Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Judge Accepts RIAA Promise Not to Sue and Dismisses Tallie Stubbs Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment

In Warner v. Stubbs, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Judge has accepted the RIAA's "covenant not to sue" Ms. Stubbs, and dismissed Ms. Stubbs's counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

July 2, 2007, Order Dismissing Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

8 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

THIS IS SO BOGUS.

The RIAA has managed to completely uncover Tallie Stubb's identity, tar her name, cost her great amounts of money when they had not case, and now simply walk away.

Where is the justice in this?

How enforceable is such a covenant?

If the RIAA decided to sue again, how much money would Tallie have to spend to enforce said covenant?

What prevents some other tentacle of the RIAA octopus from now reaching out with this data to harass this woman further? She has no declaration to protect her.

I expect an avalanche of such covenants now the moment the RIAA feels they've punished worthy defendants sufficiently. This can't be what the Copyright Act had in mind.

Alter_Fritz said...

taken the judges reasoning, wouldn't that mean, if I would accuse her publicly in press releases and in courtfiling of having stolen money from me, but I would promise not to sue her for that, that Vicky has no right to get her name as a judge cleaned of being a "thief" and "criminal"?
I doubt she would accept such a reasoning by one of her fellow judges if it was her name that was libeled/slandered (sp?) instead of Mrs. Stubbs, would she?
the record companies do not say, we don't accuse her anymore of having "stolen" from us or that they came to the conclusion that they made an error and appologise to her, they just say we will not sue you for your "stealing".
By my logic this is still an insult and unfair and what not.
She should have the possibility to get her name cleaned via declatory judgement ruling by my sense of justice.
Shouldn't she?

Or do I get all that wrong again as an uninformed outsider to american law?

Juan Cierva said...

Sad, distressing and profoundly regrettable. Perversions of justice such as this, where untenable miscreant rulings are handed down by the bench, makes me rejoice in the fact I don't live in the USA.

J Cierva, Barcelona, Spain.

Michael Hoffman said...

What, judges never make bad rulings in Spain? Please.

Iggy said...

Why can't she sue for defamation?

Markbnj said...

Ray, can't the lawyer point to other current cases, where counter-claims are being pursued, and ask to use that as evidence?

Ray Beckerman said...

AMD FanBoi said...

THIS IS SO BOGUS.

The RIAA has managed to completely uncover Tallie Stubb's identity, tar her name, cost her great amounts of money when they had not case, and now simply walk away.


Well, let's see if there's an attorneys fees motion, and if so what happens with it, before we reach our final conclusions.

Interested Observer said...

I wonder if Media Sentry has been licensed as an investigative agency in Oklahoma as required and if the individual conducting the investigation was also licensed as required?