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."
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.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
Just a drop in the bucket. However if they started having to shell out attorney fees to every case they lost it could act as a great deterrent for their "fire and forget" type lawsuits.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
The important thing here is that there is now precident against RIAA, atleast as far as suing based simply upon who owns connection. Spineless lawyers will now be more willing to take these cases without advanced payment.
I imagine the fees are nothing compared to the amount of time/stress caused by the whole ordeal.
Wow! A clueful judge (even down to the deciding appropriate attorney's fees). Will wonders never cease?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
In this time of big business vs. the little people, the only people who win are the lawyers. Big business get bad PR and the little people get bankrupted.
Allowing other people who you don't even know to use your internet connection is just plain dumb. Downloading music is the least of the problems you could face: what if they downloaded kiddie porn or used your connection to communicate with "terrorist groups"? You might get out of it after a nice friendly chat with an FBI agent, but you might find yourself fighting criminal charges. For your own good, close that connection. Free open WiFi sounds like a great idea, but doesn't work out so well in real life.
At the end of the day, the attorney's fees will be paid with the
protection money they received from those who settled.
The only ones winning with all of this are the lawyers, as usual.
"Actually, rereading the story, it is accurate. It is the early /. comments which are seeing a victory where it does not exist."
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.
This actually sets a good precedent and counters one of the arguments against leaving your wifi connection open. Even if someone uses you're internet connection, you won't be charged with a crime simply because you are the owner of that connection. Which means that we no longer have to live in paranoid fear of the tiny, tiny chance that trying to do something nice for people will end up with being arrested for aiding terrorists or pedophiles.
Sounds similar to the RIAA case against Candy Chan of Michigan, for the actions of her 13 year old daughter, Brittany Chan. The court ruled the mother could not be sued for the actions of her daughter.
See Priority v. Chan
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?
Thank you, Michael, for your careful reading of both the decision itself and my initial post. The important legal precedent in my view is that the judge has dispelled the RIAA's notion that by withdrawing its claim against an innocent party, after she'd incurred the expense of discovery and of preparing for a summary judgment motion, the RIAA had immunized itself from an attorneys fee award. From my experience in these cases, the RIAA won't drop cases even after they know the party they are suing is innocent, because they look upon the pendency of the case as a convenient foundation for their fishing expedition -- the very investigation they ought to have undertaken before, rather than after, commencing suit. Now they'll have to think twice about that vicious practice.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
some people take the extreme; and intentionally leave their AP wide open.
;)
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
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
There is a precedent. If the RIAA sues an innocent person, and doesn't immediately withdraw the lawsuit, they may be liable for attorneys fees even if they withdraw the case later on. I can assure you they are (a) quite surprised and (b) quite worried.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There are huge differences between morality and legality. What is wrong is not always illegal, and what is illegal is not always wrong.
... but the kid has a judgement hanging over her. They can't enforce against her until she turns 18, but after that they can make her life miserable.
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.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
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.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
It seems that a lot of people are talking as if the purpose of these lawsuits is for the music industry to make money from defendants. This notion seems unlikely, given that music is a multi-billion dollar (US) a year industry. The amount that they receive from these lawsuits is but the smallest fraction of their income. To me, it seems far more likely that the purpose is to instill fear of crippling lawsuits in individuals, thus dissuading them from illegally downloading music. The amount they receive directly from defendants is small, but their gain if they are able to prolong the expectation that people have of paying (and paying highly) for music is fantastically large. As such, even if they did have to pay far more in legal costs than they received in settlements and judgements, it is easily worth the cost.
(no sig)
(no sig)
So an individual is responsible for their own open WiFi connection? What about cities that have square miles of open WiFi? Are they responsible as well if people download kiddie porn or participate in terrorist chatrooms on those connections?
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.
The value of the PR they get from "winning" default judgements is worth the money they wanted in the first place. To appear to be "right" and "winning" is all they are after from the little guy in the first place. Its not all about money - its about policy.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
>Because in the end they just pass along the costs to the consumer.
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!
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The mother is being awarded fees for what amounts to malicious litigation, not for winning the case. The RIAA dragged her into court, causing her to spend money on legal defense, and then backed out. When you do that in America you frequently end up paying the other party's legal fees. They pulled out precisely because they didn't want a prcedent set by the mother winning the case. They already got the daughter and had no need to push their luck. Nothing to see here. Move along.
> 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.