An interesting battle is going on in Oklahoma in Warner v. Stubbs.
Regular readers may recall that in Capitol Records v. Foster, the judge held that the RIAA's discontinuance of the lawsuit "with prejudice" was the same as a win for the defendant, and made her a "prevailing party" eligible for attorneys fees.
When they ran into Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the same lawyer who was representing Debby Foster, in their next go-round, the Stubbs case, they immediately sought to discontinue the case. In one part of the motion they said it was "with prejudice"; in another part they said "without prejudice".
Apparently mindful that discontinuing "with prejudice" could subject them to liability for attorneys fees in the Stubbs case, they quickly sought to correct their motion to say "without prejudice", and the judge allowed them to make that correction:
Order permitting correction.
Ms. Barringer-Thompson opposes that, saying the RIAA's motion, saying the dismissal has to be "with prejudice".
Here are some of the latest salvoes fired in that ongoing skirmish (the terminonology used in these Oklahoma cases is different than that used by New York lawyers such as myself, so I apologize if I've incorrectly named some or all of the document):
October 1, 2006, Defendant's Objection to Plaintiffs' Reply*
October 10, 2006, Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objection*
October 24, 2006, Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response*
Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs