UPDATE: Here’s a fascinating transcript of a talk given by Roy Beckerman, a lawyer fighting the RIAA, on their “reign of terror” tactics and why they go after grannies, the disabled and the unemployed. And why the win described below is irrelevant in the long run unless we start supporting the legal fight against the record companies.
RIAA loses in file sharing case
Mothers. You’ve got to love them. They give birth to us, feed us, clothe us, teach us to chew with our mouths closed, and go to bat for us against the RIAA. Sometimes they win.
An Oklahoma mother, Debbie Foster, was accused by the RIAA of copyright infringement back in November 2004, and her daughter Amanda was added to the complaint in July 2005. According to the RIAA, the Internet account paid for by Debbie Foster was used for file sharing, with an unspecified number of songs downloaded.
The music group offered to settle the case for US$5,000, but Foster decided to take her chances in court. She requested that the RIAA provide specifics such as the dates of the alleged downloading and the files involved. The RIAA failed to provide the requested information and Foster filed a motion for summary judgment. In turn, the RIAA decided to cut its losses and asked the court to withdraw its case. The court approved the RIAA’s request, but named Foster the winner and awarded her attorneys fees over the RIAA’s objections.
In his opinion, Judge Lee R. West wrote, “because this Court finds that the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice services as a complete adjudication of the issues set forth in their complaint and acts as a bar to further action on their claims, the court concludes the matter has been finally adjudicated in the defendant’s favor… [which] represents a judicially sanctioned material alteration in the legal relationship between Deborah Foster and the plaintiffs. Ms. Foster is therefore the prevailing party for purposes of the Copyright Act.”
Debbie Foster is not the only mother to stand up to the RIAA. A 42-year-old disabled, single mother from Oregon, Tanya Anderson, is currently fighting the RIAA’s file-sharing allegations. She denies downloading hip-hop over Kazaa and decided to fight back after being contacted by the Settlement Support Center. There is also the case of Patricia Santangelo, a divorced mother of five living in New York. Her case is currently headed for trial in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, after a motion to dismiss was denied.
This is hardly the first setback for the RIAA, which has previously sued grandmothers, both living and dead. Despite that, the music industry appears to be pressing ahead with its litigious strategy.
We contacted the RIAA for comment on the case, but it declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
I’m not that surprised that the RIAA was unprepared. The criminal justice system uses the same general tactic as the RIAA. Both assume that most people are so frightened of the consequences, or of the legal costs or are sufficiently lazy that they will not fight. The RIAA basically fights a couple of high profile cases and then uses fear for the majority of the smaller cases.
You go girlfriend!
Rock on!
Best news I’ve heard in a while! David wins against Goliath. I hope her attorney fees are more than the $5000 that the RIAA was seeking.
Good news! But also a reminder of why I keep all my vinyl and the means to play it.
You know, if Kazaa and other companies anted to stop the lawsuits from the RIAA and MPAA, they should quietly hire some hackers to make viruses that turn targetted computers into a zombie. Not a spam zombie, but one that causes the infected computer to continueously download music and movies fromthe web then delete them.
Imagine 10,000 infected computers! This would cause so much uncertainty over whether a lawsuit is valid or not to stop the practice.
DISCLAIMER: I do not recommend this action, this is just for discussion. Kids, do not try this at home.
6,
why not just invite EVERY one to just Download Music, FREE and easy..
Overwhelm the system..
RIAA cant afford that many lawsuits.
NOW, its time to think.
How do you track people downloading??
YOU join the group, and WATCH.. to many of these progs LOG who is doing what. If they would stop that, and make it anonmous, no one can be tracked.
THEN the corps would have to write Fake songs, with bugs in them to be traced while its being played. That is an invasion of privacy. And you could just burn songs to Disc, and play on something NOT on the net.
If you dont know, there IS a location in the OLD internet, that is totally private, if you do it correctly, and has had Little if anyone caught. You wouldnt believe whats on it.
let me the first to say it, on DU anyway, but Mom – you rock!!!
Re: #7
Which one? IRC? Usenet? properly-rooted FTP dumps? Something else? Your description applies to all of them.
ECA, down loading music without consent is still illegal. Yes, the RIAA are armpits and have gone way overboard, but that does not mean they are totally wrong. They are fully within their rights to pursue and collect royalties.
The RIAA knows millions of people have downloaded music illegally. Yet, they have pointedly only gone after a few people at a time. They don’t need to go after everyone, just enough to get their message out that you could be next on their list.
Do you want to fight a $5000 lawsuit? What will it cost you for a lawyer? Do you think you will win? Do you want to take the chance?
ALSO,
I would ask for a list of all accounts they wish to take to court, as well as the lists of those they are watching, and ASK for a case WITH ALL defendants at one time.. As a 1 time Classaction suit.
THEn get all the subversive News medias out there to track it…
The Corps vs, The PEOPLE.
These sue and pray tactics can work for so long, before they get called out on their bs.
Mr. Fusion, I thought the point was that the RIAA have gone BEYOND their rights? They are just mass attacking everyone they can lay a spurious claim to. Anyone who tries to fight back and looks like they might succeed, the RIAA just drops the suit. No harm done. In this instance, the judge ordered that dropping the suit meant they lose and as losers they had to pay her legal costs.
It seems to me that it is illegal to just send out scary notices to people telling them they owe you money to see who pays.
RIAA – just another phishing scam. At least those 419 guys are polite on the shakedown.
What’s up with the transcript link? It’s done broke.
At first I thought maybe the RIAA had sabotaged the link. Then I discovered I can’t copy and paste properly before lunch. Fixed.
ECA & Ascii King
I don’t want to be seen defending the RIAA. They are armpits IMO. All I’m suggesting is that copying music and distributing it is still illegal. And an FYI, encouraging or facilitating people to illegally copy music is also a crime and the RIAA can sue your ass.
The Judge made the RIAA pay costs. This happens in most frivolous lawsuits. Because the RIAA couldn’t present any evidence, the Judge correctly ruled the RIAA had to pay the defendant’s attorney. This happens quite often with frivolous lawsuits and is the price one pays for bringing them. Actually, maybe awarding lawyer fees more often is a better deterrent to frivolous lawsuits then banning them.
***
I just did some work on a friend’s computer. It seems his two boys, age 12 & 10, were downloading music illegally. Damn if I didn’t find six different viruses and two Trojan horses. The father is relatively computer illiterate, which is OK. But he darn near took both his boy’s heads off when I explained the danger of downloading stuff you don’t know about. I set up and explained Creative Commons so the kids can check out artists without the danger.
18,
your statement is true…
DL and distribution, IS illegal..
Now, lets do a Pres Clinton…DESCRIBE distribution.
Foster did not win. A withdrawn case can be refiled later. The RIAA will gather more information about her filesharing and file a better case against her. The lawyer, Roy Beckerman, must know that. I guess he just wanted to paint himself as a ‘hero.’
20 Foster did not win. A withdrawn case can be refiled later.
“In his opinion, Judge Lee R. West wrote, “because this Court finds that the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice services as a complete adjudication of the issues set forth in their complaint and acts as a bar to further action on their claims, the court concludes the matter has been finally adjudicated in the defendant’s favor…”
They can appeal the judge’s opinion, but it would seem that can’t just “refile”…
19 DL and distribution, IS illegal..
Now, lets do a Pres Clinton…DESCRIBE distribution.
Downloading doesn’t concern them, it is the people uploading which concerns them.
“According to the RIAA, the Internet account paid for by Debbie Foster was used for file sharing, with an unspecified number of songs downloaded.”
So, are they sueing Ms. Foster for downloading an unspecified number of songs to her own computer, or – more likely – for the unspecified number of songs others were allowed to download from her computer?
It depends on what your definition of “download” is…
6 Not a spam zombie, but one that causes the infected computer to continueously download music and movies from the web …
They don’t need to concern themselves with the zombies doing the downloading, they just need to track-down the zombies doing the uploading.