![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
W00T! Share on...
Feb. 7th, 2007 07:01 pmTuesday, 6 February 2007
Scoop: Label Must Pay P2P Defendent's Legal Fees
Wired News
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.
------------------------------------
Edit: Someone on the comments below the article mentions this program as a way to circumvent all bothersomness. Enjoy kiddies! (Especially the CoBiliciousness.)
Scoop: Label Must Pay P2P Defendent's Legal Fees
Wired News
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.
------------------------------------
Edit: Someone on the comments below the article mentions this program as a way to circumvent all bothersomness. Enjoy kiddies! (Especially the CoBiliciousness.)
