RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed 236
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."
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:Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Man bites dog! (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers are lucky. (Score:1, Insightful)
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 $$$$... So, Who really wins? (Except for haveing a precident, as stated below...) The Lawyers... Once again, the lawyers get lots of $$$ and we still are getting the shaft... Just like the Tobacco settlements... States burned most of that money... Lawyers were made multi-millionaires because of their "fees"
Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers... everywhere I think.
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It is not the victory portrayed by the "/.". (Score:1, Insightful)
Gee, I can't imagine why. Now maybe all those "you can't win. They're too powerful. Clueless judges, spineless lawyers, and bought politicians" will simply shut up, and realize that the court sytem exists for a reason, and this story demonstrates that.
Open WiFi (Score:4, 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?
Important legal precedent (Score:2, 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:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Attorney's Fees (Score:2, Insightful)
(no sig)
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many possible parties who could be held "responsible". By exonerating one, you don't automatically condemn another. Sometimes unfortunate things happen (kid sees porn), and there isn't anyone to sue. Sometimes kids suddenly run onto the road and get killed, everyone feels bad but no one has to go to jail. Ultimately, the parents are responsible for protecting their children, but even they can't be held to blame for everything.
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:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several legal systems in which the loser pays the legal fees for the other party, I don't really know in what conditions that happens though. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the legal world (esp. not in the US).
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:4, Insightful)
tw: "OBJECTED" He objected to the lawyers getting all the money.
Re:Default judgments (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Not a victory at all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:2, Insightful)
IT Consulting $40/hour
You Win!
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's fees but I can give you mine.
In no particular order:
1) The compensation is disproportionate
A lot of lawyers in such cases are not paid by the hour but rather get a (large) cut of the fine/settlement/etc amount.
We, regular people who get paid for actual work, feel that this amounts to robbery or, at best, to "justice tax" collected by individuals.
Consider, for example, physicians, who regularly "accomplishes something good" and yet their pay is usually correlated to the amount (or difficulty) of their work. Why is a lawyer better than somebody who saves your life or helps maintain its quality?
2) The lawyers are not "good"
Most lawyers are not out to "accomplish something good". They usually don't care whether their client is right or wrong, good or bad, guilty or innocent. They play at the "law" game and the one that plays better - wins (money, prestige, etc. which eventually translate to money). The fact that this "game" can ruin other people's lives is an irrelevant side effect.
3a) The lawyers perpetuate the "justice for money" system
No matter how you look at it, we don't have a justice system. We only have a legal system, in which the thickness of your wallet determines the quality of the justice that you can afford. It does not matter if you are right or wrong if the other party can outspend you. The framework of laws is so intricate, complex and sometimes contradictory to the point of being completely incomprehensible to a lay person, and lawyers (and politicians) do their best to keep it that way.
3b) The system works by ensuring that we can be easily victimized
Imagine yourself as a 5 years old orphan child living in a city full of drunk gangsters, drug-lords and corrupt policemen.
As long as keep out of sight and don't interfere with their business, they might leave you alone but if one of them decides that you're a nuisance, you're screwed and nobody can (or even wants to) help you.
Not a pretty feeling, right?
Now give these people names. Call them "Sony", "RIAA", "Microsoft", etc. The fact is that corporations, or just wealthy individuals, can often ruin you just by suing. And there's nothing to do against it because everything is legal and proper.
Well, the society (the government) is supposed to protect the weaker members from predators but it doesn't because it is actually run by them (and before you ask - no, it doesn't really matter whether you vote for Kang or for Kodos).
There is more but it's late and I'm tired.