RIAA prefers to dismiss cases rather than back up their claims in court

[Darth Sushi]

Found this link from DOOM9.net about the RIAA's tendency to dismiss a case when it actually goes to trial instead of "settling-out-of-court." Perhaps the RIAA is just a paper tiger.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp...ster_dismissal

[Appzalien]

I read that whole boring statement and it appeared to me that Miss Fosters counter suit must have had enough merit to scare the bejeebers out of the riaa lawyers. The last thing they want is someone successfully counter suing them. So to cut her off at the ankles, they dropped the suit and ineffect put the brakes on her counter suit. But I saw no sign of a paper tiger here, rather a sly fox, twisting the law in its favor. It may have had something to do with her daughter being a minor and the one who downloaded the music.

[lynx]

I foresee a big problem with that ruling, and it seems to me to be a basic failing with US law, and may go some way to explain why litigation in the US is so profligate.

Effectively the ruling says that if someone sues you but subsequently withdraws, then you may be eligible but not necessarily entitled to recover your expenses if they withdraw with prejudice.

That's absolute crap. If you sue someone, then you should be responsible for the costs if you lose, and withdrawing with prejudice is effectively admitting you would lose.

This ruling is no real setback for the RIAA since they can repeat the procedure, as long as they do not target the same defendant. Effectively they are saying if you don't agree then we will bankrupt you with legal fees.

What a crazy system you have over there.