RIAA loses in file sharing case 7/13/2006 3:10:41 PM, by Eric Bangeman 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 (PDF). 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 had not heard back from them prior to publication. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7257.html
ANOTHER TAKE ON THE STORY....,. Oklahoma Mum takes on RIAA, p2p news / p2pnet: The Big Four Organized Music label's RIAA has suffered another ignominious defeat, at the same time driving home the message to all RIAA victims, Don't cave in to the bastards. Fight back! Fronted by Capital Records, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) had tried to turn an Oklahoma mother and her daughter into file sharing victims. But Debbie and Amanda Foster, represented by Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, took the labels on. And won. Faced with the mother's demand for a summary judgment dismissing the case against her, the RIAA backed down, ultimately abandoning the suit, and because Foster was judged to be the "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act, she's also eligible for certain costs. "This is a very important development,” Ray Beckerman, a New York City attorney who's been representing RIAA defendants and who runs the Recording Industry vs The People blog, told p2pnet.. "The RIAA's lawsuits are uniformly based on a virtually nonexistent investigation of whether the person they are suing actually committed any copyright infringement. "Essentially, its uniform practice has been to sue people based on the most tenuous thinking: they sue a person who paid for an internet access account which the RIAA investigators, through a 'secret' and 'proprietary' method, claim to have linked to a dynamic IP address, which a subpoenaed ISP has identified as being paid for by a certain 'John Doe' defendant. "They then sue that person, without regard to whether that person did or didn't do anything.” The Foster example is typical of the RIAA practice in which the so-called 'trade' unit, owned by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, tries to sue a mother on the grounds that she paid for a Net account, “even though they had no reason in the world to think she'd committed any acts of copyright infringement,” says Beckerman. Their uniform policy is to maintain the suit against the mother, or any other innocent defendant who happens to be handy, even after learning they couldn't possibly be liable, the idea being to keep the doors open for another fishing expedition. "In two cases now, when defendants' lawyers called the RIAA's bluff, and hit them with a motion for summary judgment and for attorneys fees, the RIAA chickened out essentially, backing down - and withdrawing their case with prejudice - to avoid a big attorneys' fee award,” Beckerman states. The first case involved then 13-year-old Michigan schoolgirl Britanny Chan. The RIAA had tried one thing after another to nail her and her mother, Candy, calling them file sharing thieves. But, “With file sharing, nothing has been stolen and no one has been deprived of anything they own or owned, but for the Big Four, that's a minor detail, just as claiming they're being ruined by file sharing when in fact they're raking it in, is considered to be acceptable PR,” we wrote when news of the RIAA screw-up was announced. “They failed with Mrs Chan, represented by John Hermann, so they turned their attentions to her daughter Britanny, who was 13, at the time. They wanted a Guardian Ad Litem appointed. “Why would they want that? Their reasons weren't clear but a guardian ad litem's fees could have reached many thousands of dollars. Given that the RIAA was also demanding an order to force Brittany's parents to pay for the guardianship, it may have amounted to yet another terror tactic. “But all to no avail. The RIAA, which has gone through three law firms to date, blew it there as well. It didn't bother to provide documents that had been asked for, despite efforts by the court, 'to work with the Plaintiffs in advancing this case'. “In that light, the RIAA's failure to do so was, 'inexplicable,' wrote judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff.” Foster is the second example, and another instance in which the, “RIAA won't voluntarily do the right thing,” says Beckerman, going on, “but when faced with a summary judgment motion and attorneys' fees motion, they crawl away,” claiming they did so without being forced into it. A key aspect of the decision was, in fact, that the Court didn't accept the RIAA's specious assertion that they'd pulled out voluntarily and were therefore exempt. Now, “I'm hopeful that the court will award Ms. Foster all of the attorneys' fees and costs she was forced to incur by the RIAA's frivolous lawsuit, and that this will send out an important message to all victims of the RIAA litigation juggernaut and to their lawyers,” says Beckerman. “It pays to fight back!” Also See: blog - RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed With Prejudice; Court May Award Attorneys Fees Against RIAA, July 13, 2006 ruined by file sharing - RIAA Chan case dismissal, April 21, 2006. Digg this. p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php (Thursday 13th July 2006) http://p2pnet.net/story/9340
MORE, Thursday, July 13, 2006 RIAA Case Against Mother Dismissed With Prejudice; Court May Award Attorneys Fees Against RIAA In Capitol Records v. Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma, a case against a mother -- whose only connection to the alleged filesharing was that she was the person who paid for the internet access -- has been dismissed with prejudice. Faced with the mother's motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion dismissing the case against her, and awarding her attorneys fees, the RIAA made its own motion for permission to withdraw its case. The Court granted the motion and let the RIAA drop its case. The Court went on to hold that the defendant, Ms. Foster, is the "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act and is therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. The Court then indicated that it would decide the attorneys fees award question upon receipt of a motion for attorneys fees. July 13, 2006, Order Dismissing Case and Finding Defendant to be Eligible for Award of Attorneys Fees against Plaintiffs The attorney for Ms. Foster is Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs Posted by Ray Beckerman @ 7/13/2006 01:17:00 PM Link to this article Comments: Well done! About time someone reined in these RIAA thugs. Great work guys. Hope this gets a lot of press coverage through your RSS feed. # posted by rmdazwdv : 2:37 PM It's great she is getting attorney's fees, but I think there should be a punitive action against the RIAA for filing a frivolous lawsuit. ~Code # posted by CodeWarrior : 2:38 PM Great information. Someone will submit this to digg and The Register for certain so I hope that your server can handle a million hits. # posted by Bacardi : 2:45 PM Yes this is indeed good news. I hope that the judge awards Ms. Foster all of the legal costs and attorneys fees she was forced to incur in defending this frivolous lawsuit. # posted by Ray Beckerman : 4:11 PM Post a Comment << Home http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/07/riaa-case-against-mother-dismissed.html
the reason i posted this thread like this is to see if i should keep bringing the hot news and downloads to afterdawn.. i got my answer..
Ireland, this is the first i've heard of this news. thank you very much for bringing it. please, don't be discouraged and do keep it up. you are appreciated, even if only by myself.
Interesting stuff.......... This is the first I've heard of it. The RIAA needs to learn they can't bully people. I'm very glad to hear that the courts are doing the right thing, at least for some. Maybe this will be used as a "Precident(sp?)" case, for future cases?
Im curious if they had to "voluntarilly" pull out of that case in which they were suing the daed grandmother...LOL...thanks for the headsup Ireland.
