Slashdot Log In
RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Feb 07, 2007 08:51 PM
from the fight-the-power dept.
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?"
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo 190 comments
VE3OGG writes "The RIAA, in an expected motion, has recently dismissed the case against Patti Santangelo, one of the most famous targets of the RIAA lawsuits. The mother of five was described by the judge presiding as an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.' While this is good news, the RIAA is still pursuing its case against two of Mrs. Santangelo's children. To make matters worse, the RIAA has also dismissed the case 'without prejudice', meaning that they could, in theory, take action against her again later on. The RIAA alleges that Santangelo's children downloaded and subsequently distributed more than 1,000 songs. The damages they seek are presently unknown"
[+]
RIAA Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees 156 comments
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.
[+]
News: Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands 195 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open up your networks! (Score:5, Interesting)
However...
The bit that caught my eye, though, was the quote
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
unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:unsecured WiFi (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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....
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
"Precedent" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:4, Interesting)
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
And now
Insecurity is protection
A few years late, but not unexpected..
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh gods, not "think of the children" again! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open up your networks! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
On Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Could
Re:On Slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA already won (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)