DescentBB

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7257.html

A sense of relief that the RIAA can't bully people into blackmail.

Except that the RIAA won a default judgment against the mother's daughter.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?fi ... _dismissal

If i'm reading the judgement correctly Jeff.. it's more or less a dismissed case with attorney's fees awarded towards her.

A win by default includes (but not limited to) either the plaintiff or defendant not showing up for trial.

The default judgment comes from the lack of the daughter's response to the RIAA. But since she was appended as a defendant to the claim that was dismissed with prejudice, I think that means both the woman and her daughter are off the hook.

you misspelled \"loses\"

Right DC.. a defendant or plaintiff can include one or more people.

Psst... I'm agreeing with you What I meant was that I think the RIAA shot itself in the foot, thinking \"OK, we'll go after the daughter, let's dismiss the case against the mother\", then the judge turned around and awarded the co-defendants attorneys fees.

Last Two Sentences Under Background wrote:Amanda Foster failed to answer and on December 7, 2005, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against her. The plaintiffs now seek voluntarily to dismiss with prejudice their claims against Deborah Foster. [emphasis added]

The RIAA voluntarily sought to dismiss with prejudice their claims against the mother because the Court already rendered a default judgment against her daughter, so the RIAA already got what they wanted.

Additionally, from what I understand from the PDF, the mother would be eligible for being awarded attorney fees if she was the prevailing party (or winner) because of the type of copyright case that it was. Since the RIAA voluntarily sought to dismiss their claims against the mother, there was no actual winner in the strictest sense, so the RIAA argued that the mother was not eligible for a compensation of attorney fees. In this respect, the Court ruled against the RIAA, that the mother could still be considered the prevailing party and eligible for compensation of attorney fees.

The summary given by NewYorkCountryLawyer in his slashdot submission is clear to me.

Could you be more specific? I don't see where his summary contradicts mine. He doesn't even mention Amanda, the daughter, in his summary, if that is where you are still disagreeing with me. Besides, God bless Slashdot, but their summaries aren't known for being consistently inerrant and unbiased.

these guys are the kings of sticking it to the man.
http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php

KINGS!!