We have just learned that Arista v. Greubel, the Texas case in which the Nettwerk Music company was reportedly funding the defendant's defense, was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal over a year ago.
[Ed. Note. The fact that it was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation means it was settled. No doubt the settlement was secret, which is presumably why the defendant's lawyers never even told me about the dismissal, even though it's a matter of public record. -R.B.]
Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property
8 comments:
XKE, your comment is way off base.
There's no way of knowing what the settlement was. Whether it was a win for the defendant, or a win for the plaintiff, or whatever. The stipulation tells you nothing other than that the case is withdrawn "with prejudice" meaning it's totally over, meaning it's been settled.
I've decided to reject 3 comments in violation of comment policy #8.
For those of you whose comments were rejected please read my lips:
1. You can't tell anything from the stipulation of dismissal about what the settlement was.
2. It is the same stipulation that would have been filed if
(a) the defendant paid the plaintiff $1 million
(b) the plaintiff paid the defendant $1 million or
(c) neither party paid the other anything.
It means nothing, except that the case was dismissed with prejudice by agreement.
While the settlement may have been the defendant's best interest it certainly is irksome for the RIAA to be able to bail from the court systems like this--something which they often do when they are loosing. It is like being able to withdraw your horse racing bet after it starts if you see that your horse is in last place. The result is that the RIAA is playing a probability game skewed in their favor.
If they are allowed to withdraw their complaints at the last minute they skew the overall outcome of the legal system. Eventually they are going draw the right judge and win a case, even if it is not on the merits (**cough**JamieThomas**cough**), and have case law they can cite.
While the rest of us can't see the terms of this settlement, might the terms be useful, subpoena-able information that the lawyers in the class action against the RIAA can make use of?
Derivative:
ALmost anything can be made known pursuant to a court order. INdeed, many stips include confidentiality language that explicitly references having to comply with court orders, or other operations of law...
HOWEVER, I cant begin to imagine a court ordering disclosure of a stipulation to a third party such as in the potential class action case. And, i have trouble believing that even if it did happen, the contents would ever be admissible...
- Funster
I disagree. In those cases where the RIAA's pattern of extorting unjust settlements is an issue, I expect the judges would find the settlements to be discoverable.
For what it is worth, just to set the record straight here, the case against me was dismissed, but then they immediately filed suit against my four children. So the battle is far from over.
David Greubel
David, please make sure your lawyers send us *pdf files of the case, and keep us updated, so that we can all be informed.
Your case is the only case in the country where the defense is being bankrolled by a music company.
Those of us who are not so lucky want to see and learn from what is happening there.
It is not acceptable for lawyers and defendants who benefit from this blog to refuse to help to keep others informed.
Post a Comment