Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed
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."
The issue is the precedent this sets. Now you might see more high profile attorneys that charge higher rates be willing to accept these kinds of cases on a pro bono basis, knowing that they have a good chance of recovering their fees from the other party. It is a ruling that is intended to send a message to the plaintiffs, and I think it might work.
Actually, there's very little precedent set here, and it's not as warm and fuzzy as you might think. If you actually read the findings of the court, you get the other side of the story.
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...
You mean a contingency basis. Pro bono means they don't get paid at all.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
IANAL, but I have read the judgement.
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.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Allowing other people who you don't even know to use your internet connection is just plain dumb.
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...
--
Unless the AUP expressly forbids wifi sharing. You might want to double check your TOS. MANY, many providers forbid sharing wifi connections.
Wrong. 1. They did not want to drop the case against the mother. 2. They did not want to be exposed to an attorneys fees award. 3. They thought that by dropping the case against the mother they would eliminate their exposure to an attorneys fee award. They were wrong.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
From the judgement:
'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 start awarding fees in dropped cases if they get too numerous - but this has not happened yet (or this particular court has not been shown the evidence.) This could change in future.
By my reading (I am still not a lawyer) the quote above is dismissing the possibility of a fees award under general rules, but after that, rules specific to copyright claims kick in, which the court finds do leave the door open for a fees award.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
It may not be a binding legal precedent but it is an important practical precedent.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
To be fair, the RIAA didnt have a case.
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 contempt that some lawyers have for the court system that they even braught this before a court. Unforurtunately, because they withdrew the case, the woman involved is unlikely to get the punitive awards given.
with prejudice simply means the RIAA can't refile.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Just to be totally clear to those reading - it means that they can't refile against *her* - they can still file similar cases against other people.