RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees

VE3OGG writes "Debbie Foster, one of the many caught-up in the RIAA's drift-net attacks who was sued back in 2004 has recently seen yet another victory. After having the suit dropped against her "with prejudice" several months back, Foster filed a counter-claim, and has just been awarded "reasonable" attorney's fees. Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?"

Comments

Re:Open up your networks!

[cpt kangarooski]

However, this has no bearing on direct infringement.

Leaving a WAP open for anyone to use is not a viable way to defend yourself from infringement suits concerning your direct infringement (as opposed to indirect infringement, which is what the court was talking about). This is because in civil copyright suits there is no such thing as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The standard of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities,' i.e. whatever is most likely (even if only 51% likely as compared to 49% likely), is what happened.

In fact, in order to use the open WAP to help yourself, you'd have to prove that someone else probably is the infringer, and not you. The plaintiff can get a lot of help from the fact that you, as the owner of the WAP, a person who is very often in its range, and probably a frequent Internet user, probably do use it the most and probably are the infringer. It's tough for you to argue that someone else did the deed, especially if you don't have anything to point to other than that it's open. In fact, just because it's open doesn't even mean anyone else ever uses it.

"Precedent"

[spiritraveller]

Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means ...

Some explaining is in order.

I know y'all aren't lawyers, so I shouldn't expect you to get the lawyer-speak right, but I have noticed lots and lots of misuse of this term.

"Precedent" in the context of a court's decision doesn't mean much at the trial court level.

That's because a court is only bound by the decisions of the courts ABOVE it. Since a trial court is basically the lowest court, you don't have trial courts setting "precedents" that anyone has to follow.

Appeals courts set precedent that the trial courts (aka district courts) must follow within their circuits. The Supreme Court also sets precedent that the Courts of Appeal and district courts must follow. But district courts do not set precedent that anyone else must follow.

I suppose any time someone decides something it can be called a "precedent". But usually, when we say that about courts, we are talking about something that has to be followed.

A court does not have to follow its own precedents, though they tend to do so, absent a good reason to change course. This tendency is called stare decisis, and it is not a requirement. The Supreme Court reverses itself fairly regularly, and that's why some people worry that Roe v. Wade (or another decision) might get overturned.

While a district court sets precedent in the sense that decisions in that same court will probably follow it, they do not set precedent that anyone outside of that court's jurisdiction needs to follow. Someone else may or may not find that judge's reasoning persuasive.