Comments on: RIAA suddenly drops student case http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12063 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:47:13 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12063/comment-page-1#comment-137466 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:50:43 +0000 #comment-137466 You're correct, and I've changed it. Thanks. And Cheers! You’re correct, and I’ve changed it.

Thanks. And Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12063/comment-page-1#comment-137464 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:57:05 +0000 #comment-137464 "The RIAA had Nicholas Hightower, his mother, June, and her sister, Rochelle, 58, nicely in the frame as illicit distributors of copyrighted online music. But now they've abandoned their case against Nicholas." if I understand it correctly they had named the case only against his mother as the account holder not against this teenager. He wasn't named as defendant so far in any way. So there was nothing abandoned against him. RIAA just prevented with this voluntarily dismissal that they would get a slap on their hands from yet another judge for their misconduct. (here: untimely notice for depositions of non parties) We could only speculate if Miss Hightower's lawyer were able to make a nondisclosure deal with them about payments to agree to this "oficially everybody pays own costs"-stipulation. Technicly nothing prevents the RIAA to go after the 58 year old sister of the defendant or after this teenager now seperately Since they had'nt a case against Nicholas open they therefor have not abandoned a case against him. But of course it could be me that missunderstood those english technical details. If they will not open a case against the sister or the son now, I'm willing to speculate that RIAA did payed the Hightowers their lawyer costs. Everything else would have been a bad bargain for the Hightowers :-( __ Alter_Fritz “The RIAA had Nicholas Hightower, his mother, June, and her sister, Rochelle, 58, nicely in the frame as illicit distributors of copyrighted online music. But now they’ve abandoned their case against Nicholas.”

if I understand it correctly they had named the case only against his mother as the account holder not against this teenager. He wasn’t named as defendant so far in any way.

So there was nothing abandoned against him. RIAA just prevented with this voluntarily dismissal that they would get a slap on their hands from yet another judge for their misconduct. (here: untimely notice for depositions of non parties)

We could only speculate if Miss Hightower’s lawyer were able to make a nondisclosure deal with them about payments to agree to this “oficially everybody pays own costs”-stipulation.

Technicly nothing prevents the RIAA to go after the 58 year old sister of the defendant or after this teenager now seperately Since they had’nt a case against Nicholas open they therefor have not abandoned a case against him.
But of course it could be me that missunderstood those english technical details.

If they will not open a case against the sister or the son now, I’m willing to speculate that RIAA did payed the Hightowers their lawyer costs. Everything else would have been a bad bargain for the Hightowers :-(

__
Alter_Fritz

]]>