Filed under: P2P
RIAA loses in case against Oklahoma mom
It looks like the strategy to take when sued by the RIAA is to move for summary judgment based on lack of evidence. That's worked twice now, as an Oklahoma mom and her lawyer have been able to gain a dismissal with prejudice of Capitol Records v. Foster. It gets better. The defendant made a motion for summary judgment, which is akin to calling someone else's bluff at a poker table. The legal equivalent of saying "Put up or shut up", if you will. When pressed with the motion, the RIAA made its own motion.. for the door. The judge approved the RIAA's motion to withdraw the case, leaving Ms. Foster, at least partially, vindicated.
The RIAA was able to slink back from the table and out the door but not without penalty. The court held that Ms. Foster is the "prevailing party" (legal talk for.. "she beat you at your own game") which means the RIAA is liable for fees and costs incurred by Ms. Foster in her pursuit to clear her name.
The Court indicated that it would decide the attorneys fees award question upon receipt of a motion for attorneys fees. You can find the gory details of the ruling here. ("July 13, 2006, Order Dismissing Case and Finding Defendant to be Eligible for Award of Attorneys Fees against Plaintiffs")
The Court indicated that it would decide the attorneys fees award question upon receipt of a motion for attorneys fees. You can find the gory details of the ruling here. ("July 13, 2006, Order Dismissing Case and Finding Defendant to be Eligible for Award of Attorneys Fees against Plaintiffs")
This is the second time the RIAA has backed down when presented with a motion for summary judgment. The first being the case of 13 year old Brittany Chan.
My faith in the legal system, if still bruised, has been partially restored. I can only hope that the bravery of Ms. Foster, and that of the Chan family, will be a beacon to others in a similar situation. The RIAA, who indiscriminately sue those who are young, old, dead or without a computer, cannot be allowed to continue their assault on your civil liberties unchecked.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
derrick said 9:32AM on 7-14-2006
Is she able to recoup any of her legal fees?
Reply
Grant Robertson said 10:02AM on 7-14-2006
The short answer is yes. The court hasn't awarded her the legal fees yet, but has said she is entitled to them. She and her lawyer simply have to file a motion for fees, with a specific amount declared.
Reply
Paul said 1:21PM on 7-18-2006
She ought to counter-sue them now for defamation and harassment.
Reply
Fabulo said 4:50PM on 7-20-2006
RIAA new business model, in addition to music industry, add extorsion to the list:
Step 1: bring broad lawsuit against lots of individuals.
Step 2: offer to settle out of court, on the ground that indeed, the suee is better off paying a nominal fee (1 to 5 grands) than to get entangled with lawyers (expensive) time (expensive) travel to court no always local (expensive)
Step 3A: suee pays, promise to be a good dubee. All is well.
Step 3B: suee goes to court and goes "ok, I'll see your lawsuit, go ahead, let's argue". RIAA then drops the charges, argues with the court that they don't wanna do anymore.
Step 4: rince, repeat.
That is truely despicable.
Reply