RSSRIAA Forced to Pay Defendant Lawyer Fees
By Ed Oswald | Published July 17, 2007, 11:25 AM
The RIAA has been ordered to pay over $68,000 in attorney fees for an Oklahoma woman who won a piracy case against the music industry organization in July of last year.
Judge Lee West had called RIAA disingenuous in its motives to attempt to get out of paying the fees earlier this year after the case was dismissed and ruled in the woman's favor. In total, the RIAA will be responsible for $68,685.23 in fees.
The RIAA had first filed suit against Debbie Foster in November 2004, later adding her daughter Amanda Foster as a co-defendant. The group alleged that the Foster family had downloaded copyright music from the Internet illegally.
Debbie Foster denied any wrongdoing and chose to fight the RIAA, which later amended their suit to accuse her of "secondary copyright infringement" as the Internet service on which the files were downloaded was in her name.
West disagreed with the record industry's claims and dismissed the suit, ruling that Debbie Foster was eligible for attorney's fees. RIAA lawyers attempted to argue that she could have avoided the case and therefore wasn't eligible for the fees, but West again sided with the Fosters.
"Throughout the course of this litigation the plaintiffs have alleged that had the defendant appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation, she could have avoided being sued," West wrote in the 14-page decision.
"The Court has rejected this argument on numerous occasions and declines to entertain it yet again."
The awarding of attorney's fees is believed to be the first infringement case lost by RIAA where the defendant has successfully recovered legal costs for fighting the organization.
RIAA representatives argued that this was not a new trend in the piracy cases it is fighting, saying it does all it can to identify the correct defendant before pursuing legal action.
Riaa... saying it does all it can to identify the correct defendant before pursuing legal action.
*rolls on floor laughing*
Yeah right, as if they ever did that.
It was about high noon they got slapped for blindly firing at anything that moves in the hopes to eventually hit the right ones.
There were already many cases where they sued people who don't even have internet, or where they even sued dead people!
So don't give me that crap about them trying to identify anything.
Score: 0
It reminds me when the record label of Nine Inch Nails over priced their CD in I think Erope or UK or something like that so for now on NIN is going to go independant. Which I think is great. I think more artists should follow his lead and we can finally get rid of the greedy a$$ bast*ards.
Score: 0
LOL@RIAA FCKERS!
Score: 0
"RIAA representatives argued that this was not a new trend in the piracy cases it is fighting, saying it does all it can to identify the correct defendant before pursuing legal action."
Apparently they don't do enough, as I recall they sued tons of dead bodies. And when they finally realized that dead people don't have credit. They would go after their living family members. But at least they are nice enough to make motions to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to grieve before suing their grieving A$$es.
Score: 0
Oh my god! Almost had an orgasm seeing RIAA finally get their knuckle hit where it really hurts. In their wallet. Now I hope that not only others win like she did but that they sue for wrongful accusations. And win! Adrian79 made an intersting point. I wonder what we would find if we could look at what their own kids are doing on the web?
Score: 0
fck riaa! cant wait to one of there own kids get sued! ooowwait, that wont happen they protect there own kind
Score: 0
you go girl
Score: 0
Sweet victory for that brave woman who stood up to those bullies. The RIAA has been carrying out this illegal tactics since their fight against illegal dowloads started. The woman should have counter-sued for extortion.
Score: 0
Amazing. If you would have given me your lunch money in the first place you could have avoided the beating we gave you. What arrogance!
Score: 0
I hope the RIAA gets more of its cases thrown out of court, they’re bullies.
Score: 0
Haha way too funny. All you had to do was pay us a settlement in the amount of 3k and you could of avoided all this crazyness the Riaa says. NO I will not pay you riaa you will pay me 68k to my lawyers.
I hope this is a trend and the Riaa does an about face with all this crazyness.
I mean those tactics have worked so well in the past for them. Pay us 3k and we will not take you to court, if you take us ot court its going to cost you 10's of thousands in lawyers fees alone. I mean normally who wouldn't take the "easy" way out.
Majority of people who get sued are college kids, grandparents and people who are dead. It's crazyness. But if your named by circumstantial evidence, what can you do? This is exactly what you can do now.
Score: 0
Bought time somebody stuck it to those Ba*****.
Score: 0
'bout?
Don't think you mean bought.
Score: 0
if the RIAA starts to lose cases in the future
like this one people will be free in p2p and freedom way to go!!!
Score: 0
"RIAA lawyers attempted to argue that she could have avoided the case and therefore wasn't eligible for the fees"
Yea, by agreed to pay what the RIAA demanded, and this fee will be avoided altogether.
Score: 0
hahaha imagine that.
"she could have just paid us and she wouldnt have gotten sued anymore. Cuz of that, we shouldnt have to pay her"
-- attempted Shake-down
Score: 0
they tried to blame her for someone using her wireless signal to download stuff?
Score: 0
In the UK at least, they had a fair point. As strictly speaking it is illegal to allow people access to your internet connection without your express permission (which you then take full responsibility for).
It's part of the ISPs contract.
You have to be seen to have taken preventative measures.
Score: 0
that i would understand
Score: 0
Interesting...so if someone hacked my network without me knowing it and used it to download illegal files...I get sued.
That's some great motivation not to use other peoples wireless networks right there...
Score: 0
Well not quite.
I meant to mention that it pretty much only applies to unprotected networks, as even WEP is seen to be a preventative step and therefore not your fault if someone hacks it.
Score: 0
The computer misuse-act still applies to wireless networks in the UK as does it to any other computer crime.
The perpetrator, i.e. the hacker in this case, is bound by the common law of the land and is not permitted to access any computer equipment or networks without express permission from the owners.
As your ISP does not own your wireless network, the hacker would be breaking law under the computer misuse act by using your computer equipment in the first instance. It doesn’t matter if the network is using any security at all. You’re not allowed to use it unless the owners say you can.
The contact you have with your ISP differs from each company that is providing your internet connection. Most, if not all in the UK will state that you’re not allowed to share or provide it for profit and usually it’s for residential use only.
Apart from your ISP, the RIAA or any other organisation cannot come along and prosecute you because you broke your contact with your ISP. Your contact is between you can your ISP, no one else.
Score: 0
I didn't mention the hacker, no. He also gets screwed, yes.
The RIAA can come along as say 'under your contract with your ISP you are bound by their rules which stipulate that anyone having unprevented entrance to your wireless network is your full responsibility.' Then you're stuffed for a response.
Or can't they?
Score: 0
haha, serves the cartels right
Score: 0
"RIAA representatives argued that this was not a new trend in the piracy cases it is fighting, saying it does all it can to identify the correct defendant before pursuing legal action."
Not enough this time round though, was it.
Score: 0