Cry me a river.
Posted on 02/22/2007 10:27:18 AM PST by steve-b
The cartel of record companies in Capitol v. Foster have filed a motion for reconsideration of US District Court Judge Lee R. West's decision to award the defendant Debbie Foster attorneys' fees. In it, the plaintiffs lay out their disagreement with the judge's reasoning while taking time to point out that the fees awarded far exceed any damages they could have recovered should their suit have been successful.
Although the RIAA is careful to take issue with all of Judge West's conclusions, its primary concern is his ruling on secondary infringement.
Throughout its legal attacks on file sharers, the RIAA has argued that the owners of ISP accounts used to share copyrighted material should be held liable, even if they had no knowledge of the alleged infringement. Judge West called the RIAA's secondary infringement claims "untested and marginal" in his order, a characterization the labels take issue with.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue that if the defendant has "a reason to know" of the infringing activity, she should be held liable. The RIAA also points to Foster's subscriber agreement with Cox Communications, her ISP, which it says "expressly required" her to keep others using her account from infringe copyrights.
The RIAA also bemoans what it calls the premature end of the discovery process: "Finally, plaintiffs believe that discovery would have revealed substantial other evidence of defendant's knowledge and material assistance in the underlying infringements. For example, the computer may well have been in a common area such that defendant heard music coming from the computer when admitted infringer Amanda Foster was using it," argues the RIAA. That's right... the RIAA is arguing that mere act of listening music on one's PC is evidence of copyright infringement.
Awarding attorneys' fees to Debbie Foster would do little more than reward the defendant for choosing to "litigate long after this case should have been dismissed," according to the motion. The record labels say that Foster failed to take advantage of the plaintiffs' offers to "end this litigation without paying anything." Instead, she chose to fight the lawsuit vigorously in hopes of clearing her name completely. The RIAA also argues that should the attorneys' fees award stand, it would deter other copyright owners from pursuing infringement claims.
This is an important issue for the RIAA and the stakes are high. Even if the RIAA changes its legal tactics and decides not to press secondary infringement claims in future lawsuits, there are still numerous lawsuits wending their way through the courts where the record labels have used the exact same tactics seen in Capitol v. Foster. The labels recognize this, noting that "defense counsel in other cases like this across the country are already citing the Court's statement, albeit out of context, in an effort to suggest that this Court has found that contributory and vicarious infringement claims in cases like this one are not viable." Should other courts find Judge West's reasoning applicable to their cases, the RIAA is at risk of writing a lot of large checks, drastically tilting the risk-reward equation in the wrong direction for them.
AWWWW, My heart bleeds..............
Fixed it for them.
Good... I hope RIAA get its collective @$$ sued to death.
Good news. Their frivolous lawsuits should COST them, not the public. I sure hope this trend catches on.
This is called Barratry IIRC. RIAA's lawyers should be disbarred, then we'll see if they can get new ones to continue their extortion.
RIAA is toast anyhow. As dead as buggy whip manufacturers. Anybody can record music at home with better sound quality then any of the Beatles recordings (usually better music too).
The age of record company, radio station chain circle j@#$s is finally ending. Brittany Spears might just be the last of her kind (and there is great rejoicing).
Cry me a river.....
Just reading this makes me want to download some music right now!
Awarding attorney fees to the defendant is like enacting loser pays. The judge will balk.
May I make a slight adjustment:
The RIAA also argues that should the attorneys' fees award stand, it would deter other copyright owners from pursuing [FRIVIOUS] infringement claims.
As well it should.
Why don't they just sue all the radio stations for not doing everything to prevent everyone in the world from recording their music off the air? Why don't they sue all the audio equipment manufacturers who make tape recorders that can record off the radio? That would sure deter a lot of people from infringing on their precious copyrights, wouldn't it? Nah, they'd rather go after people who don't have the money to defend against their frivolous infringement claims.
What a bunch of buffoons.
Very true. The record labels are fighting for relevance in this new era of music distribution. Their fix is no longer in and they are reacting by filing lawsuits against their customers while hiding behind the name RIAA. The only advantage they have over independent artists doing it on their own is they still have plenty of money to bribe radio stations with.
That's why "The RIAA also bemoans what it calls the premature end of the discovery process" (translation: the judge wouldn't let them prolong the fishing expedition until the defendant was harassed/bankrupted into surrender).
This is hilarious! Talk about talking out of both sides of their mouths.
This from a behemoth thug suing individuals for hundreds of thousands of $ for illegally copying their "property"
They want to talk about "damages far exceeding reality"?
Poor irrational babies!
A fool and his money is soon....
Cry me a river.
I am doing my part to kill the RIAA, I buy as little music as possible.
I buy it, then I send a copy to my mom, my friends, my brother, etc.
Fills me with joy to watch the markets work, slowly suffocating the RIAA monopoly..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.