Thursday, August 24, 2006

RIAA Drops Stubbs Case in Oklahoma One Day After Receiving Defendant's Answer & Counterclaim!

In Warner v. Stubbs, in Oklahoma, the defendant filed her answer and counterclaim against the RIAA on August 23, 2006. In it she likened the RIAA's tactics to "extortion".

The very next day, on August 24, 2006, the RIAA turned around and asked the Judge for permission to withdraw its case:

Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss*

* Document available online at Internet Law & Regulation

Ms. Stubbs is represented by Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the same lawyer who represents Deborah Foster in Capitol v. Foster.

Additional coverage and commentary:

Tech Dirt
Ars Technica

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


Unknown said...

Veddy interesting....we know the riaa is very good at intimidation, but now it looks like they're also running away from's also starting to look like you guys may be on to something here...

raybeckerman said...

Well certainly Marilyn Barringer-Thomson has gotten their attention.

Alter_Fritz said...

so the "schoolyard bully" found another one that stands up agianst him and the bully runs away?

so then i guess Ms. Stubbs is the "winner" regarding copyright law. lets write the bill to the RIAA now!

CodeWarrior said...

To paraphrase Forrest Gump...



Alter_Fritz said...

to (someway) quote a comment on the Digg article

So these RIAA (well known and respected record companies) want their case dropped without prejudice and at the same time asking the judge to drop the counterclaim WITH prejudice
let's hope the judge does not allow this awful RIAA tactic! And rules that Ms. Stubbs is the prevailing party with regards to copyright law and that Ms. Stubbs will get her attorney fees paid by the RIAA.

Otherwise those (well known and respected record companies) will "play" this big money vs. average people extortion business for decades!
It must be possible to fight against them and not accept their 3750$ extortion money if you are not guilty but can't afford a regular lawsuit where THEY must prove your wrongdoing!

StephenH said...

I think they are afraid of a defendant setting a precedent, which means that they would have to forensically prove a person is an infringer, which would cost them lots of $$$, and may lead to cases which may return "Not guilty: verdicts. If too many of these cases are ruled "not guilty", then their campaign is in danger.

BasicTek said...

I read the RIAA dismissal papers, and they have not 1 reason why they should be left off the hook for a counter claim. All they mention is other cases which have nothing to do with their extortion practices.