Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
06/26/09
06/26/09
Additionally, Roy should consider an action against the RIAA and its attorneys individually (the firms and the individual attorneys) for malicious prosecution.
I wouldn't sue the trackers; leave impleading them to the RIAA attorneys. You split the defense as RIAA points at the trackers and the named attorneys and the trackers point back at RIAA. A good litigator turns the defendants against themselves.
06/26/09
06/26/09
Be that as it may, at a bare minimum, she should have sued and would have (obviously) been awarded all court costs and attorney fees involved, and for any lost wages spent with attorney meetings and attending court to fight a false claim by the plaintiff... And as another poster mentioned (and the story pointed out), a counter-suit for punitive damages for false accusations and defamation of character held in front of a jury tired of hearing RIAA horror stories would have resulted in an award that would continue haunting them for all remaining cases that were pending. (And in spite of settling out of court, I have never understood why a good lawyer couldn't bring up facts introduced in another court, even if the case never completed with a court decision? After all, facts are facts, even if a defendant or plaintiff chose not to complete the process.)
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09