'Suck It,' Appeals tells RIAA. 'Suck It Hard'

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-12-19 06:14pm

CNN Linky

The RIAA's Subpeonas, challenged by Verizon, are smacked down in a 'strong worded' ruling. I suspect the phrase 'You Greedy Fucks' may have been edited from the record.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-12-19 06:19pm

Mmm. The smell of temporary victory. Now they have to go through proper legal channels to continue their abuse of the system.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-12-19 06:20pm

Hahahaha, suck that you motherfucking cock monkeys! RIAA's end is near. It shall fall, fall like the Third Reich.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-19 07:22pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Mmm. The smell of temporary victory. Now they have to go through proper legal channels to continue their abuse of the system.

yea, but it will cost them a fuckload more to actually file lawsuits and sue people instead of just sending them letters saying "gimme your fucking money bitch!"

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2003-12-19 08:38pm

I've got a question: does this decision have any retroactive characteristics? Are the people who settled for $2000 with the RIAA before this ruling going to be reimbursed or are they up shit creek without a paddle?

Sidious · Post by **Sidious** » 2003-12-19 10:06pm

I've got a question: does this decision have any retroactive characteristics? Are the people who settled for $2000 with the RIAA before this ruling going to be reimbursed or are they up shit creek without a paddle?

Exactly what I was wondering. Im guessing the latter.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-12-19 10:26pm

Let me tell you a bit about American civil law.
Once you have "settled" a law suit, it is settled. Meaning the dispute has been resolved, AS AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES IN WRITING, and there will be no more arguements, evidence, ect.. accepted. PERIOD!
It is SETTLED, there is no more dispute in court over the matter, as far as the court is concerned. If you don't like the settlement, TOUGH!
LOSING a case means you can apeal. You did not agree in writing to the outcome.
Apealing after you have settled is unlawful, frivolous, and can get you sued by the other litigant, and prosecuted by the state for "abuse of process".
After you get thrown/laughed/scolded out of court, and instructed to pay the other parties legal bills.
You may end up doing some time for contempt of court, if you don't lose with sufficient grace.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-12-20 04:09am

SirNitram, you have a beautiful talent in regards to thread titles...

And this kind of news is always good to see.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-20 11:07am

Chrostas: Even better with civil court is that if you don't pay the "damages" they can't do shit. There's no way they can force you to pay. Only in criminal court can such things be done.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-20 11:51am

Actully the can. you or te court can put a lean on the other person assets, making it impossible fr them to do anything wth them. No selling, no geting a new car etc.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-20 12:41pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actully the can. you or te court can put a lean on the other person assets, making it impossible fr them to do anything wth them. No selling, no geting a new car etc.

Yeah, but you don't have to pay anyone. ;p

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-12-20 05:27pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actully the can. you or te court can put a lean on the other person assets, making it impossible fr them to do anything wth them. No selling, no geting a new car etc.

Hold on, hold on...all of their assets? Like, you could stop them from being able to pay rent, or buy food?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-20 08:01pm

Andrew J. wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actully the can. you or te court can put a lean on the other person assets, making it impossible fr them to do anything wth them. No selling, no geting a new car etc.
Hold on, hold on...all of their assets? Like, you could stop them from being able to pay rent, or buy food?

In theory, yes. Few judges ever go quiet that far though.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-20 08:05pm

Andrew J. wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actully the can. you or te court can put a lean on the other person assets, making it impossible fr them to do anything wth them. No selling, no geting a new car etc.
Hold on, hold on...all of their assets? Like, you could stop them from being able to pay rent, or buy food?

No, they aren't going to do something like lock down your account, but they can make your life hell -- no new car, no selling the home, no way to get credit, etc. It's also called a "lien," not a "lean."