RIAA Says It Shouldn't Have To Pay Legal Fees Because Woman Didn't Settle; Judge Says Think Again

from the a-new-low dept

Tue, Jul 17th 2007 11:47am — Carlo Longino

Despite the RIAA's astounding legal gymnastics and its questionable -- if not illegal -- investigative techniques, it typically finds a way to wiggle out of paying the legal bills of anybody it has sued in its misguided legal campaign against record labels' customers. Though there's been a few exceptions, the group's strategy of dropping cases when people notice their flimsy evidence seems to generally shield them from having to pay costs. That's a real problem, since it makes it very easy, and relatively cheap, for the RIAA to abuse the legal system by filing thousands of suits, then suffer no repercussions when it drops them after they're exposed as bogus. Hopefully, though, that's starting to change, as more judges become aware of the RIAA's tactics, or at least pay attention to the facts of its cases. A judge in Oklahoma has now ordered the RIAA to pay $70,000 in legal fees to an Oklahoma woman, after tossing out the group's suit against her earlier this year. In this case, the RIAA didn't make a very good impression on the judge by claiming that they shouldn't have to pay the defendant's legal bills because she could have avoided being sued, had she "appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation" -- which means had she given in to their bullying and accepting one of their generous settlement offers. That's absolutely ridiculous, as the judge noted, since it steamrolls a defendant's right to defend themselves against bogus suits. It's up there with the RIAA's promise in another case not to incorrectly sue a woman a second time, as long as they didn't have to pay her legal bills for the first time they wrongly sued her. The RIAA has gotten away for far too long with bending the legal system to fit its desires; hopefully those days are coming to an end.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: entertainment, lawsuits, music
Companies: riaa

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Buzz, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:14pm

Eh?
The RIAA calls their brigade "copyright infringement investigation and litigation"? Do they honestly feel their campaign is having a positive influence on the world?

At this point, it would seem that the RIAA is enjoying this. There were several business opportunities introduced with the advent of music downloads. They simply chose the worst one. Rather than work with the masses, they chose to view the unending series of downloads as an endless supply of lawsuits. I think they LIKE the fact that so much of their music is pirated.

I wonder, if I started passing around several dozen silent MP3 files with famous song titles for filenames on P2P networks, would the RIAA flag those as being shared illegally and send me a lawsuit notification? I would be giddy. I would take them to court, plead "guilty" to the charges relating to sharing of those specific files, and then embarrass the RIAA substantially when they find that my files have three minutes of silence.

The RIAA's search methods may be more sophisticated than that, but judging by their ability to sue individuals who do not even own a computer, maybe they don't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: Eh?
  The RIAA calls their brigade "copyright infringement investigation and litigation"? Do they honestly feel their campaign is having a positive influence on the world?
  Are you assuming that's their goal, or that they even care?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wolfger, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Eh?
  Do they honestly feel their campaign is having a positive influence on the world?
  
  Insofar as they live in their own little world... Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jhunter, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:16pm

astounding
"claiming that they shouldn't have to pay the defandant's legal bills because she could have avoided being sued, had she "appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation"

Wait.... what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:24pm

What a bunch of pricks... Damn the RIAA is bad.

They are basically trying to tell the Judge - well, she's guilty anyway, no matter what our evidence says, so we shouldn't have to pay legal fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonathan, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:25pm

techdirt
techdirt articles on the RIAA always have the most links in them. but this article has no external links. not one. zero. no article about a counter-suit from another bullied riaa victim. no links to new information. recycled news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Carlo, 17 Jul 2007 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: techdirt
  I managed to cut the sentence with the link to the new story, but it's now been put back in. Thanks for bringing it to my attention in such a friendly tone!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:40pm

People really should stop saying RIAA. They represent the record labels whom are the one's suing. It may be the RIAA's lawyers but it's Capitol records in this case that's bringing the suit in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:51pm

Seriously though, haven't you told us this before? Slow news day? Every link here is to a techdirt article from the past, what's new about this that warrants a new article? Perhaps you should have filed this under "summarizing what we've already said"? Filing it under "a-new-low" indicates there might be some new content here, which is entirely misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 17 Jul 2007 @ 1:01pm

The Missing Links.
This site sums it up Here.

and the legal filings are here. (Warning, PDF)

Let's hope this gets the ball rolling, eh? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jb, 17 Jul 2007 @ 1:22pm

I wish
Those retards tried this on me, I would bury their legal weasels with piles of paperwork, defend myself, and cause their own legal bills to skyrocket. That's the real problem, anyone who hears I am going to sue you, runs and hides, these guys cannot do any real damage, they never could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: I wish
  but just to even try to prove your innocent can cost a lot of money. and you can't rely on a judge forcing them to pay the bills for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 17 Jul 2007 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: I wish
  Asides from huge legal bills, once they hear that your planing on defending yourself they run and hide. They drop the case, as they did in this case, so they don't lose. So, I'm not sure how your going to get them to do anything more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 2:44pm

I really think everyone that has been sued by the RIAA should get together and file a class action lawsuit against them and make millions then turn on the record industry for letting them do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 4:33pm
  
  Re:
  That sounds like a plan
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jb, 17 Jul 2007 @ 2:46pm

Why would you not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jb, 17 Jul 2007 @ 2:49pm

Why would you not..
defend yourself. Like I said earlier, don't run and hide, this is just a CIVIL case, at least at first, make them prove they are right. Those wussies will run to the next case that does not put up a fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike James, 17 Jul 2007 @ 5:31pm

They've now added an external link
...that external link was not there earlier today. I did notice they didnt forget to link to a half dozen internal links. It is this kind of 'reporting' that has caused several major podcasters to stop referencing Tech Dirt articles.

They seem to blatantly loop link from one TD article to another in an effort to increase page views or something.....in the end this type of sillyness will be its downfall.

The proper way to attribute previous stories is to list them at the end under an 'other stories we've done' or 'read also' Your main story should CLEARLY link to your source, not make someone hunt through 15 links to find the one that isnt TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re: They've now added an external link
  http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070717/103522#c172
  
  And I bet they appreciate the blogging lesson seeing as how they've been at it for 8 years or something.
  
  And btw, "major podcaster" is an oxymoron. That's like calling something the best-smelling turd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: They've now added an external link
  Agreed. I've also noticed that the quality of Techdirt's articles seems to have gone down. I hope they take notice and do something about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2007 @ 8:00am
  
  Re: They've now added an external link
  and by "hunt through" you mean move the mouse over?
  
  or are you stupid and actually click on every link?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WhereAmI, 19 Jul 2007 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: They've now added an external link
  Did this guy just learn to use a browser today?
  Major Podcaster?? I Agree with the oxymoron statement
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hieronymus, 18 Jul 2007 @ 9:20am

Oh, Those Crazy French! (by John Dvorak)
“The French are also skeptical about the whole movie-piracy phenomenon. Why should illegally downloading the equivalent of a $19 disc result in a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison? Shoplifting a $100 item from a store—which is tangible and real—has fewer consequences. Does this make any sense to anyone? The French don’t think so. Illegally copying movies or downloading should be like a traffic ticket—perhaps a $100 fine. Now they are being accused of ‘encouraging’ piracy. How’s that? $100 is a lot of money,” Dvorak writes. “The American tendency to prioritize poorly seems to be thematic. It took yet another new twist when a get-tough stance against Wi-Fi poaching cropped up in Illinois. Yes, forget burglary, where someone steals something tangible. Instead, we need to bust Wi-Fi poachers… Law enforcement should not be wasting the taxpayers’ money looking inside every car where they see some guy sitting reading a newspaper, in hopes of finding a Wi-Fi poacher… I’m moving to France.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber Akuma, 18 Jul 2007 @ 12:41pm

So basically what they are saying is this?

RIAA: Well, despite the fact that she was found innocent, we offered her a chance to admit she is guilty and pay us X amount of money without any chance to fight back but she didn't, so why should we pay the legal fees of a person with a 5 figure salary who fought against a multi-billion dollar company whose lunch breaks cost more than what she makes in a year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]