Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Victim Wins Attorney's Fees

Posted by samzenpus on from the fight-the-power dept.

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?"

6 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. On Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could this, in conjunction with cases such as Santangelo, show a turning of the tide against the RIAA?

    Could /. stop ending summaries with "Could this be the end of <something most /. readers think is bad>?"?

    1. Re:On Slashdot... by Rodyland · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Could /. posters stop asking other /. posters to stop summarizing articles with "Could this be the end of ?"?

      Mod parent Funny, by all means, but the previous poster raises, IMO, a valid point.

      A quick scan of the front page shows two stories with a "could this mean..." summary endings.

      IMO prose like this is redundant at best, and anywhere from condescending (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/23 16201) to outright misleading (this article) at the worst, and reads like tabloid journalism and sensationalism at its finest.

      I think it rarely adds anything interesting to the article in question, and can be done without.

      Just me $0.02

  2. Re:Open up your networks! by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."

    I can see next year, really early

    HR 2008 - 0002 "Secure Communication Relating to Existing Wireless Environment Detection" Act.

    (i) Owners of a wireless network will be held accountable for all civil and criminal liabilities associated with any unauthorized copyrighted materials on the network....

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  3. Re:unsecured WiFi by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the rest of us are commoners. Different set of rules.

    --
    ... I'm addicted to placebos
  4. RIAA already won by meme+lies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you honestly think the RIAA gives a damn? They would rather win, yes, but this isn't about the relatively trivial (to them) judgements and legal costs. This was a P.R. campaign. They wanted parents to stop their kids from downloading gig upon gig from Kazaa. They wanted colleges to monitor what their students were up to on the networks. They wanted the average user to always have a nagging fear every time they went to Limewire.

    I think it's pretty despicable*, but it was (unfortunately) very effective, much more so (and probably cheaper than) a typical ad campaign. Yes, there are other ways they could have done it, I am not saying it was right; but to think any legal setback (other than something extremely catastrophic, such as ordering them to pay ALL legal fees for all past cases plus emotional distress or something like that) will make them consider the campaign a failure is just foolish. If they lose a case there is nothing to stop them from filing more; it's the front-page news alerts that another thousand have been served that they are after, not the judgements themselves.

      And anyway, even if they were to stop tomorrow, they could do so comfortably knowing that they already won-- "piracy" has been stygmatized, and casual users are afraid.

    * I would go so far as to say no corporation should be able to sue an individual under any circumstances, but that is a different discussion.

    1. Re:RIAA already won by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think they do care. One of their tactics has been to drag things out to where people settle simply because it's cheaper. This decision hurts that tactic two ways. First, it calls into question the RIAA's assertion that merely being the registered owner of the IP address they claim was involved is sufficient. And second, it provides precedent a defendant can cite in future cases for making the RIAA pay defendant's attorney's fees if the RIAA can't prevail. Those two things make it more likely a defendant will take the "Prove it was me at the computer." defense further and go for a win instead of settling. And now it's on the record in an actual ruling by the court. It's a published ruling future defendants can cite as settled case law and which the RIAA will have to overcome. That's one of the things they really really didn't want to have happen, which is why they squirmed so hard to try and avoid a dismissal with prejudice.