's
fault that the record companies sued the wrong person, because the defendant didn't tell them that his daughter was the file sharer they were looking for."
Re:5th amendment? (Score:4, Informative)
That said, the RIAA is a bunch of douchebags, and I hope EMI pulls their funding. That should start a cascade of flagging support that ends in the destruction of that ridiculous cabal.
Re:5th amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
I hope EMI isn't the only one that pulls their funding.
And that Congress declares the RIAA as racketeering bunch of a-holes....(under RICO).
Re:Pointless beating around the bush... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/17/1728225 [slashdot.org]
How successful it's going to be, well...that remains to be seen.
Re:Burden of proof... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Burden of proof... (Score:5, Informative)
This is an important advantage to the plaintiff, in this case the RIAA, because they don't have to have rock solid proof to convince the judge/jury of wrong doing. This is why OJ Simpson was not convicted in his criminal trial, yet was so in his civil trial.
Re:Maybe they'll go away? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stupid RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Wrong.