![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Thats all fine assuming the lawyers don't bill her the difference and accept only the fees the courts awarded, I don't know how that works. Also, the daughter lost so its not exactly a great victory. Either way, its a nice precedent.
Thats all fine assuming the lawyers don't bill her the difference and accept only the fees the courts awarded, I don't know how that works. Also, the daughter lost so its not exactly a great victory. Either way, its a nice precedent.
@DashTheHand: Yes, the order states that the court entered a default judgment in favor of RIAA against the daughter.
@rocnrule: The article I read earlier said that her legal fees were around 105k and that she would have to pay the difference. Not sure if that is accurate or not, though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-19459-100x100.png\")
Yea, I really don't see how this is any kind of victory then. If anything, it will just make the RIAA not blanket sue everyone under the same roof and holder of the ISP bill, but that there will definitely be someone at the residence whom will pay the consequences.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71651-100x100.png\")
Well, this will change everything for the RIAA. The Jihad they've been waging will get a lot more expensive, especially if people start filing suits from previous \"dropped cases\"
@DashTheHand: You're right. This is not really a big deal. The reason for the fee award is that the RIAA, itself, decided to dismiss the case against the mother after she had accumulated fees. I don't see this translating to greater restraint by the RIAA.
@nequam:
I actually read this as something very different. I can see the RIAA now stopping the moment someone wants to go to court--because there is now precedence for ruling against them.
\"Throughout the course of this litigation the plaintiffs have alleged that had the defendant appropriately assisted in their copyright infringement investigation and litigation, she could have avoided being sued. THE COURT HAS REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AND DECLINES TO ENTERTAIN IT YET AGAIN. The defendant was ENTITLED to litigate the claims the plaintiffs chose to bring against her...\" [emphasis mine]
I take the quoted part to mean 2 major points
1. The RIAA has now opened themselves for litigation for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and extortion.
2. The RIAA has a flawed theory about how they can avoid being liable for these costs. They now know it doesn't work to claim the defendant needed to help them build a case to \"avoid\" a suit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-128122-100x100.png\")
I've been wondering how long it would take for enough angry Americans to finally get this BS company shut down for good. Hell, I've lost count of how many times I've seen them try to set-up shop here in Canada, or just try and tell us how to do things. Fortunately they have no power in other countries.
For the most part, up here file sharing is legal. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
Great, now they're going to have to sue 17 more people to make up that 68 grand.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-123766-100x100.png\")
Here's something that we, the music purchaser might wanna do to combat the frivilous lawsuits given by RIAA...
We can sue them in a class action on the basis of the \"noise polution\" that they've been passing off as \"music\" for the past few years!
Whadayathink?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88249-100x100.png\")
I read this on Digg yesterday, which is a bad site by the way, I don't even know why I look at it. I think it's a mix between boredom/humor. Humor being that I laugh at all the people who make comments there because none of them know what they're talking about.
ANYWAY, I thought this was good until today when I read the part about the daughter still being prosecuted. Is there really no end for the RIAA? I swear their CEOs and lawyers probably get massive hard-ons when they take someone to court.
STOP BUYING MUSIC FROM THE RIAA! HOW SIMPLE IS THAT?
In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the Court has order the RIAA to pay the defendant Debbie Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys rees and costs.This is the first attorneys fee award, of which we are aware, against the RIAA.Ms.
I was excited for a minute until I read the rest of this. Does this mean her daughter is still under the guillotine in her place? Was the whole defense reason and fees for the mother caused by having her named replaced with her daughters to be fed to the RIAA sharks instead?