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."
they send for every IP address. Lets see how long does it take them to get bankrupt
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
With the number of lawsuits the RIAA throws out, this will pressure them into not only having better evidence but 'real geeks' answering tech questions in court instead of noobs saying what their puppet master tells them.
I look forward to a time where if the RIAA sues someone and at the last minute drops the case because they're about to lose - that they have to pay to get out of the lawsuit. In fact I'd like to a fine equal to the amount they sued for being given to the defendants if the RIAA runs from a case they start.
If this is declined - we're going to see many more lawsuits from the RIAA because they will have free license to sue anyone without risk beyond their own legal costs.
Why shouldn't my justice be dependent on my wealth? If I worked hard and became rich, I am more important and valuable to society than some worthless cart pusher or check out monkey. Wealthy people contribute more to economy and politics than poor people, so sending a wealthy person to jail (or bankrupting one) therefore harms society more than doing the same to the pot smoking barista that serves me my latte.
It only makes sense to err on the side of the wealthy whenever possible. Plus, look around. This country is owned and run by the wealthy. We only pretend to care about poor people so they don't riot. I say the same thing when people talk about corporations and aristocrats "buying" favorable legislation and tax cuts. Of course. What other reason is there to be rich?
To borrow an example from above, if your (poor) infant dies because Tylenol was making his children's aspirin with crack and wood alcohol... so what? Honestly. Johnson & Johnson (Tylenol isn't a company, get it straight next time) employees thousands of people, pays billions in taxes, and makes hundreds of useful products. If they get bankrupted, it will have a devastating effect on the economy. Your baby dying... not so much. I'm sure it sucks for you, but nobody else cares. It's one less poor person to ask me for change.
Think about it.