How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?

from the keep-on-suing dept

The RIAA has dropped its file-sharing suit against an Oklahoma mother who had no connection to any such activities, beyond paying an ISP bill. Good news -- sort of. The case was dropped after the woman filed a claim to have it dismissed, then faced with the prospect their case would be thrown out, the RIAA asked -- and was allowed -- to withdraw it on their own instead. This is basically the same scenario as that of a Michigan woman who the group sued because her kids were alleged to be file-sharing, though in this most recent case, the RIAA will have to pay the defandant's legal bills. Several questions are raised here, but first and foremost is why does the RIAA simply get to drop these lawsuits with little or no repercussions when it becomes clear they're bogus? Again and again, the RIAA has filed these spurious lawsuits, simply bullying people and employing dubious tactics. And despite not ever actually winning a fully litigated case, instead just trying to steamroll people into paying ridiculous damages, the RIAA rolls on. At some point, shouldn't somebody put a stop to these bogus suits, and force the RIAA to own up to the consequences of using the legal system as its personal sandbox? The costs of these individual cases mean nothing to the RIAA, even if they have to pay a defendant's legal bills, but the costs to the people they're suing -- who are often innocent, but are bullied into settling -- are significant. Why are they allowed to continue? Keep in mind, too, that the lawsuits have done nothing to stop file-sharing.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), 17 Jul 2006 @ 2:23pm

    re: Post 17

    "You compared suing doctors to suing god and the idea that the two are comparable was rebutted. I you want to consider rebuttals of your ideas to be "ad hominem" attacks then there is not even a little hope or swaying your mind. The rebuttal is for others to consider."

    No, I did not compare suing doctors to suing god. I did not state that the two were comparible. You drew that (incorrect) conclusion.

    My statement was to draw into question whether a lawsuit or a P&S claim is something that is indemnify an injury. My point was: if no one is to blame, and the lawsuits makes it all better, who should be sued?

    If you read the full post from which you quoted, you'd see that I was not talking about the full lawsuit in general. I was talking about the P&S claims that do little to ease pain & suffering.

    And the ad hominem attack was way you skewed my words with the intent to make my statements seem over-simplified and to belittle me in the face of the "others of us [who] know better in the first place".

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.