Slashdot Mirror
Washington Woman Sues RIAA for Attorneys Fees
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Washington woman sued by the RIAA has asked the Court to award her attorneys fees, after the record company plaintiffs (Interscope Records, Capitol Records, SONY BMG, Atlantic Recording, BMG Music, and Virgin Records) dropped their case against her after two years of litigation, in Interscope v. Leadbetter. The brief submitted by her attorneys (pdf) pointed out the similarity between Ms. Leadbetter's case and Capitol v. Foster. In the Leadbetter case, as well as Foster case, the RIAA sued the woman solely because she had paid for an internet access account, and then later in the case attempted to plead 'secondary liability' against her without any factual basis for doing so. This tactic had been repudiated by Judge Lee R. West in Capitol v. Foster as 'marginal' and 'untested' in his initial decision awarding attorneys fees, and in his later decision denying the RIAA's motion for reconsideration."
How is it tha I pirate music all the time and nobody comes after me, but the RIAA seems to go after many people who clearly have no evidence against them?
The RIAA's position seems like "frivolous litigation" to me. I find it odd that cases like this are never cited by either side in our ongoing tort "reform" debates.
Woverly Harris Gooch, IV CTO American Fire and Bomb, LLC
Sounds like a case for having the RIAA back off a little.
Loosing cases like this would only embolden piraters(according to RIAA thinking). Even massive amounts of having to pay attorney's fees won't slow the RIAA down, that's chump change. Still, being forced to pay the fees is a bad sign for them. Not only do people see them loose, but loose so badly they have to pay the person back, making them more or less whole.
I don't read AC A human right
Is how the RIAA gets evidence at all.
Are they allowed to monitor my cable connection because they feel like trying to get some proof of a crime they have no reason to believe I'm committing in the first place?
It would be like an organization trying take photos of random people, just because "Well, I bet they will sell some drugs sooner or later - and then we'll have 'em!"
*sigh*
I don't get these people.
In the US, unlike other countries such as the UK, it is not automatically assumed that the winner (either by decision or by default) will receive court-cost reimbursement. IANAL, but I understand that a request for such recompense must generally be submitted to a judge for approval, and the judge decides whether and how much compensation for court-costs is appropriate. I probably have that a bit confused, but it should give you the gist.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I believe that it varies. Around here in the city there are no speed traps. Meaning that the speed limit signs are clearly posted and don't deviate from the normal speed limit in the state by much. Just to the north of the city, the local authorities have a speed limit sign which is 25mph, which is lower than the speed limits in most other parts of the state. The officers there have been instructed to pull people over several blocks into the speed zone, and to only do so for people that are doing at least 11 over the limit. The problem is that 11 over the speed limit is 36mph, and on a normal arterial that is only 6mph over. And worse is that under state regulations, if you didn't pass the speed limit sign the speed limit is 30mph.
IANAL, so I would assume that there is a reason why this isn't entrapment. Because it seems to me that manufacturing a crime outright is the very essence of entrapment. I suspect that the reason for the 11mph speeding threshold is so that they can demonstrate that whatever legal speed limit the driver thought was in force, they would still be speeding.
Ah ... you must mean the room with the asbestos walls and the unshielded nuclear reactor in the middle. Yeah, that one.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Doesn't she have to sue the organization that sued her, if she wants to be awarded attorney's fees?
Doesn't anyone ever RTFA? I can understand you not doing it [although you probably spent more time asking the question then you would have if you'd just clicked a link and read]. But then to get modded up as insightful? Jeez....
From the first freaking link:
"Dawnell Leadbetter, the successful defendant in Interscope v. Leadbetter, has brought a motion for attorneys fees against the record company plaintiffs, Interscope Records, Capitol Records, SONY BMG, Atlantic Recording, BMG Music, and Virgin Records."
Right; this is so that John Q. Public can sue Megacorp and not have to worry about Megacorp hiring lawyers that cost ten times as much as his own just to intimidate him with the threat of attorney's fees if he loses on a technicality.
Does anyone know what the actual amount of money she is asking to be reimbursed for attorney fees ? Its a two year old case so I would think it is a lot, though I don't see any dollar amounts in the original article. If a huge organization with lots of money comes after the average joe with all guns blazing, makes this person hire an attorney to fight them over a period of time, brings them close to bankruptcy, and then the case is thrown out, what recourse does a person have in the US ? If I got sued (rightfully or wrongfully, I'm not saying), I would immediately crap in my pants and settle :-) What would you do ?
It seems any organization like the RIAA or the MPAA can wield this power over the masses.
No, as the poster above notes, it's only the opposing (and losing) party that can be targeted for atty fees, though it's not necessarily a slam dunk. Besides, the RIAA is essentially an industry trade group comprised of all the media companies, so there is a correlation.
Presuming the judge grants her request, the RIAA will no doubt engage in their usual legal shenanigans and manage to delay any final disposition for at least another two years, during which time a lot could happen.
Technically it's the record company plaintiffs SONY BMG, BMG, Interscope, Atlantic, Virgin, and Capitol, that will be liable for the attorneys fee award. I use the term RIAA as shorthand for the cartel of 4 big record companies who are using the RIAA to bring suits on their behalf. The suits are strictly controlled by the RIAA, which is representing the four so-called competitors as a single unit.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is why California has speed trap laws http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/trans/trafficoperati
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
This is off topic but I think the prior post needs a response.
In the case of the medical liability malpractice crisis - tort reform in Texas worked as intended. In Texas we were down to 2 insurers - one of which was started by physicians. Since Prop 12 - the number of lawsuits is running about 50% of prior lawsuits which I would interpret as the reasonable cases are probably still being filed and the 50% of nuisance cases are not being filed. The rule change allows unlimited economic damages but limited noneconomic damages to $500,000.
We now have several insurers and the TMLT rates (my insurer) has gone down a total of 29.5% with a sign of more to come. http://www.tmlt.org/newsroom/press/index.html More important for patients, we see return of high risk specialties (Oby, Neurosurgery) back to areas where they had left.
It could cause more unnecessary lawsuits. Little Old Lady hates MegaCorp, so she brings an unnecessary lawsuit against them. Her costs are $100 (1 shyster for 5 hours at $20), theirs are $100,000 (100 experts for 5 hours at $200). They win the case and get awarded her costs. The bottom line is that Little Old Lady pays $200 (fee and fine), while MegaCorp pay $99,900 ($100,000 fees less the $100 they're awarded). Enough of these and MegaCorp goes under.
Also, mod CowboyNeal down for misleading article title.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
1. Don't blame Cowboy Neal, I wrote the heading and take full responsibility for it.
2. I don't consider it misleading. The cases are brought by the RIAA on behalf of 4 big record companies. The cases are controlled strictly by the RIAA. I use "RIAA" as shorthand for "The four major record companies who have authorized the RIAA to bring suit on their behalf". It would be way too time consuming and space consuming to keep on referring to the 4 suing companies + the dozens of affiliated labels who wind up as plaintiffs in these cases. So technically it's the record labels that appear as the plaintiffs who have been sued, but I think just about everybody knows what I'm talking about, especially if they read the article.
3. How would you have written the headline within the space constraints of a Slashdot headline (approximately 5 or 6 words)?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Oh you bleeding heart "corporate liberal". I think it's more like MegaCorp doing things for which it is libel, but no one will sue it because unless they win they'll have to pay MC legal fees which could bankrupt most individuals. It is a long a drawn out process to win any case against a large corporation. Many will do anything they can get away with to intimidate. Default forcing the paying of legal fees will embolden these corporations to treat the public even worse than it already does. In addition, it will encourage them to spend tons of frivolous legal fees to further intimidate any challenge to their practices or negligence.
Has anyone who wasn't seeding massive amounts of people on bittorrent ever been sued? All the cases I hear about seem to involve P2P services like limewire, which seem to me at least to be what only a small percentage of people use to get music and movies, most people use torrent sites like the Pirate Bay.
First, she isn't, but others have already answered that.
Second, the RIAA comprises those companies. There is no difference between saying "the RIAA" and listening its members. If you and I started a company, calling it by name or calling it "JSG and Builder, Inc." would both be accurate. In either case, it's the same thing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
the judge didn't just automatically award her costs, and some punitive damages against RIAA for her massive stress and inconvenice too.
Washington woman sues RIAA /silly mood
Washington woman likes fair play
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Once the RIAA loses a couple of these cases they will stop suing people. Whats the use in suing everyone if you lose all that money and then some in attorney's fees for the lost cases? I thought about slapping a RICO suit against the RIAA just for the hell of it, and they haven't even bothered me.
Do they go after people with lots of files shared as they once said they did? Seems to me that number of shared files, once said to be >1000, is now <600, and maybe much lower still.
Are certain songs, artists, and/or new hot sellers more likely to draw lawsuits? The supposition is that the are telling the truth when they say they log into P2P systems like any other user, search out specified files, and then list out entire shared directories. When they pick a target, they download one or two dozen files as "evidence", copying down the apparent IP address and time. What files seem to attract their attention? And what if you just didn't let any single user d/l more than 2 files from you. Might they stop by not being able to collect enough "evidence"?
What P2P systems are they searching? KaZaA? Yeah! Limewire? Apparently on occasion. What other systems have they sued people for using, and how often?
There are now reportedly 30,000 cases they've pursued far enough to identify users and attempt to extort settlements from. An analysis of all that data, which must be available in the John Doe ex parte lawsuits used to identify these users, ought to prove interesting enough to someone writing a paper about it and sharing their findings by now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Good luck getting expert attorneys at $200 an hour. In a lot of markets in the U.S., the billing rates for lawyers that just graduated from law school are at or above $200 per hour.
Litigation is ridiculously expensive. Large patent suits can easily cost over a $1 million per year (lawyers, experts, etc). It is good to be a law student.
You can only sue the person or organization that has wronged you. You cannot sue the people behind it. This comment does consider issues of a "court of equity". Quantum Meruit falls into this area.
:-)
A for instance. Your neighbor is on holidays and there is a storm and his tree falls on his house and there is a big hole. Being the nice guy you are you organize tarps and so forth to at least keep out the rain and maybe burglars. So you spend a little money on your neighbor's behalf and expect to be compensated when they get back.
When they get back they say thank you and F*ck you! They appreciate what you did but see no obligation to compensate you. There is no contract.
This is what Quantum Meruit addresses. IE. You have a right to be compensated.
I do not know how this principal would apply to a case where a legal organization goes out harassing people and one tries to poke through this legal veil and sues the ones who finances the abuse. I especially do not know how one would do this when we consider that the businesses involved really are being ripped off sometimes.
I think a better solution to this issue is to only distribute copyrighted material which the owners say can be distributed and then adhere to their licenses. The GPL is an example. A corlarly of this idea might be to boycott any products distributed with terms one is not willing to agree to.
If the issue is music... then at IUMA.COM there is a lot of really great stuff that can be distributed.
-----------
I boycott KRAFT. When I was in Uni which was more than 20 years ago I was told there is a KRAFT boycott because of the way they treated the Quebec Dairy farmers. No one has told be this boycott is over. So - I don't touch anything by Kraft. This means I don't eat my mother's salads.
Of course this doesn't address the bull that leads to Quebec farmers getting quota's for milk production and cheese being imported from Quebec into Alberta (where I live). This has to do with marketing boards and quota's and all sorts of politics (which I also do not support). The short of it is that the cost of a license to milk a cow costs more than a cow. These laws are put in place to benefit the producers... but they don't. These laws just keep milk out of baby's mouths. The laws benefit the producers who gets grandfathered in and everyone else loses. A simple economic observations is that since we have more or less pure competition then any benefit confered by anything will simply become capitalized.
OF course this is why taxi license in major cities cost more than Taxis.
-------------
So why did I write this? Because I think the idea of boycotting music or abusing the rights of those who choose to sign with a record company has to be about as non-productive as boycotting Kraft because they abused a group who abused another group who had a privileged position confered upon them... in Canada because they happen to speak French and thus have some political clout.
I would suggest being positive and promoting IUMA and boycott the labels.
JUST SAY NO!
If you don't like the license then don't listen to the music. Find something better.
Happy to do the second, but have you tried going to iuma.com lately? According to the Wikipedia article, the site stopped accepting submissions in 2001, and disappeared from the web in early 2006.
Redundancy is good And also good.
TMLT is not a typical insurance company (and is an excellent idea, since the insureds are the insurers and therefore they have an incentive keep premium rates lower). As for the "dearth" of high risk specialties, those statistics which said that doctors are abandoning high risk specialties as a result of insruance premiums is flat out wrong.
From www.citizen.org:
"The number of ob-gyns per women of child-bearing age in the United States has grown significantly over the past decade. In 1995, there were 54.4 ob-gyns for every 100,000 women ages 15 to 44. By 2000, that number had increased to 56.6. The upward trend continues: In 2004, the ratio reached 59.2 ob-gyns per 100,000 women. The number of ob-gyns has increased even in each of the AMA's designated 'crisis states.' The increase in the number of ob-gyns has even occurred in each of those states the AMA has labeled as in a 'medical liability crisis.'" I can't find anything at the moment on other high-risk specialties. But there hasn't been enough movement on tort reform to account for this increase.
And typically, part of the problem is the AMA.
"The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000."
"It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicinearticle on the doctor supply. "Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers."
You could just as easily argue that people are getting out of high risk specialties because the market is trending towards geriatric care.
But let's keep Doctors in Mercedes and Lexuses and keep insurance company profits are record levels (10th most profitable industry last year for P & C and 12th for life) while people who are genuinely injured get screwed.
There's a MASSIVE difference between the RIAA and those companies, and people like you really need to stop letting those companies hide behind the public face of the RIAA. You're doing exactly what they want you to.
I was merely trying to make the point that it was another inaccurate headline and story intro.
While I understand NYCL's challenge with the headline, he keeps doing the record companies a favour by distancing themselves from this by letting them hide behind the RIAA.
I would have simply changed the headline to read 'Woman sues RIAA Record Companies for costs'
I would have also made it very clear in the body of the message that she is suing the record companies, not some lobby organisation.
We have to stop letting the record companies hide behind the RIAA. That is exactly what they want, so it's exactly what we have to stop!