RIAA Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees

Fishing Expedition writes in with a story in Ars reporting that the RIAA has decided to appeal a judge's decision to award attorneys' fees to defendant Debbie Foster in Capitol Records v. Foster. If the award stands, the RIAA could find itself in trouble in numerous other cases, and they know it. Their real fear, more than the attorneys' fees, is the judge's finding that the RIAA's arguments for contributory and vicarious infringement claims in cases like this one are not viable.

Re:seeing the light

[H8X55]

These actions indicate RIAA doesn't want to take part in a fair fight.
Makes me want to keep not buying CDs.

Re:Poor arguements!

[gstoddart]

So let's get this straight, if the Judge sticks to his initial decision it will deter other copyright owners from filling more frivolous lawsuits? Heck, that sounds like a good reason to NOT change his mind!

Nope, they're going to claim that their "justified, in-good-faith suits, against people who they have evidence of infringement" (not a real quote) could see some impediment if they have to pay the legal bills of people for whom they have been unable to prove wrong-doing.

They want their cake, and to be able to eat it too. To date, their (and I agree with you) frivolous suits could be brought without proof, and without consequences if they are wrong. If they were wrong, they could just say "ooops, we tried", or, if someone hadn't the resources to even attempt to fight it, I bet they forced more than a few innocent people into settling and accepting blame -- because it would be cheaper than defending yourself.

If anything, this might finally give them some burden for evidentiary responsibility, and they can no longer use their tactics unless they are in posession of real evidence. To date, they can claim anything, put together sketchy evidence ("I have a screen shot"), and bully ISPs into handing over information. I think we all agree they need to be reigned in and given some better ground rules.

Lord only knows how the judge will view this, but let's hope you're right. :-P

Cheers

Re:Why do we have to put up with this crap?

[purpledinoz]

Yes, instead of all these legal terms that I don't understand, I think he should have written the summary in pseudocode.

All jokes aside, I thought it was standard for the loser of a court case to have to pay the winner's lawyer fees. Let me clarify what I'm saying:

if (judge.decision().winner == defendant)
{
defendant.bankbalance += plaintiff.getmoney(defendant.fees);
}

No Precedent Here

[Anna Merikin]

As I RTFA it seems to me although IANAL there is little precedent here except if you are a RIAA codefendant and your daughter has (by defaulting) in effect admitted to downloading the files without your knowledge.

The judge said the RIAA can't go after an innocent (the plaintiff) as well as the known guilty, whose name she turned over to the RIAA early on.

I doubt most of us would qualify for this precedent, but I'd like to hear what a real lawyer thinks.

Re:The way it should be

[SinisterAngel]

The judge isn't the one reversing his order. It would be a court of appeals doing that.

Re:Very difficult for RIAA to win

[UnknowingFool]

In this case the victim's innocence has been proven beyond guilt.
Hence no upper court will overturn attorneys fees as RIAA has been proven wrong.

IANAL but being wrong in a lawsuit does not mean attorney's fees. In most cases no fees are awarded. Why the judge is awarding fees in this case is that despite proof that the defendant's daughter and not the defendant was the infringer, the RIAA chose to pursue the case further against the defendant. Nearly a year later on did they dismiss the case. There is a difference between being wrong after filing a suit and knowingly pursuing a suit that you know is wrong. Also the American Association of Law Libraries (AAL), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Oklahoma, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Public Citizen joinly filed an amicus brief supporting the defendant's right to attorney fees. Their point was that attorney's fees are appropriate to remind the plaintiff that they cannot abuse the judicial system by suing people they know to be innocent.

Re:Frivolous?

[SydShamino]

RTFAs

"Foster said that she owned the account, but that she was completely ignorant of the existence and use of file-sharing software. Foster did say that her adult daughter and estranged husband had access to the account, and may have been responsible for the infringement."

Most legal scholars (and judges, and juries) would agree that no reasonable person would consider a gun safe to give to minors, but for now it's not so clear that an unsupervised internet account is equally unsafe. Regardless, in this case it was an adult daughter.

Re:Frivolous?

[Arker]

The daughter in this case was *not* a minor child, and has already lost her case. The problem was the Mafiaa insisted on pursuing the case against her mother, knowing she was innocent, as well. And now they don't want to have to pay the mothers attorneys fees.

Re:"Premature End Of The Discovery Process" ACTUAL

[Nom du Keyboard]

The RIAA also bemoans what it calls the premature end of the discovery process

More accurately, The the premature end to the fishing expedition attempting to locate the actual person who did the infringement because there's no evidence at all that the already sued Internet account holder ever even touched a computer keyboard themselves, let alone actually committed the infringement, if any!

Remember: Providing files to hired Media Sentry investigators is not copyright infringement under the law!

Re:seeing the light

[PopeRatzo]

The RIAA uses the high cost of defending against one of their lawsuits as a tactic to get people to fold. This is a common approach by plaintiffs with deep pockets: Bring a lawsuit that will cost a fortune to defend, and cause the defendant to either fold or be financially ruined. It's a matter of intimidation by lawsuit.

It seems fair to me that the loser in a nuisance suit is forced to pay the winner's legal costs. A countersuit for damages would be even better.

You got one part wrong, I think

[silicon not in the v]

Generally good, but part of that is just bogus. You said:

All those cases you settled earlier, out of court where no precident was established? They aren't really settled now, unless the duration for appeals has also lapsed. If some Boston Legal sized firm takes one client's case, they will call all the new and old litigants that look promising, put together a whopping big countersuit, and your worst nightmare downside is now, at the very least, several billion dollars.

First of all, there was no court judgement, so there is nothing to appeal. Second, remember what settlement of a lawsuit generally means. I just about guarantee that the RIAA settlement offers included the stipulation that the defendant could not pursue any legal action against them. So those who have settled have already sold off that right.

Re:seeing the light

[ClamIAm]

It's a matter of intimidation by lawsuit.

see also:

ex - tor - tion
noun

1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

(source [reference.com])