Slashdot Log In
RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jul 13, 2006 08:47 PM
from the injecting-sanity dept.
from the injecting-sanity dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma, a case against a mother -- whose only connection to the alleged filesharing was that she was the person who paid for the internet access -- has been dismissed with prejudice. Faced with the mother's motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion dismissing the case against her, and awarding her attorneys fees, the RIAA made its own motion for permission to withdraw its case. The Court granted the motion and let the RIAA drop its case. The Court went on to hold that the defendant, Ms. Foster, is the 'prevailing party' under the Copyright Act and is therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. The Court then indicated that it would decide the attorneys fees award question upon receipt of a motion for attorneys fees."
Related Stories
[+]
EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror' 215 comments
nanday writes "What happens when the RIAA prosecutes people for alleged illegal music downloads? In an article on Newsforge (also owned by OSTG), lawyer Ray Beckerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the RIAA's favorite tactics, and why they play fast and loose with the law. Beckerman also explains why two of these cases may stop the RIAA in its tracks - and what you can do for help." From the article: "In UMG vs. Lindor, the defendant 'is a home house-aid who's never even used a computer,' according to Beckerman. 'She's never operated a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer. And yet she is being pursued as an online distributor in peer-to-peer file sharing.' Since Beckerman became involved in the case after it had gone to federal court, he has tried to learn the details of the charges -- so far with little success. 'The RIAA is trying to conceal the information about how it conducts its investigation,' he says. 'They have stalled every discovery request we've made' -- presumably because to reveal this information would also reveal the weakness of all the similar cases."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)
More people need to do this. They can't possibly mount lawsuits against all the people they target. If a sufficient percentage resist, they'll have to stop their campaign of terror.
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
"SHE" shouldn't get dime one... except for maybe some time that she met with the attorney's.... THE LAWYERS will get LOTS of $$$$... So, Who really wi
Re:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
> If you are being sued, and a lawyer protects you from the lawsuit,
> and the lawyer gets his or her fees paid for having accomplished something good,
> why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.
I don't know the OP's reasons for resenting the lawyer'
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because in the vast majority of cases, the RIAA's lawsuits are, actually, legitimate (that is, copyright infringement has occurred, the person sued did do it, there is enough evidence against the defendent for a civil suit to be successful), and therefore the "army of lawyers" would spend most of their time protecting freeloaders rather than the collateral damage that this mother supposedly represents.
You might just as well ask why there isn't an army of lawyers taking up pro-bono arms against the cops and AG, after all, we all know the state routinely convicts innocent people, often being actively misleading about the evidence. It's for the same reason: yes, that happens, but it's the minority case.
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:4, Insightful)
tw: "OBJECTED" He objected to the lawyers getting all the money.
Re:Uh... No? Or The Truth About Legal Fees. (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't pass it along to me, since I stopped buying their crap years ago and don't intend to start back up again any time soon!
Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering they won a default judgement against the daughter (if you RTFA) I think the RIAA will still come out ahead.
Default judgments (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Default judgments (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody got the bittorrent of the CourtTV coverage (Score:5, Funny)
A better method to punish copyright infringement (Score:5, Funny)
Man bites dog! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man bites dog! (Score:3, Informative)
They must have known it.
If they didnt, their lawyers shouldnt really be practicing law.
However, i suspect this real reason this went as far as court was that they were trying to scare this woman into paying out,
Tying in your obligatory quotes and pop culture. (Score:5, Funny)
How Representative Stevens' lawyer would ask the judge for his fees to be compensated (if he were the defendent's lawyer in this particular case):
Lawyer: You see, Judge, when I go to the local branch of my bank, I can't just drive up with a pile of cash on the bed of my truck. You see, they've got these TUBES, and the money has to fit in them, and , and, it's - well they're TUBES!
Judge: I could give you a direct deposit.
Lawyer: Well, here's the thing, Judge. I got a direct deposit sent by my staff person last Friday, and it didn't show up in my account until this morning. WHY?
Judge: Banks are closed on weekends.
And for you Simpsons fans (which would be everybody here, right?):
Judge: This court fines you 1 million dollars
Burns: Smithers, my wallet is in my back pocket. Oh, and I'll take that statue of justice, too.
Judge (slamming gavel on podium): SOLD!
Solid ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
While she has to specifically file for attorney's fees, I'm sure she will. Even though the bar is set fairly high in that the court shall not award fees "routinely or as a matter of course", the standard of review (almost certainly abuse of discretion) means that if the court awards them, it'll be almost impossible to overturn.
Sharks win (Score:5, Insightful)
protection money they received from those who settled.
The only ones winning with all of this are the lawyers, as usual.
Re:Sharks win (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you miss my point, atleast the mother won. Far more than her lawyer atleast.
It is not the victory portrayed by the story (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA initially sued the mother. When the mother said it was not her, but her daughter who had done the downloading, they sued the daughter instead *and won*. (by default - this was not defended.)
This is just about tidying up the suit against the mother. The RIAA asked to be allowed to drop the suit, and was allowed to do so (with prejudice - i.e. they have lost). The court finds that the mother is "eligible" for costs, at the court's discretion, but "such eligibility does not equate to entitlement" and "attorney fees are not to be awarded routinely or as a matter of course." The court has not yet decided on fees, it has just not yet rejected the idea - the mother can apply for an award of fees, and the matter will be decided then.
Re:It is not the victory portrayed by the story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Important legal precedent (Score:3, Informative)
'Exceptional circumstances include such situations as where a plantiff makes a practice of repeatedly bringing claims and then dismissing with prejudice "after inflicting substantial litigation costs on the opposing party and the judicia
Re:It is not the victory portrayed by the story (Score:3, Interesting)
Then the mom could have hired the daughter to defend her case, RIAA drops the case, is forced to pay legal fees, which then go to the daughter......... to pay back RIAA in a settlement.
Follow that?
Open WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open WiFi (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the AUP expressly forbids wifi sharing. You mi
Re:Open WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA should know better (Score:4, Insightful)
See Priority v. Chan [p2pnet.net]
Basically it sounds like you have to sue the person who allegedly committed the offence. The RIAA needs to refile against the right person.
If someone phones in a bomb threat, you prosecute the person who made the call, not the person who pays the phone bill, right?
Mom walks ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm amazed that the judge permitted a default judgment against a minor in the first place, but then in civil courts you don't have rights, you merely have privleges that you pay for.
Irony in the works... (Score:3, Funny)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/consoneo/R
Circumventing the RIAA at the source (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a win for all involved and puts the RIAA affiliates in the light they deserve to be - Mind over matter. The radio station, listeners and musicians don't mind the RIAA dregs because it doesn't matter. These bands/musicians get the exposure they so desperately need and deserve and get a change to get signed by a indie label (or an RIAA label if they see fit to). Where the RIAA/labels are concerned they are dealing with musicians that have decidedly more leverage than they may have had without this exposure.
I for one welcome and highly advocate this trend. Personally I may not get any airtime. But at least I have an even shot and the "listeners" will decide my musics' marketability, not some coked out narssicistic R&A rep. And if I don't fair well with the listeners, perhaps I'll get an objective critique, which is something I likely wouldn't get by and "industry" goon.
This latest advent in court shows two things as far as I'm concerned. 1) they're getting desperate. 2) It just goes to show how out of touch these morons are - they just set precedenct. Unfortunately for themselves (the RIAA legal team) it's in the opposite direction they had intended. Next time some innocent gets randomly targeted by these clueless idiots their lawyer will have a tool to use against the RIAA - and all thanks to the RIAA's efforts. It's nice when the thugs hand you a gun! Bang! Bang! Baby!
Re:Attorney fees (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like the RIAA was worried that this woman was going to get fees awarded and then decided to withdraw - they basically got a judgement against the woman's daughter (daughter failed to enter a response, and a default judgement was awarded). Having already 'won' their case against the daughter, they withdrew the case against the mother. There was some squabble as to exactly how that should be done, and the court found that because the action was brought under copyright acts, and the mother was the prevailing party, the mother is *eligible* for an award of fees. The court also notes, however, that "under the statute, attorney fees are not to be awarded routinely or as a matter of course." I would be very suprised if she actually gets fees paid...
Re:Attorney fees (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wondering.
Re:Attorney fees (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, just the way things seem to be going lately.
I deplore the trend to advance corporate profits/outmoded business models over individual's freedoms and fair use, it is a trend none t
Re:Attorney fees (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:5, Insightful)
plausible denyability then ensues. you can't be held responsible if you, by policy, don't protect your net connection. they can't prove it was you who 'did the bad thing'. the worst they can do is call you a bad sysadmin
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why more so than the owners of an Internet cafe, or any business that provides free or paid wifi? Or for that matter, any ISP? Providing one more access point when there are literally millions already is hardly enabling crime.
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is: you do. The world is what you make of it, with your choices, your actions, your intentions, your dreams, and your vision (no, not your eyeballs, but how you view the world).
Too many people forget that were born with the capacity to think and that unlike the other animals, thinking is a requirement of our survival - not to obtain food and shelter, but to build societies. Ethics and morality aren't the purview of philosophers and hermits, they are the practical application, every day, of what works to build a culture and what doesn't.
Re:yay (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yay (Score:5, Interesting)
Anecdote: Legal issues aside, within the past five years I've spent $20 or so on music CDs (about two)... when I found out about allofmp3, I spent over $100 in less than two weeks. It was convenient, reasonably priced, and let me choose how I wanted my music. I've tried downloading songs from iTunes, and I don't care for it. I make decent money and I don't mind paying reasonable prices for music, but let me have it how I want it please!
Re:yay (Score:5, Funny)
I can't: I'm at work.
Mission Not Accomplished (Score:5, Interesting)