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primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms.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.
Judges can't fix your flawed business model and/or lack of innovation....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
.... I suspect that this will not stop the MAFIAA from making the lives of millions of Americans miserable. They'll just blow it off and it will be business as usual for them.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I really don't think this could damage other suits in progress, since they could make the same request. More likely it would harm their extortion business... if people knew they would be safe spending 100 grand on a nice big lawyer and have it reasonably covered in attorney's fees they might be more confident in their ability to win said fees and come out from a lawsuit even or perhaps ahead. If they think anything over 10 grand might be considered "unreasonable" they might not be so confident in their lawyer.
And of course revealing how much they spend on lawsuits might make people even more likely to boycott them, not wanting to finance extortion but rather the artists. Or maybe they'd just be less guilty about stealing music.
We need a blue-collar musician class.
In older times, this was called a union. Its kindof a bad word today, but in order for artists to get around the RIAA and Tickemaster and any new incarnation of the same, a union may actually be something that can protect their rights.
I'm just glad to be reading another piece of good news in the whole fair use / RIAA abuse spectacle! Thank God for a judge who was willing to look for precedent, and was not simply willing to let yet another case go by that would have kept the thumb screws down on yet another defendant.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You don't just count the people being sued, you have to also consider the great many Slashdotters who believe that any expectation that you pay anything at all for any media that can be digitized equates to misery.
It's more like the 125 million US citizens with an ISP connection that might be wrongly accused and threatened with the loss of all their life savings.
That they be denied the ability to obtain, free of charge, the latest pop music in a format that not only plays on any conceivable device but was also developed by people who share their particular political and philosophical leanings with regard to software....that is truly misery for them.
Yes, I'd like my music to play on restrictionless devices. If you like having to beg permission to play and copy your files or keep running your OS. I'm not sure why anyone would prefer that but to each his own. Perhaps you would like one of Mr. Gates' bed o'nails and pillow full-o-thorns to sleep on?
Bands make money from touring. ... blah blah blah
You don't have a real job do you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The RIAA's motives are not "questionable," in that there is no question about what those motives are:
1. Ever-increasing profits at all costs.
2. Protection of their predatory, exploitative business model at all costs.
3. Complete market domination for 1) and 2) above.
4. Total control over the distribution of music.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!