Friday, January 23, 2009

Atlantic Recording v. Boyer, Florida case in which sufficiency of counterclaims had been upheld, has been settled

We have just learned that Atlantic Recording v. Boyer, the Tampa, Florida, case in which the legal sufficiency of defendant's counterclaims for conspiracy to commit extortion, illegal investigations, and computer fraud, computer fraud and abuse, trespass, deceptive and unfair trade practices, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and abuse of process had been upheld, was settled on December 1, 2008.

Notice of Settlement
December 1, 2008, order



Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player

11 comments:

Scott said...

Looks like the RIAA caved on this one. The good guys win! Woo hoo! :)

Anonymous said...

Again, it appears that these jerks have cut and run again when it looks like the tables are turning against them.

It could be possible that they did reach a mutual agreement, but I seriously doubt it with the RIAA's past history.

I wonder if the agreement will ever be made public or is it under an NDA.

As an aside to Copyrights and Campaigns (C&C), this type of settlement is exactly what we are wondering what happened. These jerks have the temerity to haul someones good name through the mud, ruin them financially, cause them no amount of stress and other hardship, but in the end the cut and run.

I'm sorry Ray, but if you want to cut out the last part concerning C&C, I understand, but he really needs to see what these slimeballs do to the average joe.

Ray Beckerman said...

And you base that on what?

Anonymous said...

This man questions if this is the second dismissal for this defendant, and as such the case could not be reopened regardless of whether it was in its without prejudice stage, or in its with prejudice stage?

This man also wonders whether this judge was ever informed that this was the second case against this defendant, the first case being the John Doe data-farming case which was dismissed as soon as the veil of privacy was breached?

This man infers without knowing the settlement details that it must have been on grounds favorable to the defendant, even if not an outright defeat for plaintiffs, due to the fact that defendant was winning in his motions to impose counterclaims on the plaintiffs when he accepted settlement. While not certain, it is certainly implied.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Ray Beckerman said...

1. I don't know what you guys are basing your speculation on.

2. I don't have the ability to edit your comments, just to accept them or reject them.

Anonymous said...

Ok Ray. You got me on that (See January 23, 2009 4:56:00 PM EST above). It was more of a reactionary response and for that I apologize.

But I would still love to know what the settlement agreement is/will be about!

ScrewMaster said...

"Atlantic Recording v. Boyer, Florida case in which sufficiency of counterclaims had been upheld, has been settled"

Bummer. I was kinda hoping this one would move forward.

StephenH said...

I had wished this case would have gone to full out trial. I would have loved to see the RIAA have to present forensic evidence to oppose her counterclaims or even an injuction against the labels!

Alter_Fritz said...

Well, it would have been more useful for society/other defendants if that case had proceed, but if she managed to make RIAA pay her at least 50k for her troubles. then I congratulate her non the less for that move to settle.

If of course her lawyer were not able to carve that money out of RIAA and she settled without such monetary relief just so that she made them go away, she acted stupidly!

Ray Beckerman said...

A_F....

Don't ever accuse any of the defendants in these cases of "acting stupidly". There is no right way to handle these horrendous situations.

Anonymous said...

A_F: It's easy for us to say Defendant should have pushed on, just to further the state of precedent in these cases, but that's often not a good thing for Defendant to do. "Sticking it to the RIAA" is not a convincing argument against settling.

John Smith