Another Day, Another Smackdown By A Judge Against The RIAA
from the yet-again... dept
In the early days of the RIAA lawsuits, it seemed like judges just took the RIAA's word on things, but that's long since changed as lawyers defending those accused have become more sophisticated -- often realizing that the RIAA research tactics were questionable, the evidence they had was quite flimsy and the system was guaranteed to accuse all sorts of innocent people without much support. As this has happened, judges have become increasingly skeptical of these RIAA lawsuits and those who haven't done anything wrong actually (finally) have a decent chance of pointing out that the RIAA's evidence is wrong. And, in fact, judges are increasingly pushing the RIAA to pay the legal fees of the people they falsely accuse. In the latest such decision, a judge has smacked down the RIAA and ordered them to pay the legal fees in the case of Tanya Andersen. You may recall that the RIAA had accused Andersen of copyright infringement a few years ago -- and then continued to pressure and intimidate her long after it became quite obvious that Andersen clearly was not guilty of what the RIAA was accusing her of doing. The RIAA eventually dropped the case, but Andersen wanted her legal fees paid (separately, she's also suing the RIAA, claiming their investigation techniques are illegal).The ruling from the judge on paying the legal fees is well worth reading, as it suggests yet another judge is sick and tired of the RIAA assuming that it can just throw up some flimsy evidence and then bully people into paying:
Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.
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: copyright, lawsuit, legal fees, riaa, tanya andersen
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the final decision
That being said, this will carry a lot of weight in not only this case, but her class action suit and any other suit of this type where the defendant is clearly innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay up
Could a court slap a lien on RIAA assets rendering them unable to use those assets to sue other innocent people until such time as they pay up those who they already owe? (sweet catch-22 there)
Are entities such as the RIAA subject anything similar to wage garnishment as are individuals?
Any atty's out there that can answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it seems to me, the judges were merely cautious on subjects they are only loosely knowledgeable in (some tech patent claims take a bit of understanding, and the RIAA's arguments were, weither you like it or not, sufficent enough to require some thought about). Hopefully this is a start to a new trend, and more of these stupid lawsuits get slapped down with harsher penalties to those bringing them to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: R E S P E C T, what companies need to do
Suuure, I know literally tons of completely honest companies that just need to be left alone so they can make a profit. Unfortunately the RIAA and the MPAA aren't one of these companies nor are most major US corporations.
If we seriously consider just "leaving" companies alone then companies are seriously going to have to start following some kind of real ethical guidelines. The chances of a major corporation being ethical over making a profit is not very realistic.
Until then we will have to keep harassing these companies until they respect our citizenship rights just as we respect their right to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, don't you have the guts to at least attach an email or at least a name to your comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trend?
Of the 20,000 or so cases (including settlement letters) not one has gotten to trial, and only an handful (2,3?) have resulted in a judgment against the RIAA.
The defense is getting better, but one or two wins are not enough to declare the tide has turned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are we enforcing IP again?
I don't want to say it yet.. Showing restraint..!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it should be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://techebookshare.blogspot.com
enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]