• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RIAA loses in file sharing case

aidanjm

Lifer
surprised this hasn't been posted yet:

RIAA Loses Filesharing Case Against Oklahoma Mother

Michael Hoffman - July 15, 2006 1:04 PM

The RIAA has filed lawsuits on thousands of alleged file sharers, but this is its first major loss

Hearing about a new wave of file sharing lawsuits from the Recording Industry Association of America is nothing new. Hearing about the RIAA losing in court, however, is a story that isn't reported on very often. Most file sharers that receive a subpoena from an attorney representing the RIAA usually choose to settle out of court. Most of those file sharers who end up settling out of court typically pay fines that range between $2,000 to $6,000.

The RIAA accused Debbie Foster of copyright infringement in November 2004 while adding Amanda Foster, Debbie's daughter, to the complaint from the RIAA in July of 2005. Although offered the opportunity to settle out of court for $5,000, Foster elected to fight the case. After being asked to provide dates of alleged copyrighted files downloaded and when they were downloaded, the RIAA didn't have the records -- The RIAA decided to ask the court to withdraw its case. While doing so, Judge Lee R. West also awarded her attorneys fees. Arstechnica reports:

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."
 
Originally posted by: LoKe
I'd hardly call that a win; more like the RIAA fvcked up.

Basically. Sounds like they were basically like "Nevermind," but then paid the legal fees.

Still, the RIAA DID mess up.

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: apac
Makes you wonder how many other times they're bluffing.


I think most of their legal campaign is a bluff but with our broken legal system the only people that see justice are the lawyers as they fill their pockets. Cases like this are usually nothing more than legal extortion sanctioned by the system. The RIAA is smart enough to realize that if they were threatening people with the MILLIONS of dollars in damage they THINK they are due in each case everyone would hire a lawyer and fight. When they threaten you with a few thousand dollar fine it is cheaper to settle than hire a bottom feeder. Legal extortion.
 
Um, they didn't lose from what I can tell. They initially filed against the mother. When they found that the daughter was the one doing it, they changed filed against her (and won) and then dropped the suit against the mother.
 
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Um, they didn't lose from what I can tell. They initially filed against the mother. When they found that the daughter was the one doing it, they changed filed against her (and won) and then dropped the suit against the mother.

From what I gathered, they accused them both, but had no evidence to back it up.
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: apac
Makes you wonder how many other times they're bluffing.


I think most of their legal campaign is a bluff but with our broken legal system the only people that see justice are the lawyers as they fill their pockets. Cases like this are usually nothing more than legal extortion sanctioned by the system. The RIAA is smart enough to realize that if they were threatening people with the MILLIONS of dollars in damage they THINK they are due in each case everyone would hire a lawyer and fight. When they threaten you with a few thousand dollar fine it is cheaper to settle than hire a bottom feeder. Legal extortion.

I couldn't agree more. Except about the bottom feeder part, I want to be an attorney after all! 🙂
 
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Um, they didn't lose from what I can tell. They initially filed against the mother. When they found that the daughter was the one doing it, they changed filed against her (and won) and then dropped the suit against the mother.

From what I gathered, they accused them both, but had no evidence to back it up.

Yea, they filed first againt the mother, then added the daughter to the same filing, and then backed out of both due to lack of evidence.
 
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Um, they didn't lose from what I can tell. They initially filed against the mother. When they found that the daughter was the one doing it, they changed filed against her (and won) and then dropped the suit against the mother.

From what I gathered, they accused them both, but had no evidence to back it up.


They dropped the case against the mother, the daughter didn't respond and the RIAA was awarded judgement against her. It doesn't sound like the RIAA was bluffing, rather they don't want to incur the time or expense required to perform a complete investigation and would rather just threaten people.
 
Back
Top