RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees 171
VE3OGG writes "Debbie Foster, one of the many caught-up in the RIAA's drift-net attacks who was sued back in 2004 has recently seen yet another victory. After having the suit dropped against her "with prejudice" several months back, Foster filed a counter-claim, and has just been awarded "reasonable" attorney's fees. Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?"
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:2, Insightful)
On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Could
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see next year, really early
HR 2008 - 0002 "Secure Communication Relating to Existing Wireless Environment Detection" Act.
(i) Owners of a wireless network will be held accountable for all civil and criminal liabilities associated with any unauthorized copyrighted materials on the network....
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent Funny, by all means, but the previous poster raises, IMO, a valid point.
A quick scan of the front page shows two stories with a "could this mean..." summary endings.
IMO prose like this is redundant at best, and anywhere from condescending (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/23 16201 [slashdot.org]) to outright misleading (this article) at the worst, and reads like tabloid journalism and sensationalism at its finest.
I think it rarely adds anything interesting to the article in question, and can be done without.
Just me $0.02
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA already won (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.
And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.
* I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.
ummm... no. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was even suspected that you were hosting an open WiFi point to engage in, or encourage others to engage in an illegal activity I think they could find many ways to make your life miserable. I'm fairly certain that giving others the tools to commit a crime and then standing idly by while they commit it is, in itself, illegal. Maybe harder to prove, seeing as how they would have to prove intent, but still enough to get you in trouble. Especially if they could show that you were knowledgable enough to know what an unsecured network could be used for.
Re:No fines or jail (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, parents are often responsible for their children's actions; if you're the kid of the RIAA gun owner, then yes, the family of the person you killed could sue your parents. This is not an absolute; parents are not always held liable for their kids' actions, but they often are.
Third, even with no relation, it's quite possible and reasonable that if the person you took the gun from didn't secure it properly (for instance, say you found it outside on their lawn), they could be held partially liable.
The RIAA is mostly full of crap on this issue, but your analogy is at least equally flawed.
Re:"Precedent" (Score:4, Insightful)
I see them cited frequently, especially in support of issues of law that haven't been determined at an appellate law. Judges tend not to like to go out on limbs, if you can show them where another judge did something similar, it can make them feel more comfortable about ruling.
Oh gods, not "think of the children" again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop thinking about the children. Think of the actual facts. If you apply more feelings than logic, you know you're on the way to do someone wrong.
Re:RIAA already won (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think they do care. One of their tactics has been to drag things out to where people settle simply because it's cheaper. This decision hurts that tactic two ways. First, it calls into question the RIAA's assertion that merely being the registered owner of the IP address they claim was involved is sufficient. And second, it provides precedent a defendant can cite in future cases for making the RIAA pay defendant's attorney's fees if the RIAA can't prevail. Those two things make it more likely a defendant will take the "Prove it was me at the computer." defense further and go for a win instead of settling. And now it's on the record in an actual ruling by the court. It's a published ruling future defendants can cite as settled case law and which the RIAA will have to overcome. That's one of the things they really really didn't want to have happen, which is why they squirmed so hard to try and avoid a dismissal with prejudice.
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Insightful)
In any case, I don't think "We noticed somebody from this IP address sharing this song at XX time, and the ISP's logs said that was the defendant" is enough. That's why, after all, the RIAA subpoenas the disk drives.
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Ms. Foster gets an award of $55,000, that's an expense on top of the $100,000 or so the RIAA has spent on the case. That's a net loss on this one case of, let's say, $155,000, which would wipe out all the profit from probably a hundred settlements.
Plus the decision will have a ripple effect in other cases. It makes 3 or 4 important legal points about the RIAA's typical legal attack. Judges all across the country are going to be reading it during the next 6 months. I cited it to a judge today, one day after it came down.
Re:Oh gods, not "think of the children" again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RIAA already won (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is what used to be called "good business sense".
Oh, and the MPAA should shut up that one participant that still wants region limiting. I've heard of quite a few execs themselves that region limiting is stupid. Typically, people that travel (i.e. with money to spend) buy a lot of movies on the fly, but only the ones they buy legitimately won't play when they get home from another region. How stupid is that?
DRM, even of this basic kind means that the value of the product is lower to any potential customer. Increasing the potential market to pirates.