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: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-millionai
Re:BRAVO (Score:2)
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:4, Insightful)
tw: "OBJECTED" He objected to the lawyers getting all the money.
Re:BRAVO (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
Re:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BRAVO (Score:2)
Re:BRAVO (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm not sure the legal fees are very realistic in the US (where lawyers, like doctors tend to tag zeroes at the end of their bills like they were playing some sort of crazy bingo) compared to most of the world, I reckon I didn't take that bit into account.
There are several legal systems in which the loser pays the legal fees for the other party, I don't really know in what
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 w
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:2, 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)
Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:2, 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, and it didnt work.
It seems that rather than allowing the judge to issue a summary judgement, with all the embarrasment that is likely to cause for both the RIAA and the individual Lawyers involved, they just withdrew the case.
It just shows the contem
Re:Man bites dog! (Score:2)
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!
Re:Tying in your obligatory quotes and pop culture (Score:2)
Now, more (topical) yo mama jokes! (Score:2)
Yo mama so fat, when she try to figure out her dress size, she violates the DMCA!!
Yo mama so fat, when the RIAA sue her, they get the case thrown out and have to pay the attorneys' fees!!
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.
Re:Sharks win (Score:2)
The only ones winning with all of this are the lawyers, as usual.
Not quite. The more money the RIAA puts out to pay for lost cases like this one, the less they'll have available for paying their lawyers to file new ones. So, at least it's a good start. As the saying goes:
Q: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
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)
Important legal precedent (Score:2, Insightful)
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 judicial system." In the instant action, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs have engaged in any practice that would constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an award of attorneys' fees under the provisions of Rule 41(a)(2).'
So the court can and will
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?
Re:It is not the victory portrayed by the story (Score:2)
Open WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open WiFi (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the AUP expressly forbids wifi sharing. You might want to double check your TOS. MANY, many providers forbid sharing wifi connections.
Re:Open WiFi (Score:2)
Re:Open WiFi (Score:2)
A far as I know, contravening an AUP doesn't lead to rendition
Mark
Re:Open WiFi (Score:2)
Or it could go like this. You are a content provider, providing c
Re:Open WiFi (Score:2)
At least for the time being.
Re:Open WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open WiFi (Score:2)
You mean, you won't be charged with copyright infringement.
Child pornography and terrorism are most definitely prosecuted under different laws, and in the latter case by different secret agencies, each one more secret than the last...
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?
I think I feel a musical coming on....... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I think I feel a musical coming on....... (Score:2)
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
Re:Irony in the works... (Score:2)
Mission Accomplished! (Score:2)
The Mother's case is more-or-less closed. RIAA members get to send the message (prepare for shouting) "WE'LL SUE YOU IF WE THINK YOU ARE STEALING MUSIC AND YOU ARE A THEIF" is the big stick message that pretty much everyone has gotten either through RIAA lawsuit activities or the dumb trailer in front of some movies.
It is very disappointing to see so many "stick it to the RIAA" messages. The war is over and your freedom to legitimately copy the medi
Mission Not Accomplished (Score:5, Interesting)
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:2, Insightful)
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:2, Interesting)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Informative)
You mean a contingency basis. Pro bono means they don't get paid at all.
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2, Funny)
Hm, come to think of it, I think that's pretty close to how it normally works...
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2)
Re:Attorney fees (Score:3, 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 the less.
I understand that there is a fine line between consumer's rights (damn, I hate the term consumer) and artist's rights, I also understand that it seems more an issue between the distributors and consumers....How the hell did we get to this point?
It
Re:Attorney fees (Score:2)
Eh...the answer isn't a very clean or elegant one, rather messy in fact.
It will in fact require a revolution of sorts. The current system has to fall, people need to take their freedoms and happiness back. This will most probably involve bloodshed. But if it's the blood of those currently in power, I leave it open to debate as to whether that's a bad thing.
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:2, Informative)
Uhm, it was her child... And I'm pretty sure she knew her own kid...
But, that dose not mean she knew what her kid was doing on the internet...
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:2)
Agreed! They're just so wrinkly.
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:2, Insightful)
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)
Am I the only one that's saddened that the Internet has come to this point? I remember, not so long ago, before the *AA and Homeland Security and god knows who else started poking their noses in the Internet, that it was much more of a friendly plac
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:2)
Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:2)
Does this help you out referring to what I was replying to asshat?
Get your facts straight before you jump the gun, you won't seem so foolish next time.
Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:2)
Legislators and courts decide what is illegal, but WHO decides what is wrong or immoral?
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:2)
Man does not decide what is right and wrong, God decides.
Well, that may be true, but until I personally receive a written list that He has signed Himself, I'll have to trust my own judgement (after all, He gave it to me). There are written lists of rules that are claimed to be from Him, but as far as I can tell they were written down by human beings who were just as fallible as I am.
Re:yay (Score:2, Interesting)
Gods cannot define morality. This has been known since ancient Greece.
You are both wrong.
And your responce also reflects things wrong with this world. The 911 terrorists thought as you do now.
Re:yay (Score:2)
And who decides what god decides is right and wrong?
The human beings that wrote the texts based on the decisions of their tribal elders and oral tradition.
Re:yay (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yay (Score:2)
I'm an atheist and I don't go running around pillaging, raping and sacrificing virgins or anything.
Not every body needs an imaginary being up in the sky to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
Re:yay (Score:2)
My point exactly.
(Although if you were religious, you could just do this stuff and ask for forgiveness.)
But I think we are wandering off topic.
Re:yay (Score:2)
If you're going to use qualifiers like "actually", could you provide, you know, evidence, or heck, even arguments? Rhetoric may make youand your buddies feel good, but it really isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, unless they're complete morons, in which case you probably don't care what they think anyway.
Re:yay (Score:2)
Yup. That means acutally USING the brain that your presumed creator gave you.
Think of this a part of being "made in God's own image".
Re:yay (Score:2)
Allow me to make a minor edit:
s/God/Allah/
There... that's better. Spoken like a true member of the Taliban.
Re:yay (Score:2)
Because obviously intelligence is best rated on a one-dimensional scale.
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:2)
It costs a LOT more to make a song than take a picture of a nude girl. (Or guy, if that's your thing. Or a whole group. Whatever.) Some of the crazy twits will even let you do it for free. Set up a cheapo website, get some way to take money and you're set. There's no need for expensive artists, studios, managerial overhead, etc, etc. It can be done dirt cheap and still get quality goods that people love. (That's not to say it always is cheap, just that i
Re:yay (Score:2)
> do, but they couldn't get it down to the cost of producing porn.
Sure they can... just borrow some deadheads and their recording gear.
the REAL problem is the fact that most pop acts couldn't actually PLAY music like real musicians (or even elementary school band students) even if they had a gun pointed to their heads. They just don't have the professionalism, talent or technique.
There are seminal genre recordings produced with
Re:yay (Score:5, Funny)
I can't: I'm at work.
Re:yay (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not the death of the RIAA (Score:2)
Yeah, because previously everyone held them in such high esteem. This makes no difference to the RIAA's image whatsoever. No one's going to notice their black eye, when they have a gaping hole in their head where the brain should be.
Furthermore, few people outside slashdot and similar sites are even going to notice this has happened.