RIAA Agrees To Settlement, Then Asks For Twice As Much

from the anything-they-can-get-away-with dept

Wed, Nov 19th 2008 1:24pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: nancy gertner, settlement
Companies: riaa

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2008 @ 1:30pm

RIAA = Real Ignorant Arrogant Assholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 19 Nov 2008 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re:
  Ditto
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vukovar, 19 Nov 2008 @ 1:44pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred, 19 Nov 2008 @ 1:46pm
  
  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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doogie, 19 Nov 2008 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Amazing...
    You said "Dire Straits". You now owe the RIAA $1,000. Or is it $2,000?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stuart, 19 Nov 2008 @ 2:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
      Its $2,000.00 .
      now give me $4,000.00 !
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vukovar, 19 Nov 2008 @ 3:46pm
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Vukovar, 19 Nov 2008 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
        Whoops - my bad - I see someone already said $4000 in the conversation - call it $8000.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2008 @ 5:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazing...
        $8000, do I hear 10?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2008 @ 1:47pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2008 @ 4:33am
  
  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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2008 @ 2:08pm

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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPBer, 19 Nov 2008 @ 2:36pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Regan, 19 Nov 2008 @ 5:14pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2008 @ 5:37pm

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? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2008 @ 6:12pm

Ok, I'd like to purchase this CD.
And I'll take that one too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Beckerman (profile), 19 Nov 2008 @ 7:22pm

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 19 Nov 2008 @ 7:25pm

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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2008 @ 4:58am

mr big content
two "bads" don't make a good. the law also applies to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 20 Nov 2008 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: mr big content
  It was satire silly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Scared of the Lawyers, 20 Nov 2008 @ 5:05am

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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HFC, 20 Nov 2008 @ 5:54am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yuthan, 21 Nov 2008 @ 2:35am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corwin155, 21 Nov 2008 @ 10:22am

call it what it is
its called bait and switch
wonder why courts let the riaa break the law so much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]