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
That means the RIAA actually lost money on this one. Hopefully A LOT!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Just askin'...
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.
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.
Downloaders should be forced to keep the files and listen to them! Crappy manufactured, processed, RIAA generated McMusic!
;-)
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
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...
Hopefully her lawyer wasn't Rep. Stevens' Lawyer.
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!
-THE END-
One particularly good thing about this ruling is that is seems to be very solid. The linkage of "prevailing party" under the FRCP and the allowance of attorney fee recovery under the Copyrights Act looks difficult to challenge. While this ruling is not binding on much of anyone (yay Western District of Oklahoma), I have no reason to assume the Cantrell case is a drastic departure from most other circuit's opinions on the FRCP. Not to mention the SCOTUS case they cite, which I haven't read but is probably still good law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Accually there was not a precident set down by this case. There would have to be a ruling for that to happen which is exactly why the RIAA withdrew so there would not be a precident set down.
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...
--
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?
While I agree with you, my pessimistic side wants to cry out Dream On.
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 will not be easy, but reform/revolution of the current system is much needed IMHO, but where/how do we go on from here to make it right?
p.s. in Firefox, the "Phoenixbay" (used to be piratebay) is on my bookmarks toolbar (Arrrrgh! Matey's!), I also support and utilize a lot of indie bands and their downloads.
I have no problems with the actual artists getting paid, I just have developed a very bad attitude with both RIAA and MPAA over the past couple of years.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
OOOOOklahoma where we download free....
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
They have thousands of default judgments they haven't collected a nickel on, and never will collect a nickel on, and the default judgments cost them a lot of money to obtain. So don't think they're making money on the default judgments. They're only making money on the settlements.
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
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
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.
Not only did the RIAA lose that case, but comically enough, there was a Free Music add placed in this story :)
I AAFreeMusicSlashdot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/consoneo/R
It may not be a binding legal precedent but it is an important practical precedent.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. The case against the mother is closed. 2. The mother's case against the RIAA for attorneys fees is still open. 3. A precedent is established that by withdrawing a case the RIAA does not immunize itself from liability for the harm it caused by prosecuting its meritless lawsuit in the first place. Sounds pretty good to me.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Not entirely... but look at pornography. You never hear of people getting sued for copying gigs and gigs of porn; that industry adopts and capitalizes on new technologies rather than trying to crush them. It's simply not going to stop until the music/movie industries stop hoarding their product. Millions of people are disobeying the law to get what they want how the want it... can't they hear the banging? If the industries tried earnestly to give it at a fair price, people would be dropping cash with the quickness.
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!
Okay, but the judge ruled for the mother with prejudice. Doesn't that mean at least there's a precedent to protect internet subscribers from the use of their service by others to access copyrighted material? And if so, would this let, say, unencrypted WiFi hotspots be a "loophole" for obtaining copyrighted material with no practical way for the RIAA to prosecute anyone?
Just wondering.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
Hm, come to think of it, I think that's pretty close to how it normally works...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
No. A god can no more make it moral to rape and murder a 3 year old girl than it could make 1=0.
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.
That don't work to well for athiests.
"I forgot my mantra."
As I've posted before. I'm a musician that has opted to go the home studio route due to the level of development in the software and hardware available. Well, it seems that others are taking heed of the this trend and bringing the worst fears of the RIAA into reality. Many local (and regional/national) artist are taking advantage of other channels to promote and sell their wares. Case in point: Here in my home town (major U.S. city) a local radio station is perusing the local uploads on MySpace and playing their music on their radio program. Then they have votes by listeners as to which songs played were their favorites. None of these bands or musicians are "signed" by a label. The winner of the vote is slotted into the regular play rotation.
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!
Indeed, we should embrace and extend it.
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?
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.
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.
I can't: I'm at work.
http://outcampaign.org/
>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!
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 place. Sure, there were and will always be scourges like spammers and viruses, but it's just sad that you can't even be generous with your WiFi connection these days without worrying about legal troubles.
Meanwhile, the telecom monopolies are tightening their squeeze, threatening to hold VoIP packets and anything else that threatens their business model hostage (not in so many words, but what do you think net neutrality is really about?). The Internet has such great potential to be a distributed network run by us, for us, but there's all these ridiculous obstacles in the way. Not surprisingly, these "obstacles" are set up by aging monopolies with no sense of how to make money in an age where Internet connectivity is approaching ubiquity, and people are learning how to make use of it.
The obvious solution is a physically separated, anonymous network ("Freenetwork") , set up by us geeks, privacy advocates, pirates, and anyone else with some backbone – perhaps a mesh WiFi network + short ethernet links, starting in densely populated geek-happy regions like SoCal, or the Northeast. Some brave souls could set up Internet -> 'Freenetwork' gateways, perhaps the gateways to the Internet could be set up in a distributed, load-balanced fashion themeselves, like the current Tor network. You could get LAN speeds within the 'Freenetwork', and the pirates could play all they wanted to without fear of getting caught (If it got really big the *AA might come sniffing, but they'd need real hardware skill to track down anonymous WiFi mesh network users. They seem to be a lot better at manipulating the court systems than doing stuff like that). And, of course, it could even be set up to use onion routing within the network (like Tor), or perhaps even like Freenet. Boom, true anonymity and privacy.
The other alternative is for existing networks like Freenet, mute-net, and others, to improve to the point of genuine usability (Tor is already there, but it's good only for web browsing at this point). A comforting fact is that, barring the outright prohibition of them by our friendly Congressmen, they will expand into usefulness. It might take a while, but it will happen. Computers get faster, hard drives get bigger, and Internet connections slowly get faster. That's enough.
I guess the point I'm getting at, is that true Privacy is something that's really needed online. I suspect that once the general population gets a taste, they'd love it. The legal and political ramifications of this are quite large, but I for one think it's up to the legalities to catch up to us rather than the other way around. As I said before, it's a technological certainty that the existing Freenet and others will eventually get big enough to work, even if my dreams of 'Freenetwork' never come to pass. Distributed, anonymous communication thanks to strong encryption is already a reality. The legal system, thankfully, hasn't even begun to consider the ramifications of this. Let's hope they stay away for good. (Even if they wanted to, they'd have to more or less openly establish a police state to really quash something like 'Freenetwork'. That's a whole different can of worms.).
The only question is how long it will take for something like this to really get off the ground. I guess that's up to me, us. Thoughts?
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
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.