dslreports logo
RIAA Drops Mom Lawsuit
Court awards her legal fee compensation
The RIAA has dropped a lawsuit filed against an Oklahoma mother who had no connection to illegal file-sharing, other than paying the ISP bill. These "sue the children by parental proxy" cases have proved repeatedly difficult for the RIAA to win. Techdirt asks: "why does the RIAA simply get to drop these lawsuits with little or no repercussions when it becomes clear they're bogus?" As Carlo notes, the RIAA has yet to win a fully litigated case on this front.
view:
topics flat nest 

QuickQues
@verizon.net

QuickQues

Anon

hmmm

Was this the woman who was going to defend herself after she couldn't pay her lawyer?
sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT

2 edits

sd70mac666

Member

Re: hmmm

don't forget they've tried to sue the dead.
Maybe they went after her great grandmother and said she owns a computer.

But anyways without my previous rant, I wil say this. Someone is right when they say to the RIAA "don't wound what you can't kill"

I'm glad to see the courts are catching onto this crap by the RIAA. Technical data is not enough for a lawsuit though, because it can and in this case will be flawed.

As the post below states, one for the peopel that's a very good statement.

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

Pirate515

Premium Member

Re: hmmm

said by sd70mac666:

Don't forget they've tried to sue the dead.
I'm just curious how they plan to collect money from the dead. Also, I really hope that at least one of these cases against a dead person actually makes it to the court room, where a judge views it as a sick joke and imposes a fine of an insane amount onto the RIAA for wasting court's time.
said by sd70mac666:

Someone is right when they say to the RIAA "Don't wound what you can't kill."
The someone is me (check my signature). The line was lifted from an episode of "SMALLVILLE", made by one of MPAA studios. Hope they won't mind.

envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA

envoid

Member

Re: hmmm

said by Pirate515:

said by sd70mac666:

Don't forget they've tried to sue the dead.
I'm just curious how they plan to collect money from the dead. Also, I really hope that at least one of these cases against a dead person actually makes it to the court room, where a judge views it as a sick joke and imposes a fine of an insane amount onto the RIAA for wasting court's time.
They will just go after the descendants/children or spouse of the dead. With the elder dead, most likely the children.

As for seeing a deceased pirate trader be prosecuted, I would love to see it. I knew of one case that sent the woman's daughter a notice to sue a week or so of sending the death certificate. But who knows, the RIAA will probably just try to hide these so they don't look like the scum they are.
phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA

phaqu to sd70mac666

Member

to sd70mac666
said by sd70mac666:

Maybe they went after her great grandmother and said she owns a computer.
Maybe she was downloading tunes on her abacus.

envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA

envoid to sd70mac666

Member

to sd70mac666
said by sd70mac666:

don't forget they've tried to sue the dead.
Don't forget they sue the computerless as well...
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to sd70mac666

Premium Member

to sd70mac666
Eventually the courts see that these industries try to use them for leverage against people or a group of people and they catch on. Eventually, the courts will make it VERY unpleasant for these cases to come into their court rooms.

The courts would rather see this type of thing moved to congress or local governments to be decided and then turn it over to "other" agencies to handle it.

Though the court system is there to resolve disputes, they would rather see the parties make an attempt to resolve it themselves FAIRLY first.

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 recommendation

danclan to QuickQues

Member

to QuickQues
well this isnt what it appears if you RTFA all this states is that they are dropping the suit against the mom. The suit against her daughter they won.

This is just the RIAA cleaning up their legal mess with mom and closing the cases against the family.

So in a nutshell there is nothing to see here.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: hmmm

said by danclan:

well this isnt what it appears if you RTFA all this states is that they are dropping the suit against the mom. The suit against her daughter they won.

This is just the RIAA cleaning up their legal mess with mom and closing the cases against the family.

So in a nutshell there is nothing to see here.
She can still go after the RIAA for court costs and legal fees. The RIAA wanted it to go away quietly but it didn't work in their favor and now, she can recover those costs from them.

peter_m
Premium Member
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC

peter_m

Premium Member

Re: hmmm

I really hope she will. Can you imagine the domino effect this will have on other people being harassed by them. Could it be a candidate for a class action suet?
grandpinaple8
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

grandpinaple8 to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
I wonder how long it will take the wolverines lawyers to jump all over this piece of bloody meat woman and try to create more legal precident.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside to danclan

Member

to danclan
said by danclan:

well this isnt what it appears if you RTFA all this states is that they are dropping the suit against the mom. The suit against her daughter they won.
I didn't read anything on either article that states the RIAA won the suit against the daughter. Can you cite the case?

Can you even sue a minor?

anonpronman
@dsl.net

1 edit

anonpronman

Anon

Re: hmmm

No he can't.
dick white
Premium Member
join:2000-03-24
Springfield, VA

1 recommendation

dick white to SRFireside

Premium Member

to SRFireside
When the RIAA discovered they had no case against the mother, they tried to cut and run by withdrawing the case in a manner that would leave her to pay her own legal bills for defending against the improper suit (which the court wisely saw through and dismissed it in a manner that will allow her to recover her legal fees) and simultaneously filled a substitute suit against the daughter who actually was using the computer and account that the mother was paying the bill for. The daughter never responded to the second suit and so lost by default.

dw
53059959 (banned)
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone

53059959 (banned) to QuickQues

Member

to QuickQues
haha! I don't see taylor troll barking in this thread yet

Shamayim
Premium Member
join:2002-09-23

Shamayim

Premium Member

Good!

One for the people.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

1 recommendation

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Responsibility....

So basically what they're saying here is, just because you pay the bill, she's not responsible for what someone does with her connection?

Look, I'm all for filesharing. It's been done ever since we could record things and give them to friends to view, hear, etc.. But legally, she pays the bill and provides the service for this to happen.

As far as I'm concerned, this is another statement about parents not knowing what their kids are doing. This kid could be a MySpace whore also. It's saddening to see what parents these days don't know about what can occur behind a simple closed door.

I'm sure to be flamed for this, but please, parents, it is YOUR responsibility for what your kids do until they are 18 and out of your 'responsibility'. And if they're still living with you after that, it's still your problem, because you're providing the service for them. Be prepared for more cases like this, and the AA's fighting it.

quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium Member
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI

quetwo

Premium Member

Re: Responsibility....

said by Ericthorn:

So basically what they're saying here is, just because you pay the bill, she's not responsible for what someone does with her connection?

Look, I'm all for filesharing. It's been done ever since we could record things and give them to friends to view, hear, etc.. But legally, she pays the bill and provides the service for this to happen.

As far as I'm concerned, this is another statement about parents not knowing what their kids are doing. This kid could be a MySpace whore also. It's saddening to see what parents these days don't know about what can occur behind a simple closed door.

I'm sure to be flamed for this, but please, parents, it is YOUR responsibility for what your kids do until they are 18 and out of your 'responsibility'. And if they're still living with you after that, it's still your problem, because you're providing the service for them. Be prepared for more cases like this, and the AA's fighting it.
Umm... She didn't own a computer. The name that was given to the RIAA was a match, but that is it -- the person that the RIAA was trying to get had the same name.

I mean, all they have is an IP address and a date, which they then try to get the name. With the name, they piece the rest together.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Re: Responsibility....

My bad for not R'ingTFA
JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL

JazzJRabbit to Ericthorn

Member

to Ericthorn
said by Ericthorn:

So basically what they're saying here is, just because you pay the bill, she's not responsible for what someone does with her connection?
You buy an axe, I use it to slaughter somebody, you get nailed for not looking after your property and get fried in a chair. Hey, why not.

Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium Member
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR

Ericthorn

Premium Member

Re: Responsibility....

Good point, although I think stealing an axe is different. If your kid takes your gun and shoots somebody, the parent can be responsible for not securing the gun from the child. I'm not going to look for links, but I'm sure this has happened, where the parent is responsible.

Hey, I'm just trying to point out parental responsibility.

BTW, I know my posts are OT since it's been pointed out that this person didn't even own a computer.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg to Ericthorn

Member

to Ericthorn
The only thing worth paying for when it comes to music is production. I think it's rediculous for a "singer" or "rapper" to make money. You started out broke, so why should you have lots of money? Fame yeah, but money, no. I think music and acting is talent, but most of all I think it's a hobby. I think that the cost of the music was absorbed when I paid my internet bill. I think that in the future, internet providers should offer a tier that allows them to download all the songs they want, plus a few extra things like browsing, e-mail, and messaging, for a flat rate, and then pay the RIAA to shut up. I don't think you should "pay per download" if you are already paying for the means of delivery. This isn't gasoline, you don't have a need to "re-fuel". Just my thoughts though.

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

viperpa33s

Premium Member

RIAA, dumber than a box of rocks

The woman won cause this is how the court process is suppose to work, not how the RIAA wants it to work. As we have seen, just cause you have a ip address it don't mean your case is a slam dunk.

The RIAA tried to get the woman to pay for the RIAA's wrong doing. I think the judge did the right thing by dismissing the case with prejudice. It's to bad that the woman can't collect damages because of the RIAA falsely accusing her.

The RIAA thinks the DMCA is a slam dunk with no loopholes. That the DMCA supersedes all other laws. The DMCA does not supersede a persons right to due process.
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Re: RIAA, dumber than a box of rocks

These cases aren't brought under the DMCA, they're brought under traditional copyright. They've tried to use the DMCA to get the names, but generally have failed.

buyaclueFOOL
@comcast.net

buyaclueFOOL

Anon

Eventually all Pirates will go to jail.

Because they are dumber than a box of rocks and believe they are "entitled" to steal.

They are wrong and the courts have told them so over and over again.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

kamm

Member

INCORRECT title: RIAA HAS *LOST* - it's all about legal fees

Karl,

RIAA HAS *LOST* ITS CASE hence they have to pay the defendant's legal fees too.
This is why RIAA wanted to withdraw before this decision - they always do it immediately as soon as somebody has the balls (in this case rather boobs ) to not to be intimidated but actually go to court.

And it's not only my understanding but The Inq's as well:

»www.theinquirer.net/defa ··· le=33025
RIAA loses court case

Has to pay costs


By Nick Farrell: Friday 14 July 2006, 07:30

THE RIAA'S policy of accusing people of file sharing and then threatening them with court action if they do not stump up huge wodges of cash has suffered a bit of a setback.

Oklahoma mother, Debbie Foster, was accused by the RIAA of illegally downloading downloading music over Kazaa back in November 2004. The RIAA said that it would leave the single mother alone if she paid $5,000.

However, Foster didn't have $5,000 and more to the point, she had not downloaded any music. In fact she didn't own a computer or know how to use one. Her name was on the broadband bill.

After finding a lawyer to represent her, Foster managed to get the case to court where the RIAA tried to cut its losses and withdraw. However, that would have meant that Foster would have to pay her legal costs and so she tried to get the court to rule that the RIAA case should be dismissed 'with prejudice' which meant that she could get the Recording Industry to pay her legal bills.

The RIAA opposed the motion because it makes it more costly to back out of cases where there is a shortage of evidence to get to court. So far the RIAA has taken dead people and grandmothers to court on the basis of its technical evidence. If a few more fought back, its attempts to lean on people to settle out of court before a trail might prove a bit costly.

You can read details of the case here. µ
This is (one of) the biggest problem of the US legal system, these totally out-of-touch, astronomical legal costs, lawyer fees (mostly caused by the out-of-touch, astronomical sums awarded in most cases). With legal fees in the six-figures range looming on the horinzont RIAA can easily extort $5,000-10,000 out of every average citizen - regardless of innocence...
kamm

1 edit

kamm

Member

Re: INCORRECT title: RIAA HAS *LOST* - it's all about legal fees

Click for full size
It's a clear cut *defeat* - RIAA lost, read the final adjudication above.
ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD

ReneM

Member

Re: INCORRECT title: RIAA HAS *LOST* - it's all about legal fees

You might read the Case again. The RIAA literally asked the judge to lose and he granted that.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: INCORRECT title: RIAA HAS *LOST* - it's all about legal fees

said by ReneM:

You might read the Case again. The RIAA literally asked the judge to lose and he granted that.
Yes they did BUT they wanted to dismiss it so there would be no legal recourse for this woman to recoup legal costs. The judge thought otherwise and found against the RIAA in such a way that this woman can now try and recover her legal fees and costs.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm to ReneM

Member

to ReneM
said by ReneM:

You might read the Case again. The RIAA literally asked the judge to lose and he granted that.
Ummm no. They literally asked the case to be dropped and the judge denied that but dismissed on "prejudice" and granted the way to the defendant to recoup her legal costs.
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM

jarthur31 to kamm

Member

to kamm
The RIAA opposed the motion because it makes it more costly to back out of cases where there is a shortage of evidence to get to court. So far the RIAA has taken dead people and grandmothers to court on the basis of its technical evidence.

ROFL! If you have no evidence, WTF bring a case then?
sd70mac666
join:2003-06-05
Saint Albans, VT

1 edit

sd70mac666

Member

Re: INCORRECT title: RIAA HAS *LOST* - it's all about legal fees

said by jarthur31:

The RIAA opposed the motion because it makes it more costly to back out of cases where there is a shortage of evidence to get to court. So far the RIAA has taken dead people and grandmothers to court on the basis of its technical evidence.

ROFL! If you have no evidence, WTF bring a case then?
And that's where the courts have caught on as well as frivious lawsuits. judges have more to worry about than Johnny RIAA stealing music online. Suing the dead, that's just plain hilarious. And as it's probably already stated you cannot sue a minor. You can sue the minor through the parents but someone practicing law could better clarify on this. In other words it does clearly state the RIAA lost and like it's been mentioned before one for the people, in a country where our Constitution written by our forefathers is being spat on.

diditmyway
@comcast.net

diditmyway

Anon

"Oklahoma mother had no connection..." - Hello WRONG AGAIN !

The hype here said:

"The RIAA has dropped a lawsuit filed against an Oklahoma mother who had no connection to illegal file-sharing, other than paying the ISP bill."

Hello, under law, paying the ISP bill is a direct connection and if the RIAA wanted to pursue it bad enough they could have certainly proved conspiracy. Why was the mother paying the ISP bill and who was using the PC? Gee, maybe the mother's KIDS perhaps?

Oh yeah, different story now, huh?

DENIAL doesn't change the facts or reality.

••••
grandpinaple8
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

1 recommendation

grandpinaple8

Member

WOOOOOOOT

In your face RIAA bitches.
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN

ossito16

Member

RIAA is winning sort of

court cases might not be going there way but they are silently taking down decent websites for content. there were a few spanish language torrent pages that had so much free music it had to be an inside job. This site would have complete albums with cd art available for download, months before actual cd release. Now it seems to have slowed to offer nothing but VA (various artist) based albums in a specific genre.

COMMAN
Plug Me In
join:2000-07-17
Mount Juliet, TN

1 edit

COMMAN

Member

The Future of Music

...is INDEPENDENT Music - free of the RIAA and the bloated, monopolistic major labels. When there are no more labels to pay the RIAA, there will no longer be lawsuits. Don't get me wrong, I am TOTALLY against illegal file-sharing; if you want the music (movies, whatever) then buy the download or the disc, but suing people for it is just stupid, and a waste of our limited legal resources which the taxpayers are paying for. If the money is going straight to the artist or a music-driven indie label, then we keep getting the music we want, the artists make a decent living, and the RIAA just %#$)&!@ dies! It's a win-win scenario.

THE Source for Independent Rock
»roxhard.com

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17

ftthz

Member

research

sued without a computer the RIAA have to do more research and maybe look at a new business model for the new digital age

cwy1980
Premium Member
join:2004-08-10
Monmouth Junction, NJ

cwy1980

Premium Member

Re: research

ROFL they are already behind the power curve when it comes to looking into a new business model. The internet is not something that was invented yesterday and it is not going away in the forseeable future.

The recording labels dropped the ball the minute they didn't think about how to take advantage of the file-sharing phenomena from the day that Napster popped up.

In my opinion, the RIAA needs to stop wasting its resources on lawsuits and think of some other/better way to prevent piracy. That of course would require them to step back from trying to capitalize on short-term greed returns...GL on that...