Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jul 13, 2006 08:47 PM
from the injecting-sanity dept.
Government The Courts Media Music News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma, a case against a mother -- whose only connection to the alleged filesharing was that she was the person who paid for the internet access -- has been dismissed with prejudice. Faced with the mother's motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion dismissing the case against her, and awarding her attorneys fees, the RIAA made its own motion for permission to withdraw its case. The Court granted the motion and let the RIAA drop its case. The Court went on to hold that the defendant, Ms. Foster, is the 'prevailing party' under the Copyright Act and is therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. The Court then indicated that it would decide the attorneys fees award question upon receipt of a motion for attorneys fees."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: EFF Calls RIAA Tactics 'Reign of Terror' 215 comments
nanday writes "What happens when the RIAA prosecutes people for alleged illegal music downloads? In an article on Newsforge (also owned by OSTG), lawyer Ray Beckerman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains the RIAA's favorite tactics, and why they play fast and loose with the law. Beckerman also explains why two of these cases may stop the RIAA in its tracks - and what you can do for help." From the article: "In UMG vs. Lindor, the defendant 'is a home house-aid who's never even used a computer,' according to Beckerman. 'She's never operated a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer. And yet she is being pursued as an online distributor in peer-to-peer file sharing.' Since Beckerman became involved in the case after it had gone to federal court, he has tried to learn the details of the charges -- so far with little success. 'The RIAA is trying to conceal the information about how it conducts its investigation,' he says. 'They have stalled every discovery request we've made' -- presumably because to reveal this information would also reveal the weakness of all the similar cases."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimmyhat3939 (931746) on Thursday July 13 2006, @08:50PM (#15716134) Homepage
    Seriously, bravo. Screw those RIAA guys. I hope she gets as much money as possible for attorney's fees.

    More people need to do this. They can't possibly mount lawsuits against all the people they target. If a sufficient percentage resist, they'll have to stop their campaign of terror.

    • Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sjs132 (631745)
      Seriously, bravo. Screw those RIAA guys. I hope she gets as much money as possible for attorney's fees.

      "SHE" shouldn't get dime one... except for maybe some time that she met with the attorney's.... THE LAWYERS will get LOTS of $$$$... So, Who really wins? (Except for haveing a precident, as stated below...) The Lawyers... Once again, the lawyers get lots of $$$ and we still are getting the shaft... Just like the Tobacco settlements... States burned most of that money... Lawyers were made multi-millionai

      • Re:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:17PM (#15716541) Homepage Journal
        If you are being sued, and a lawyer protects you from the lawsuit, and the lawyer gets his or her fees paid for having accomplished something good, why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.

        • Lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)

          by alexo (9335)

          > If you are being sued, and a lawyer protects you from the lawsuit,
          > and the lawyer gets his or her fees paid for having accomplished something good,
          > why is that a bad thing? I don't get it.

          I don't know the OP's reasons for resenting the lawyer's fees but I can give you mine.

          In no particular order:

          1) The compensation is disproportionate

          A lot of lawyers in such cases are not paid by the hour but rather get a (large) cut of the fine/settlement/etc amount.
          We, regular people who get paid for actual w

            • Re:BRAVO (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Fred_A (10934)

              I myself have probably given away around $300,000 worth of legal services by doing the cases on a drastically reduced fee basis.

              While I'm not sure the legal fees are very realistic in the US (where lawyers, like doctors tend to tag zeroes at the end of their bills like they were playing some sort of crazy bingo) compared to most of the world, I reckon I didn't take that bit into account.

              There are several legal systems in which the loser pays the legal fees for the other party, I don't really know in what

          • Re:BRAVO (Score:5, Insightful)

            by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday July 14 2006, @07:30AM (#15717921) Homepage Journal
            Why an army of attorneys haven't taken up pro-bono arms against the RIAA to knock some sense into them is beyond me. Oh, no, wait.. it's not.. there's gold in them thar hills no matter which side you're on.

            Maybe because in the vast majority of cases, the RIAA's lawsuits are, actually, legitimate (that is, copyright infringement has occurred, the person sued did do it, there is enough evidence against the defendent for a civil suit to be successful), and therefore the "army of lawyers" would spend most of their time protecting freeloaders rather than the collateral damage that this mother supposedly represents.

            You might just as well ask why there isn't an army of lawyers taking up pro-bono arms against the cops and AG, after all, we all know the state routinely convicts innocent people, often being actively misleading about the evidence. It's for the same reason: yes, that happens, but it's the minority case.

        • I'd be careful. Your "lawyer buddies" are probably already tired of your asking for free legal advice...

          • Re:BRAVO (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2006, @07:43AM (#15717984)
            That's OK, I get tired of them asking ME for free IT help!

            tw: "OBJECTED" He objected to the lawyers getting all the money.

  • Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Interesting)

    by StarWreck (695075) on Thursday July 13 2006, @08:51PM (#15716140) Homepage Journal
    That means the RIAA actually lost money on this one. Hopefully A LOT!

    • Re:Attorney's Fees (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Durrok (912509) <calltechsucks&gmail,com> on Thursday July 13 2006, @08:54PM (#15716158) Homepage Journal
      Just a drop in the bucket. However if they started having to shell out attorney fees to every case they lost it could act as a great deterrent for their "fire and forget" type lawsuits.
    • That means the RIAA actually lost money on this one. Hopefully A LOT!>

      Considering they won a default judgement against the daughter (if you RTFA) I think the RIAA will still come out ahead.

      • Default judgments (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:13PM (#15716526) Homepage Journal
        They have thousands of default judgments they haven't collected a nickel on, and never will collect a nickel on, and the default judgments cost them a lot of money to obtain. So don't think they're making money on the default judgments. They're only making money on the settlements.
        • The value of the PR they get from "winning" default judgements is worth the money they wanted in the first place. To appear to be "right" and "winning" is all they are after from the little guy in the first place. Its not all about money - its about policy.
  • Just askin'...
  • Downloaders should be forced to keep the files and listen to them! Crappy manufactured, processed, RIAA generated McMusic!

    ;-)

  • Man bites dog! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:02PM (#15716201) Homepage Journal
    Wow! A clueful judge (even down to the deciding appropriate attorney's fees). Will wonders never cease?
    • To be fair, the RIAA didnt have a case.
      They must have known it.
      If they didnt, their lawyers shouldnt really be practicing law.
      However, i suspect this real reason this went as far as court was that they were trying to scare this woman into paying out, and it didnt work.
      It seems that rather than allowing the judge to issue a summary judgement, with all the embarrasment that is likely to cause for both the RIAA and the individual Lawyers involved, they just withdrew the case.

      It just shows the contem
  • Hopefully her lawyer wasn't Rep. Stevens' Lawyer.

    How Representative Stevens' lawyer would ask the judge for his fees to be compensated (if he were the defendent's lawyer in this particular case):

    Lawyer: You see, Judge, when I go to the local branch of my bank, I can't just drive up with a pile of cash on the bed of my truck. You see, they've got these TUBES, and the money has to fit in them, and , and, it's - well they're TUBES!

    Judge: I could give you a direct deposit.

    Lawyer: Well, here's the thing, Judge. I got a direct deposit sent by my staff person last Friday, and it didn't show up in my account until this morning. WHY?

    Judge: Banks are closed on weekends.

    And for you Simpsons fans (which would be everybody here, right?):

    Judge: This court fines you 1 million dollars

    Burns: Smithers, my wallet is in my back pocket. Oh, and I'll take that statue of justice, too.

    Judge (slamming gavel on podium): SOLD!

  • Solid ruling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tmittz (260795) <shivandNO@SPAMrocketmail.com> on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:07PM (#15716221)
    One particularly good thing about this ruling is that is seems to be very solid. The linkage of "prevailing party" under the FRCP and the allowance of attorney fee recovery under the Copyrights Act looks difficult to challenge. While this ruling is not binding on much of anyone (yay Western District of Oklahoma), I have no reason to assume the Cantrell case is a drastic departure from most other circuit's opinions on the FRCP. Not to mention the SCOTUS case they cite, which I haven't read but is probably still good law.

    While she has to specifically file for attorney's fees, I'm sure she will. Even though the bar is set fairly high in that the court shall not award fees "routinely or as a matter of course", the standard of review (almost certainly abuse of discretion) means that if the court awards them, it'll be almost impossible to overturn.

  • Sharks win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ElNonoMasa (820089) on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:18PM (#15716268)
    At the end of the day, the attorney's fees will be paid with the
    protection money they received from those who settled.
    The only ones winning with all of this are the lawyers, as usual.
    • Whoo, nevermind the fact that an RIAA case was thrown out and even turned back at them, only the lawyers would ever benefit from that.

      Even if you miss my point, atleast the mother won. Far more than her lawyer atleast.
  • IANAL, but I have read the judgement.

    RIAA initially sued the mother. When the mother said it was not her, but her daughter who had done the downloading, they sued the daughter instead *and won*. (by default - this was not defended.)

    This is just about tidying up the suit against the mother. The RIAA asked to be allowed to drop the suit, and was allowed to do so (with prejudice - i.e. they have lost). The court finds that the mother is "eligible" for costs, at the court's discretion, but "such eligibility does not equate to entitlement" and "attorney fees are not to be awarded routinely or as a matter of course." The court has not yet decided on fees, it has just not yet rejected the idea - the mother can apply for an award of fees, and the matter will be decided then.
    • Actually, rereading the story, it is accurate. It is the early /. comments which are seeing a victory where it does not exist. I have erred by placing blame for inaccuracy in the wrong place.
        • From the judgement:
          'Exceptional circumstances include such situations as where a plantiff makes a practice of repeatedly bringing claims and then dismissing with prejudice "after inflicting substantial litigation costs on the opposing party and the judicial system." In the instant action, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs have engaged in any practice that would constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an award of attorneys' fees under the provisions of Rule 41(a)(2).'

          So the court can and will
    • If only the daughter was a lawyer.

      Then the mom could have hired the daughter to defend her case, RIAA drops the case, is forced to pay legal fees, which then go to the daughter......... to pay back RIAA in a settlement.

      Follow that?

  • Open WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mantrid42 (972953) on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:39PM (#15716351)
    This actually sets a good precedent and counters one of the arguments against leaving your wifi connection open. Even if someone uses you're internet connection, you won't be charged with a crime simply because you are the owner of that connection. Which means that we no longer have to live in paranoid fear of the tiny, tiny chance that trying to do something nice for people will end up with being arrested for aiding terrorists or pedophiles.
    • Which means that we no longer have to live in paranoid fear of the tiny, tiny chance that trying to do something nice for people will end up with being arrested for aiding terrorists or pedophiles.

      Unless the AUP expressly forbids wifi sharing. You might want to double check your TOS. MANY, many providers forbid sharing wifi connections.

      • Someone (the government, a religious group, etc) tries to get you shut down for providing this bad material to children. You counter that it is the parent's responsibility to control what their children do online. ...and that argument is shot down, because this decision is saying that the person who owns the method of access (the parent in this case) is NOT responsible for how their children use it (illegal filesharing in this case). For maximizing freedom, I think the decision we want is that parents ARE

  • The RIAA should know better (Score:4, Insightful)

    by troll -1 (956834) on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:45PM (#15716375)
    Sounds similar to the RIAA case against Candy Chan of Michigan, for the actions of her 13 year old daughter, Brittany Chan. The court ruled the mother could not be sued for the actions of her daughter.

    See Priority v. Chan [p2pnet.net]

    Basically it sounds like you have to sue the person who allegedly committed the offence. The RIAA needs to refile against the right person.

    If someone phones in a bomb threat, you prosecute the person who made the call, not the person who pays the phone bill, right?

  • Mom walks ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RWarrior(fobw) (448405) * on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:36PM (#15716622)
    ... but the kid has a judgement hanging over her. They can't enforce against her until she turns 18, but after that they can make her life miserable.

    I'm amazed that the judge permitted a default judgment against a minor in the first place, but then in civil courts you don't have rights, you merely have privleges that you pay for.
  • Not only did the RIAA lose that case, but comically enough, there was a Free Music add placed in this story :)

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/consoneo/RI AAFreeMusicSlashdot.jpg [photobucket.com]

  • Circumventing the RIAA at the source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crusher-1 (302790) on Friday July 14 2006, @12:12AM (#15716961)
    As I've posted before. I'm a musician that has opted to go the home studio route due to the level of development in the software and hardware available. Well, it seems that others are taking heed of the this trend and bringing the worst fears of the RIAA into reality. Many local (and regional/national) artist are taking advantage of other channels to promote and sell their wares. Case in point: Here in my home town (major U.S. city) a local radio station is perusing the local uploads on MySpace and playing their music on their radio program. Then they have votes by listeners as to which songs played were their favorites. None of these bands or musicians are "signed" by a label. The winner of the vote is slotted into the regular play rotation.

    This is a win for all involved and puts the RIAA affiliates in the light they deserve to be - Mind over matter. The radio station, listeners and musicians don't mind the RIAA dregs because it doesn't matter. These bands/musicians get the exposure they so desperately need and deserve and get a change to get signed by a indie label (or an RIAA label if they see fit to). Where the RIAA/labels are concerned they are dealing with musicians that have decidedly more leverage than they may have had without this exposure.

    I for one welcome and highly advocate this trend. Personally I may not get any airtime. But at least I have an even shot and the "listeners" will decide my musics' marketability, not some coked out narssicistic R&A rep. And if I don't fair well with the listeners, perhaps I'll get an objective critique, which is something I likely wouldn't get by and "industry" goon.

    This latest advent in court shows two things as far as I'm concerned. 1) they're getting desperate. 2) It just goes to show how out of touch these morons are - they just set precedenct. Unfortunately for themselves (the RIAA legal team) it's in the opposite direction they had intended. Next time some innocent gets randomly targeted by these clueless idiots their lawyer will have a tool to use against the RIAA - and all thanks to the RIAA's efforts. It's nice when the thugs hand you a gun! Bang! Bang! Baby!
    • The issue is the precedent this sets. Now you might see more high profile attorneys that charge higher rates be willing to accept these kinds of cases on a pro bono basis, knowing that they have a good chance of recovering their fees from the other party. It is a ruling that is intended to send a message to the plaintiffs, and I think it might work.

      • Re:Attorney fees (Score:5, Informative)

        by Agelmar (205181) * on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:03PM (#15716208)
        Actually, there's very little precedent set here, and it's not as warm and fuzzy as you might think. If you actually read the findings of the court, you get the other side of the story.

        It's not like the RIAA was worried that this woman was going to get fees awarded and then decided to withdraw - they basically got a judgement against the woman's daughter (daughter failed to enter a response, and a default judgement was awarded). Having already 'won' their case against the daughter, they withdrew the case against the mother. There was some squabble as to exactly how that should be done, and the court found that because the action was brought under copyright acts, and the mother was the prevailing party, the mother is *eligible* for an award of fees. The court also notes, however, that "under the statute, attorney fees are not to be awarded routinely or as a matter of course." I would be very suprised if she actually gets fees paid...
      • While I agree with you, my pessimistic side wants to cry out Dream On.

        Sorry, just the way things seem to be going lately.

        I deplore the trend to advance corporate profits/outmoded business models over individual's freedoms and fair use, it is a trend none the less.

        I understand that there is a fine line between consumer's rights (damn, I hate the term consumer) and artist's rights, I also understand that it seems more an issue between the distributors and consumers....How the hell did we get to this point?

        It
        • Wrong. 1. They did not want to drop the case against the mother. 2. They did not want to be exposed to an attorneys fees award. 3. They thought that by dropping the case against the mother they would eliminate their exposure to an attorneys fee award. They were wrong.

    • Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pete6677 (681676) on Thursday July 13 2006, @09:15PM (#15716259)
      Allowing other people who you don't even know to use your internet connection is just plain dumb. Downloading music is the least of the problems you could face: what if they downloaded kiddie porn or used your connection to communicate with "terrorist groups"? You might get out of it after a nice friendly chat with an FBI agent, but you might find yourself fighting criminal charges. For your own good, close that connection. Free open WiFi sounds like a great idea, but doesn't work out so well in real life.

      • Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:15PM (#15716535)
        some people take the extreme; and intentionally leave their AP wide open.

        plausible denyability then ensues. you can't be held responsible if you, by policy, don't protect your net connection. they can't prove it was you who 'did the bad thing'. the worst they can do is call you a bad sysadmin ;)

      • Re:Booyah motherfuckers! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr (530656) on Friday July 14 2006, @05:34AM (#15717627)
        Downloading music is the least of the problems you could face: what if they downloaded kiddie porn or used your connection to communicate with "terrorist groups"? You might get out of it after a nice friendly chat with an FBI agent, but you might find yourself fighting criminal charges.

        Why more so than the owners of an Internet cafe, or any business that provides free or paid wifi? Or for that matter, any ISP? Providing one more access point when there are literally millions already is hardly enabling crime.

      • Allowing other people who you don't even know to use your internet connection is just plain dumb. Downloading music is the least of the problems you could face: what if they downloaded kiddie porn or used your connection to communicate with "terrorist groups"?

        Am I the only one that's saddened that the Internet has come to this point? I remember, not so long ago, before the *AA and Homeland Security and god knows who else started poking their noses in the Internet, that it was much more of a friendly plac

      • Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kickersny.com (913902) <kickers&gmail,com> on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:24PM (#15716573) Homepage
        There are huge differences between morality and legality. What is wrong is not always illegal, and what is illegal is not always wrong.

          • Re:yay (Score:5, Insightful)

            by BalanceOfJudgement (962905) on Thursday July 13 2006, @11:06PM (#15716762) Homepage
            Legislators and courts decide what is illegal, but WHO decides what is wrong or immoral?
            That you even ask that question is precisely why so much of the world gets away with what it does (I am not blaming you, or accusing you, simply using the question as a jumping off point).

            The answer is: you do. The world is what you make of it, with your choices, your actions, your intentions, your dreams, and your vision (no, not your eyeballs, but how you view the world).

            Too many people forget that were born with the capacity to think and that unlike the other animals, thinking is a requirement of our survival - not to obtain food and shelter, but to build societies. Ethics and morality aren't the purview of philosophers and hermits, they are the practical application, every day, of what works to build a culture and what doesn't.

      • Re:yay (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2006, @11:00PM (#15716728)
        Not entirely... but look at pornography. You never hear of people getting sued for copying gigs and gigs of porn; that industry adopts and capitalizes on new technologies rather than trying to crush them. It's simply not going to stop until the music/movie industries stop hoarding their product. Millions of people are disobeying the law to get what they want how the want it... can't they hear the banging? If the industries tried earnestly to give it at a fair price, people would be dropping cash with the quickness.

        Anecdote: Legal issues aside, within the past five years I've spent $20 or so on music CDs (about two)... when I found out about allofmp3, I spent over $100 in less than two weeks. It was convenient, reasonably priced, and let me choose how I wanted my music. I've tried downloading songs from iTunes, and I don't care for it. I make decent money and I don't mind paying reasonable prices for music, but let me have it how I want it please!

    • Mission Not Accomplished (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) on Thursday July 13 2006, @10:51PM (#15716676) Homepage Journal
      1. The case against the mother is closed. 2. The mother's case against the RIAA for attorneys fees is still open. 3. A precedent is established that by withdrawing a case the RIAA does not immunize itself from liability for the harm it caused by prosecuting its meritless lawsuit in the first place. Sounds pretty good to me.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.