Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News

RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees 171

Posted by samzenpus
from the fight-the-power dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees

Comments Filter:
  • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @08:52PM (#17928726) Journal
    Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing - the judge indicated that the fact the RIAA kept her on as a co-defendent (after they went after her daughter instead) was important in the decision to award costs to Debbie. The strong-arm tactics backfired badly for this particular case - good for her, but not something to discourage the RIAA in general, they'll just have to be a bit less aggressive to defendants.

    However...

    The bit that caught my eye, though, was the quote

     

    Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."


    Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means anyone with an unsecured WiFi network has a strong argument for not being held liable for anything done on that network - it's open, after all. Anyone could drive by, park, download [insert bad stuff here], and drive off. Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.

    It seems the best protection may be none at all. How very Zen.

    Simon
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by HvitRavn (813950)
      That is a very intruiging thought, and counters what many of the people I know fear the most - getting dragged to court for something they haven't done. One problem is though, such a precedent can also be used to protect criminals such as spammers, frauds, and so on.
      • by David Gould (4938) <david@dgould.org> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:48PM (#17929188) Homepage

        One problem is though, such a precedent can also be used to protect criminals such as spammers, frauds, and so on.
        Don't forget child molesters.

        • An entity known as David Gould (4938) wrote:

          Don't forget child molesters.
          What if you leave your keys in your car? If a child molester uses it to go see a child, should you be held responsible?

          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.
        • Oh snap, you've found a problem. I guess we should make all of this "sue and drop the case against anyone who doesn't settle on our terms" stuff legal. I mean, I might have to deal with some spam emails in my inbox. I guess you're right though, clicking "delete" 5 times a day outweighs the benefits of actually being able to listen to my music without fear of getting sued at any moment.

          (And for those of you who can't tell, that was all sarcastic)
        • by Weedlekin (836313)
          "Don't forget child molesters."

          And terrorists.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Machtyn (759119)
        While it may be true that the computer illiterate probably won't be held liable for their unsecured network, if the **AA can prove you DO know what you are doing, you won't be able to get away with it. Particularly, if you found out how to secure your system and didn't act on it within a reasonable amount of time.
        • by iwan-nl (832236) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @04:16AM (#17931822) Homepage

          While it may be true that the computer illiterate probably won't be held liable for their unsecured network, if the **AA can prove you DO know what you are doing, you won't be able to get away with it. Particularly, if you found out how to secure your system and didn't act on it within a reasonable amount of time.

          Why is that? Is it illegal to have an open access point?

          I definitely know how to secure my wireless network, but I choose not to. I want people visiting my place to be able to easily connect to my network and the internet. Exchanging lengthy WPA keys every time is too much of a hassle.

          • by Tim C (15259)
            Why is that? Is it illegal to have an open access point?

            Today? No.

            Tomorrow?
    • unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @08:57PM (#17928778) Homepage Journal
      Even if its secure, its not that hard to break into it anyway.. or just directly compromise your pc with a trojan.. So really in ANY situation you can claim it wasnt you, quite reasonably.

      Now, that said, if they get a search warrant and strip your house bare and find that 'backup' cd hidden away with one of the files in question, your quite logical defense melts away like an ice cube in hell.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        That, and a conviction of perjury.
        • Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Sj0 (472011) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:23PM (#17929014) Homepage Journal
          If Bill Gates and Steve Balmer can lie in court without getting charged, why not the rest of us?
          • Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Drooling Iguana (61479) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:34PM (#17929094)
            Because the rest of us are commoners. Different set of rules.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by tmossman (901205)
            Money. Almost pretend amounts of money.
          • because the rest of us don't have the power to declare, "those aren't lies; those are simply improvements on the current standards of truth."
      • That means no search warrants.
        • by nurb432 (527695)
          Ah, but you forget the push to make it a criminal issue... I dont doubt they will manage at some point.

          And there is that rule that if its over a certain amount it does become a criminal manner. This is why they claim such silly amounts of damages for a SINGLE file.. To get it pushed over that line almost automatically.

    • by nebaz (453974) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:14PM (#17928940)
      Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."

      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....
      • by Elminst (53259) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:23PM (#17929016) Homepage
        Alas, my mod points disappeared today... Or I would have given you an "Insightful" for most accurate acronym for a US law, ever.
        • by StikyPad (445176)
          HR?
        • Or I would have given you an "Insightful" for most accurate acronym for a US law, ever.

          I do agree with you, but I think CAN-SPAM is still the winner. It says what it does and does what it says. :(
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Harin_Teb (1005123)
        I'm not sure if the author intended parent to be funny or not, but its definately more of a serious concern than a joke. We all know congress has a propensity for knee-jerk legislation with poorly thought out long term consequences... I'd say more scary than funny.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Neat. I just have to drive by the headquarters of some large company, poke around for an unsecured or poorly secured WAP, send massive amounts of spam with, oh, say pictures of kiddy porn with the subject "I know you'll like this!", and the company will be held liable for the criminal activities.

        Let's see them modify the law to state "...will be held accountable unless you're a big company".

        I guess that's ultimately what will happen, only with wording that will make it less obvious. Sadly, the United Stat
    • by AlHunt (982887) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:14PM (#17928942) Homepage Journal

      Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing
      Nope. From Yesterdays Portsmouth Herald [seacoastonline.com], an Augusta, Maine man has been sued by the RIAA for distributing 5 allegedly pirated songs. The article says 18,000 lawsuits have been filed since 9/03, 6 of them in Maine.
    • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:19PM (#17928988) Homepage
      However, this has no bearing on direct infringement.

      Leaving a WAP open for anyone to use is not a viable way to defend yourself from infringement suits concerning your direct infringement (as opposed to indirect infringement, which is what the court was talking about). This is because in civil copyright suits there is no such thing as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The standard of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities,' i.e. whatever is most likely (even if only 51% likely as compared to 49% likely), is what happened.

      In fact, in order to use the open WAP to help yourself, you'd have to prove that someone else probably is the infringer, and not you. The plaintiff can get a lot of help from the fact that you, as the owner of the WAP, a person who is very often in its range, and probably a frequent Internet user, probably do use it the most and probably are the infringer. It's tough for you to argue that someone else did the deed, especially if you don't have anything to point to other than that it's open. In fact, just because it's open doesn't even mean anyone else ever uses it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by networkBoy (774728)
        I live in an apartment.
        My open WAP could (and has) been used like a cheap whore by many people.
        Alas, the transparent proxy has thwarted many attempts at pure stupidity (using my WAP to do your banking is asking for it), thus https is blocked by default (as is port 21, and 25, and bittorrent).

        -nB
      • by cfulmer (3166) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:42PM (#17929648) Homepage Journal
        Well, that's part of the calculus. If you're a 75-year-old grandmother with an open network, chances are that no jury is going to think that it's more likely than not that you were the one downloading gangster rap.

        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.

        • by Shakrai (717556)

          That's why, after all, the RIAA subpoenas the disk drives.

          Shit! Too bad I mine died and went to Seagate for a warranty replacement.

          • by cfulmer (3166)
            Yeah, well, that's a problem. If you get a subpoena, you have to preserve the evidence or be found it contempt of court. And, the evidence that you have a new hard drive will probably be considered as well.

            I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if somebody set up a wide-open wireless network, but didn't have ANY computer attached to it.

            • by Shakrai (717556)

              Yeah, well, that's a problem. If you get a subpoena, you have to preserve the evidence or be found it contempt of court.

              They have to file the case before they can get a subpoena and odds are that I'll have some leadtime.

              Even without it, dump the HD and replace it with one purchased with cash. Good luck boys....

              • by cfulmer (3166)
                I would suggest talking with an attorney before doing that. First of all, what you're suggesting is most likely illegal. And, secondly, you're very likely to be caught -- "Hmm.... Except for OS files, there's nothing on this computer older than 2 weeks, but the computer itself is 2 years old."
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jstomel (985001)
        Wait a minute, wouldn't you only have to prove that you are not likely the offender, not that some particular person else is? For instance, wouldn't being a 72 year old grandmother who regularly had numerious neighborhood kids over be a defense, even if you couldn't say "this particular kid probably did it"? I think any reasonable jury would agree to that. Perhaps leaving your WEP open isn't enough, but making sure that people more likely than you use it is.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Evilest Doer (969227)

      Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.
      Ssshhh!!!! Don't give Alberto Gonzales any ideas!
    • "Precedent" (Score:5, Informative)

      by spiritraveller (641174) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:28PM (#17929054)
      Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means ...

      Some explaining is in order.

      I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.

      "Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.

      That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.

      Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.

      I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.

      A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis [wikipedia.org], and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.

      While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Sure you are a lawyer? You are looking up the wrong tree and missing what the RIAA *really* fears. "Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel" means the judge's decision is binding in any case in the future the RIAA brings. Once a party loses a legal argument, it is stuck with that outcome, and can't keep relitigating the same question. To avoid this, they will have to appeal, and while the case is under appeal, get the plaintiff to settle the appeal with a "vacatur" to vacate or "erase" the trial court's opinion.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Sure you are a lawyer?

          I didn't say I was a lawyer. I might be.

          Regardless, it's quite obvious that YOU are not a lawyer.

          "Non Mutual Collateral Estoppel" means the judge's decision is binding in any case in the future the RIAA brings.

          Collateral estoppel refers to the principle that a party may not relitigate an issue that has already been determined in another case.

          So, the RIAA will not be allowed to relitigate the question of whether Debbie Foster is entitled to attorney's fees.

          Whoop-de-frickin-doo!
      • Re:"Precedent" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:12PM (#17929384) Homepage
        While I agree with most of what you said, federal district court decisions, while not binding precedent, are useful. So I would classify them as being significantly more valuable than "don't mean much", though obviously they're still just persuasive.

        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.
    • by Rodyland (947093) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:28PM (#17929056)
      It seems the best protection may be none at all. How very Zen.

      War is peace

      Freedom is slavery

      Ignorance is strength

      And now

      Insecurity is protection

      A few years late, but not unexpected..

    • Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing...

      Sad but true - although Duke (the trainer) in Rocky IV lays it out pretty well..

      "You cut him! You hurt him! You see? You see? He's not a machine, he's a man!" - Rocky IV

      The same thing can now be said about the RIAA - they're not infallible and their BS can be given back to them, even with prejudice.
    • ummm... no. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mungtor (306258) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:01PM (#17929272)
      And if you're planning on killing somebody, just leave a loaded gun on your front porch. Then anybody could have done it! An airtight defense if I ever saw one.

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CmdrGravy (645153)
        +5 Insightful ?

        A gun is not a Wifi connection, the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill things ( which in some cases may be legal but in the majority of cases is not ) whereas a Wifi connection is a perfectly reasonable thing for anyone to run perfectly legal.

        I would imagine that leaving your guns lying around on your porch is already illegal in most places whereas there is nothing illegal about running Wifi hubs. You are basically suggesting that accidentally leaving your car unlocked and it then bei
        • In America, leaving guns lying around the porch is normally legal. It's not sensible, esp. if those guns are loaded; it could lead to sits. that are illegal; but the mere presence of guns on the porch isn't illegal.
        • by Skye16 (685048)
          The sole purpose is to shoot and kill things?

          Wow. Out of the tens of thousands of rounds I fired in my life, I've shot and killed precisely 2 things.

          I mean, by your logic, a sword is used for one, and only one, thing; killing things. Funny how many people own swords or take fencing classes in college and have never actually killed *anything* with it.

          (I'm sorry, but you're wrong. G'day.)
    • by GodInHell (258915) *

      Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means anyone with an unsecured WiFi network has a strong argument for not being held liable for anything done on that network - it's open, after all. Anyone could drive by, park, download [insert bad stuff here], and drive off. Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.

      It's just a holding.. if it's cited by a judge in the process of constructing a future ruling, it becomes a "precendent" in the meaning I think you're suggesting.

      It's not really a binding precendent until a court above the court you're arguing in front of rules the same way. It is persuasive though.. to judges that respect that court.

      -GiH

    • How very Christian:

      "If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn the other, that he may strike it, as well." .. "Make no effort to resist evil." .. "If they ask you to walk with them a mile, walk with them two miles." .. "If they sue you at the law and ask for your shirt, give them your cloak, as well, and don't ask for it back."

      It could well be argued that not securing your networks is the Christian thing to do. (applying the "turn the other cheek" to "hackers" and "network piggybackers") It could also be argu
    • But you know what the RIAA's next step in either situation will be... If they can't win in the courts under the current laws, just change the laws.

      You know the morning after this verdict was released there would have been a line of lobbiests on the steps of Congress. Sad, sad times when money means influence.
      • It's not going to be so easy this time around.

        Suits against grandmas, children, and disabled people aren't politically popular.

        A Democratic majority isn't as easily purchased as a Republican one.

        The Democratic majority has actually changed the rules a bit, so that corrupt lobbying is going to be much more difficult in this Congress.

  • On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @08:57PM (#17928772)
    Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?

    Could /. stop ending summaries with "Could this be the end of <something most /. readers think is bad>?"?
    • by josteos (455905) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:07PM (#17928876)

      Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?

      Could /. stop ending summaries with "Could this be the end of <something most /. readers think is bad>?"?
      Could /. posters stop asking other /. posters to stop summarizing articles with "Could this be the end of <something evil>?"?
      • Re:On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rodyland (947093) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:21PM (#17929002)
        Could /. posters stop asking other /. posters to stop summarizing articles with "Could this be the end of ?"?

        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

        • It seems to me that the taggers often reply to the summary question.

          Google Apps to Become Paid Service
          "Could this be the end of a monopoly? Or the start of a new one?"
          And the tags are (currently) "no, yes". So people think Microsofts monopoly will continue? and that Google will start one?
        • IMO prose like this is redundant at best
          I don't think it's all that bad. Remember, slashdot thrives on comments. Often these questions, however nonsensical they are, invite lots of discussion.
    • Could /. stop ending summaries with "Could this be the end of <something most /. readers think is bad>?"?

      The parent post talks about summaries with endings that he doesn't like. Could this be the end of /. ending summaries with "Could this be the end of..."?

    • by Kjella (173770)
      So in summary: Could this be the end of /. ending summaries with "Could this be the end of ?"?
  • About time. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WiiVault (1039946)
    Great news, I just wish she had gone for pain and suffering, harassment, and libel (or something like it). Get those greedy bastards to set her up for life and we'll see how many more suits they file. Fuck you RIAA!
    • by westlake (615356)
      Great news, I just wish she had gone for pain and suffering, harassment, and libel (or something like it). Get those greedy bastards to set her up for life and we'll see how many more suits they file. Fuck you RIAA!

      going into court with revenge or greed as your objective (to be "set up for life") is why judges instinctively resist awards for pain and suffering, etc. too nebulous, too easily abused.

      the courts are a very conservative institution.

      issues are progressively narrowed, not enlarged as cases pro

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @09:52PM (#17929216) Homepage
    They love big and overly-inflated numbers when they cite losses. They might as well hand over a big and overly-inflated number to this lady in damages.
  • RIAA already won (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meme lies (1050572) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:01PM (#17929270)
    Do you honestly think the RIAA gives a damn? They would rather win, yes, but this isn't about the relatively trivial (to them) judgements and legal costs. This was a P.R. campaign. They wanted parents to stop their kids from downloading gig upon gig from Kazaa. They wanted colleges to monitor what their students were up to on the networks. They wanted the average user to always have a nagging fear every time they went to Limewire.

    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.
    • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:37PM (#17929592) Homepage

      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:RIAA already won (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <[ray] [at] [beckermanlegal.com]> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @10:47PM (#17929680) Homepage Journal
        You are exactly right, Todd. This is a major precedent. In fact, I cited it in court papers today -- the day after the ruling came down.
      • by mpe (36238)
        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.

        Possibly only in the case of the RIAA dr
        • They have never thought about restricting themselves to cases they can win, because they never let a case get that far. They never win, they never lose. They try to just wear people down. In the tough cases, like Capitol v. Foster, they torture the defendant as long as they can, then drop the case.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Trust me.

      They give a damn.

    • by StikyPad (445176)
      they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized

      Sounds like the work of Stygmies.
  • Is Oklahoma a state with Anti-SLAPP laws? If so, she can also file a motion for punitive damages. That would be sweet.
  • The RIAA's tactics are very simple: they want to scare people into compliance with their business model by threatening them with onerous litigation. The money won is insignificant to them. Paying the occasional set of costs is likewise insignificant.

    The only thing that will stop them is if some appelate Court rules that their drift-net technique is insufficient grounds to advance a case and upholds summary dismissal. So they don't appeal!

    • Wrong.
      Capitol v. Foster scares them a lot.
      • by redelm (54142)
        Why? Do you think they care about paying 50 k$? No way. What they might worry about is other judges picking up on the interpretation of costs being equiptably determined.

  • In the other dismissals that the court looked at, Priority and Darwin in particular, attorney's fees weren't granted on the theory that the direct infringement suit against the owner of the Internet account was initially reasonable. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND IN ANY FUTURE CASE. Why? By now, there are many examples where the likely actual likely infringer is NOT the owner of the Internet account traced by Media Sentry. One cannot reasonably claim that the owner of the account should always be s

There is no distinction between any AI program and some existent game.

Working...