PDA

View Full Version : Scoop: Label Must Pay P2P Defendent's Legal Fees


Vodstok
02-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Debbie Foster, the RIAA file sharing defendent who notoriously took on the organization after it went after her for copyright infringement, has won some amount of the legal fees [see update below] she seeks from the RIAA after having their case against her dismissed last summer.

This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA's legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs. (Capitol Records' mistake was to claim Debbie Foster was liable for any infringement occuring on her internet account, regardless of who actually downloaded and subsequently shared the files.)

Listening Post has obtained a copy of Judge Lee R. West's Order, issued today, in which the judge grants Foster an award of "reasonable attorney fees in this action under § 505 of the Copyright Act," but denies her "attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927."

I'm going to leave the full legal analysis for Listening Post's legal expert Stewart Rutledge, but wanted to post the news right away that Capitol will owe Foster some percentage of her legal fees, which totaled approximately $50,000 [see update below].

What a bad day for major labels... first Steve Jobs tells them he's had it with DRM, and now a judge says they're going to have to pay up if they sue people for sharing files, but then can't prove that the infringement happened. Stay tuned for exclusive analysis of the Order.

Update: I just spoke with Marilyn Barringer Thomson, Debbie Foster's attorney, who told me that she and her client are "pleased with the outcome," and explained that the judge granting attorneys' fees under the specific Copyright Act was preferable to him granting the fees under the more general 1927 statute (essentially, Thomson's main legal theory triumphed, and her back-up/alternate was denied). Finally, Thomson said that the label will likely owe Foster more than $50,000, since today's Order allows her to supplement the attorneys' fees total to include additional time spent on the case.

_________________________

Haha!

bloodrayne
02-07-2007, 10:57 AM
Capitol Records' mistake was to claim Debbie Foster was liable for any infringement occuring on her internet account, regardless of who actually downloaded and subsequently shared the files

a judge says they're going to have to pay up if they sue people for sharing files, but then can't prove that the infringement happened. That's all well and good that it worked for HER...But, what kind of precedent might this set?

What about child pornographers who say, "You can't prove that I was the one that downloaded all that stuff on my computer"


As for the P2P filesharing...I don't think 'who did it' should be the issue...I think the issue should be 'EVERYONE does it...who cares?...it's no big deal'...It's no different than when we used to call the local radio station, request a song, and record cassettes off the radio...

Also, I SERIOUSLY doubt that the bands are struggling because they're losing so much money:rolleyes: ...What about the people who have downloaded stuff on the recommendation of a friend, to listen to a band, then end up buying a CD when they may not have ever even HEARD of that band if it weren't for file sharing?...

They should just count it as 'advertising costs' and let it go...

It's just like the YouTube thing...People remove their stuff because it was being used without permission...What? They DON'T want people to see their stuff and generate an interest, when they may have never been exposed to it any other way?...They spend so much money marketing their product, then get pissed about the free advertising...Idiots...

Vodstok
02-07-2007, 11:09 AM
because they want absolute control over something that is inherently impossible to control. Plus, they were spoiled with Napster. Napster folded like a towel when they got sued, so the record comapnies figured everyone would.

As far as the child porn goes... Owning music isnt inherently illegal, having kiddie porn is. I think that one falls under the old "Possesion is 9/10 of the law" rule.

bloodrayne
02-07-2007, 11:11 AM
As far as the child porn goes... Owning music isnt inherently illegal, having kiddie porn is. I think that one falls under the old "Possesion is 9/10 of the law" rule.Good point...I hadn't considered that

Vodstok
02-07-2007, 11:18 AM
Good point...I hadn't considered that

:)



If i can fidn the story, ill post it. had you heard about a guy who the FBI raided his house and found him naked and beating his laptop to death with a hammer? Seems they had enough evidence to prosecute the guy, and he just happened to look out the window when the team arrived, and was "getting down to business", so he destroyed his PC thinking that if they found him naked with a destroyed computer, they would have nothing on him. Dummy.

stubbornforgey
02-08-2007, 02:54 AM
because they want absolute control over something that is inherently impossible to control. Plus, they were spoiled with Napster. Napster folded like a towel when they got sued, so the record comapnies figured everyone would.

As far as the child porn goes... Owning music isnt inherently illegal, having kiddie porn is. I think that one falls under the old "Possesion is 9/10 of the law" rule.


Napster ended up being the joke of all jokes..
I was a member when all that crap started with metallica and napster were adamant they
were going to stand staunch for thier members.
We won't buckle to pressure and all that crap
...they even had sigs made..bunch of wusses.

The Flayed One
02-17-2007, 06:38 AM
I'm all for file sharing. There are tons of bands that owe the $12 I put in their pocket to P2P.

The one on YouTube that had me wondering was Happy Tree Friends. You can watch almost all of their cartoons in rotation on their own website, yet they constantly yank them off of YouTube. What the hell is the difference?