Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.
They make their money by making people buy one cd for the car, one for the computer, one for the portable cd player, and download mp3s for their iPod/mp3 player... The sort of thing the copyright laws were supposed to prevent.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
Nope, they're sealed - the RIAA won the fight to keep them out of the public eye, citing possible damage to other lawsuits in progress.
It's about damned time. Now how and when can we get Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA to back off? They just killed the open-source FixVTS website, and gagged everyone involved. Just like they did with RipIt4Me a month ago. Way too much open-source innovation is being squashed, and it's a crime they're quashing any discussion of it, too.
Funny? If only it were a joke. To me, John Fogerty being made to go to court to prove he didn't sound like himself (comparing new recordings he did to old when changing labels) is one of the prime examples of the insanity that is the RIAA....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
But when the Court's final decision fixing the amount of fees is issued, the details will probably be in the decision.
And if the RIAA appeals, then the underlying papers will be filed as part of the appellate record, and it is highly unlikely that the appeals court would keep them confidential.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"Unions" are for laborers. Factory workers, service-job workers (bus drivers, retail clerks, etc.) should be in unions. (Or not, depending on how they feel on that issue.)
"Guilds" are for artists and creators. Engineers, actors, painters, musicians, and even computer programmers should be in guilds, not unions. (Again, "or not" applies here.)
Unions got a bad name from the corrupt officials in their organizations (past, present, and probably future). Guilds don't have that problem.
I can't for the life of me fathom what they are doing other than enriching their lawyers. Plus they're ensuring that Ms. Foster's attorney will have a nice payday at the end of this, which will enable her to help many more RIAA victims.
They're turning a $55,000 attorneys fees award into a $150,000 award, and spending a lot of money to do it.
Plus they're ensuring that their fee arrangements -- which they don't want people like me to know about -- will become public.
Go figure.
I've been in the litigation field for 32 1/2 years, and I can't imagine what they are thinking.
But Capitol v. Foster has already given the rest of us a number of excellent judicial precedents, and it seems that more are on the way.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
IANAL, but I would think the judge would then cite the corporation for contempt, which probably gives the judge a fair bit of latitude to make things happen. Corporations could also have their business licenses revoked, income could probably be taken by the government, etc. Remember even though corporations are considered legal persons, they still exist because the government and legal system lets them.
Would be interesting to know what the full process is though.