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?"

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Open up your networks! by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sadly, from the article, it looks as though this will not set a precedent that will discourage the RIAA from doing this sort of thing - the judge indicated that the fact the RIAA kept her on as a co-defendent (after they went after her daughter instead) was important in the decision to award costs to Debbie. The strong-arm tactics backfired badly for this particular case - good for her, but not something to discourage the RIAA in general, they'll just have to be a bit less aggressive to defendants.

    However...

    The bit that caught my eye, though, was the quote

     

    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."


    Me like. If that can be said to be a precedent, it means anyone with an unsecured WiFi network has a strong argument for not being held liable for anything done on that network - it's open, after all. Anyone could drive by, park, download [insert bad stuff here], and drive off. Unless the prosecution has video surveillance of your house/apartment, it'll be very hard to *prove* who did what.

    It seems the best protection may be none at all. How very Zen.

    Simon
    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. 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
    2. Re:Open up your networks! by Elminst · · Score: 5, Funny

      Alas, my mod points disappeared today... Or I would have given you an "Insightful" for most accurate acronym for a US law, ever.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  2. "Precedent" by spiritraveller · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. 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.