Friday, March 14, 2008

Lafayette, Louisiana, case, Warner v. Lewis, ends in $3000 default judgment

In Warner v. Lewis, the Lafayette, Louisiana, case in which the judge initially rejected the RIAA's written default judgment application, but a new "hearing outline" was submitted by the RIAA's new counsel, the judge ultimately awarded plaintiffs a default judgment of $3000, plus court costs of $420, and an injunction.

March 11, 2008, default judgment*

* 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


raybeckerman said...

You called it, anonymous Q.

Jadeic said...

I am intrigued as to why the RIAA dropped the track 'UMG Recordings, Inc. - One Way Cutie Pie - Who's foolin' who? - 34-505' that was included on the original Exhibit A list. Was this to reduce the statutory minimum payment level (4 x $750) to the nominal $3000 extorted by the settlement centre. Could this *gasp* be an example of kindness on behalf of the RIAA? I suspect a darker motive but just can't figure it at the moment. Now, though, is the time to press for clarification on the status of ripped CD tracks that I raised on the earlier post on this case. I would gladly gift a copy of any of the CDs on the Exhibit Lists to Lewis Jr to put this issue to the test.

It also seems unlikely that any of the 'oral reasons' presented at the hearing on 11 March will be available on PACER. As I commented elsewhere I think we came to this one too late to have any possibility of input.

Although it did have the slight hiatus of the judge's initial denial of the RIAA attempt of a default judgement, this case has followed true to form in the State of Louisiana where the RIAA are racking up dozens of similar judgements against a largely ill-informed and under-represented populace. Many of the case papers I have read make it distressing clear how naive the majority of the victims are.

If it is the RIAA avowed intention to educate its customers copyright law with prosecution only used as a last resort then they are failing conspicuously in he State of Louisiana. The local print media in Lafayette 'The Advertiser' appears not to have covered a single story related to the RIAA, copyright, downloading etc. Nor does the largest circulation newspaper in the state, the New Orleans 'Times' fare much better in its coverage - concentrating primarily on what appears to be a rampant bootlegging problem in the city.

I think we put this one behind us and move to more promising battlegrounds.

Alter_Fritz said...

It wasn't hard for Q to predict the outcome in the earlier post which is what you are probably refering to Ray.

However that is just another loss for the RIAA and the labels they are doing this for!

While they might have won 3k bucks from this guy
-money from which non of the artists that works were allegedly infringed will see a single penny!!-
I am willing to bet they lost just another customer that might have bought "corporate product" in his lifetime for worth much more then $3000 if the labels via their mouthpiece R.I.A.A. hadn't alienated this guy like tens of thousands of others before him via their settlement demands!

They really don't see the writing on the wall!

If they continue this way, Mr. Doctorow's question
-that is strangely cited more often these last few days- :-)
might become reality more earlier/harder then they are able to survive:

At what point do we just abandon any pretense of making peace with these gangsters? When will it be time to declare war on them, to engage in file-sharing not because we love music, but because we hate the record companies? --- Cory Doctorow

Anonymous said...

Until someone wins a trial, or gets a dismissal based on the "making available" BS, the default cases are likely to go this way. At least, that's my un-law-educated opinion.

That and having your mom rat you out doesn't help.


Anonymous said...

Am I correct in assuming that the court did not actually award plaintiffs court costs, but actually assessed those fees against the defendant payable to the court?

Alter_Fritz said...

Ben, you are not (IANAL, just a good guesser that seems to be often right given that Ray hadn't deleted comments of mine for rule8 violations, but only rule7 so far) :-)

Since the plaintiffs already payed that "costs" to the judiciary it's plaintiffs who will try to collect that part toofor themself.