Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Asked To Decide On Legal Fees In RIAA Cases
Fogerty's ghost notes that the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether exonerated RIAA defendants should automatically be awarded attorneys' fees. Texas resident Cliff Thompson was sued by the RIAA, which subsequently dropped its copyright infringement lawsuit after it determined that his adult daughter was the culprit. Thompson was denied attorneys' fees by the district and appeals courts and is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. "In the petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, Thompson's attorney Ted Lee lays out the RIAA's legal strategy and notes what he describes as the 'inherent unfairness' of the lawsuits... The fight between the RIAA and alleged copyright infringers is inherently unbalanced due to the vast financial resources available to the record labels. The risk-reward ratio for defendants is seriously out of kilter, and mandating that a successful defense — even if it comes from the RIAA's decision to voluntarily dismiss a case — results in the record labels picking up the tab would even things out."
but they should be allowed one solid punch to each of the RIAA lawyers. Above the belt if its a some what reasonable case, or bellow if its one of the "computer illiterate grandma" types.
In addition, their punch should be able to be done by a third party proxy to make sure it hurts. And thus a new service industry could be born.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Why isn't this the standard, anyway?
If it were, how would the multinational corporations bully people with SLAPP suits? Can't have those pesky citizens interfering with the corporate's God given and (bought) congress' legislated right to tell the non-monied to STFU or else, now can we?
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
If Congress didn't intend for people to actually be able to claim compensation when they win after suing/being sued, why did they put it in the statute?
Because the USA has so many leeches (i mean lawyers) that they needed to find more work for them. They can get a good 20-25 years of extra work for thousands of leeches (I mean lawyers.. its so easy to get those confused) out of a few lines of ambiguous law.