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."

Comments

BRAVO

[jimmyhat3939]

Seriously, bravo. Screw those RIAA guys. I hope she gets as much money as possible for attorney's 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.

Re:BRAVO

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:BRAVO

[squiggleslash]

Why an army of attorneys haven't taken up pro-bono arms against the RIAA to knock some sense into them is beyond me. Oh, no, wait.. it's not.. there's gold in them thar hills no matter which side you're on.

Maybe because in the vast majority of cases, the RIAA's lawsuits are, actually, legitimate (that is, copyright infringement has occurred, the person sued did do it, there is enough evidence against the defendent for a civil suit to be successful), and therefore the "army of lawyers" would spend most of their time protecting freeloaders rather than the collateral damage that this mother supposedly represents.

You might just as well ask why there isn't an army of lawyers taking up pro-bono arms against the cops and AG, after all, we all know the state routinely convicts innocent people, often being actively misleading about the evidence. It's for the same reason: yes, that happens, but it's the minority case.

Re:BRAVO

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK, I get tired of them asking ME for free IT help!

tw: "OBJECTED" He objected to the lawyers getting all the money.

Re:Attorney's Fees

[Durrok]

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.

Sharks win

[ElNonoMasa]

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.

Open WiFi

[Mantrid42]

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.

The RIAA should know better

[troll -1]

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?

Re:Booyah motherfuckers!

[TheGratefulNet]

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 ;)

Re:yay

[Kickersny.com]

There are huge differences between morality and legality. What is wrong is not always illegal, and what is illegal is not always wrong.

Re:yay

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Legislators and courts decide what is illegal, but WHO decides what is wrong or immoral?

That you even ask that question is precisely why so much of the world gets away with what it does (I am not blaming you, or accusing you, simply using the question as a jumping off point).

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.