Sunday, August 02, 2009

SONY v Simms, Atlanta case against pro se litigant, settled

It appears that SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Simms, an Atlanta, Georgia, case against a pro se litigant, has been settled. The terms of the settlement are not known.

Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice



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

7 comments:

Another Kevin said...

Can someone explain to an ignorant layman what's up with the RIAA insisting on dismissal "without prejudice" and the defendants' agreeing to it? It appears to me that either Rule 41(a)1(B) applies (a second voluntary dismissal of the same action acts as an adjudication on the merits), in which case the "without prejudice" is without effect; or else that the "without prejudice" language means that the RIAA is simply free to refile suit, in which case the paying of the settlement is without effect. What defendant would pay to make a suit go away today, only to have it come back tomorrow?

What am I missing?

Sebastien said...

Right after the fiasco we refer to as the Tenenbaum case got finished?

I'd be willing to bet that any pro se defendants who were considering fighting, are probably looking at that 5k settlement, and thinking. You know that's not so bad.

Anonymous said...

I only hope that these two dismissals are not in response to the only two cases that made it to trial.

Anonymous said...

I hope these settlements aren't defendants buckling under after seeing two crushing and ridiculous "judgements" meted out in the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases.

Anonymous said...

I expect to see many more such settlements in the coming weeks.

Your thoughts?

Ray Beckerman said...

Dear Another Kevin,

The defendant didn't have an attorney. Maybe she didn't know what that means.

Or maybe there was going to be a delay in payment, and the dismissal "with prejudice" would come only after payment had been received.

Ray Beckerman said...

These settlements I am sure have nothing whatsoever to do with the trials.