As someone who speaks to the victims of the RIAA lawsuits on a daily basis, I can definitely say that this stuff causes extreme anxiety and stress, and I'm sure it has contributed to depression and even to deaths.
They're not within their rights. Their complaint is based upon a false, basically fictional, reading of copyright law, and upon zero evidence. See Elektra v. Barker and their "expert witness" deposition.
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
"I'm no fan of the RIAA, but...."
2. That is a complete fabrication about the law; there is no such thing as "selective prosecution" in civil litigation. (In fact, even in criminal law it's a concept that exists on paper, but is almost never an issue in reality. Prosecutors are supposed to be selective and have "prosecutorial discretion" to pick some cases as worthy of prosecution, and others not.)
I guess (a) you didn't read the article, the part about the guy not having done any file sharing, and (b) you don't know anything about copyright law if you think the RIAA is "within its rights". Who pays you to write this stuff, the RIAA or the MPAA, or both?
Calling all Slashdot readers: the RIAA trolls are really out in force on this one.
I stand corrected. You are correct, you did not ask it as a question, you simply made the statement.
For the record, your statement is incorrect. A judge has to operate within certain norms of behavior, and that does not include forcing litigants to engage in pretrial discovery on matters that are no longer in issue.
No, questions of reasonableness of fees have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
There might be certain general principles that would come of it that would be portable: e.g., if you are going to sue someone for copyright infringement when you have strong reason to believe that they did not personally commit copyright infringement, you are going to pay through the nose when the day of reckoning comes.... or when the sole basis for pursuing a case against someone is that they happened to pay for an internet access account, you are going to be liable for her attorneys fees.
I read your comment. But I guess I didn't understand it.
Now that I see what you are talking about, no, it can't happen that way. If they stipulate that the fees were reasonable and abandon their requests for 'discovery' on the issue, the judge will not force them to turn over their billing records.
The judge has already permitted them to drop their case. The only issue left is how much attorneys fees are to be awarded. And the RIAA's continuing dilatory strategy is merely building up the legal fees even more.
My guess is that the fees are on an hourly basis, and that they are broken down on a case-by-case basis, so that it's no big deal to give Ms. Barringer-Thompson a couple of printouts -- one for the first national firm, one for the second national firm, and one for the local firm.
What it's about is: -the judge said the RIAA has to reimburse Ms. Foster for her reasonable attorneys fees -the RIAA said it wanted to challenge the 'reasonableness' of the fees Ms. Foster's lawyer charged -the judge says that the amount the RIAA paid its lawyers is relevant to seeing if Ms. Foster's lawyer charged too much
Don't be surprised if the RIAA now abandons its challenge to the 'reasonableness' of Ms. Foster's fees, rather than allow its own financial arrangements to be disclosed.
1. Whenever someone starts out "I'm no fan of RIAA, but......" that's a dead giveaway.
2. Any one with any legal knowledge knows that (a) attorneys' bills, statements, time records, and expense records are NOT privileged (b) the order is not an appealable order and (c) if it were appealable there is no basis for reversing it.
3. What rights and privileges is he/she/it talking about that were denied? The RIAA was a year in default in responding to the discovery notices. After the motion was made, it submitted its papers 2 days late, the judge accepted them anyway and read them carefully, and knocked down each frivolous argument the RIAA was making.
They never saw it as trivial. They just never expected to lose on it. They are seeing this as very very major. They brought in their top lawyer to try to stop the bleeding, but from what I can see he's just taken the situation from bad to worse.
Chalk one big one up for the good guys.
If this was trivial you wouldn't have seen ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma come in with an amicus curiae brief explaining the importance of the attorneys fee award here.
Slashdot Mirror
There are, in fact, several documentary films about it in the works right now as we speak.
As someone who speaks to the victims of the RIAA lawsuits on a daily basis, I can definitely say that this stuff causes extreme anxiety and stress, and I'm sure it has contributed to depression and even to deaths.
It doesn't "say". That's part of the RIAA's scam. But in fact the RIAA is running the litigation.
They're not within their rights. Their complaint is based upon a false, basically fictional, reading of copyright law, and upon zero evidence. See Elektra v. Barker and their "expert witness" deposition.
1. The defendant is not a copyright infringer; read the story.
2. You should be cringing at bringing frivolous lawsuits against helpless people.
1. This story, for some reason, has the RIAA trolls out in droves.
2. I don't know if it's several of them, or if it's one person with several ID's.
3. But I'm finding it fun to spot the user ID's that are trolling for the RIAA, and marking them "foe", other than the AC's.
4. I hope you'll all join in the fun.
5. I hope those of you with moderation points will play, too.
1. The surest sign of an RIAA troll is a post that starts out
2. That is a complete fabrication about the law; there is no such thing as "selective prosecution" in civil litigation. (In fact, even in criminal law it's a concept that exists on paper, but is almost never an issue in reality. Prosecutors are supposed to be selective and have "prosecutorial discretion" to pick some cases as worthy of prosecution, and others not.)
Calling all Slashdot readers: the RIAA trolls are really out in force on this one.
This is going to be fun.
For the record, your statement is incorrect. A judge has to operate within certain norms of behavior, and that does not include forcing litigants to engage in pretrial discovery on matters that are no longer in issue.
Well I guess you know better than I, so why were you asking it as a question?
There might be certain general principles that would come of it that would be portable: e.g., if you are going to sue someone for copyright infringement when you have strong reason to believe that they did not personally commit copyright infringement, you are going to pay through the nose when the day of reckoning comes.... or when the sole basis for pursuing a case against someone is that they happened to pay for an internet access account, you are going to be liable for her attorneys fees.
Now that I see what you are talking about, no, it can't happen that way. If they stipulate that the fees were reasonable and abandon their requests for 'discovery' on the issue, the judge will not force them to turn over their billing records.
The judge has already permitted them to drop their case. The only issue left is how much attorneys fees are to be awarded. And the RIAA's continuing dilatory strategy is merely building up the legal fees even more.
That would be funny.
Actually though I don't think they have the lawyers doing it.
Probably use some even more cut rate characters.
My guess is that the fees are on an hourly basis, and that they are broken down on a case-by-case basis, so that it's no big deal to give Ms. Barringer-Thompson a couple of printouts -- one for the first national firm, one for the second national firm, and one for the local firm.
It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.
Boy have you got them pegged. After almost 2 years of litigating with these people day in and day out, I couldn't have expressed it better.
What it's about is:
-the judge said the RIAA has to reimburse Ms. Foster for her reasonable attorneys fees
-the RIAA said it wanted to challenge the 'reasonableness' of the fees Ms. Foster's lawyer charged
-the judge says that the amount the RIAA paid its lawyers is relevant to seeing if Ms. Foster's lawyer charged too much
Don't be surprised if the RIAA now abandons its challenge to the 'reasonableness' of Ms. Foster's fees, rather than allow its own financial arrangements to be disclosed.
Yes I think they will capitulate rather than show Ms. Barringer-Thomson their billing records.
I'm pretty sure that was an RIAA troll.
1. Whenever someone starts out "I'm no fan of RIAA, but......" that's a dead giveaway.
2. Any one with any legal knowledge knows that (a) attorneys' bills, statements, time records, and expense records are NOT privileged (b) the order is not an appealable order and (c) if it were appealable there is no basis for reversing it.
3. What rights and privileges is he/she/it talking about that were denied? The RIAA was a year in default in responding to the discovery notices. After the motion was made, it submitted its papers 2 days late, the judge accepted them anyway and read them carefully, and knocked down each frivolous argument the RIAA was making.
4. Ignore this troll.
Definitely the size of the payout will be public. The details probably will too, since the judge's decision will probably go into great detail.
Chalk one big one up for the good guys.
If this was trivial you wouldn't have seen ACLU, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma come in with an amicus curiae brief explaining the importance of the attorneys fee award here.
Before the law changes there has to be widespread knowledge and outrage.
You are probably correct that that is what they will do... cut the check and shut up.