Friday, March 23, 2007

RIAA Files Reply Papers Telling Judge his Decision Awarding Attorneys Fees Was "Erroneous" in Capitol v. Foster

The RIAA has filed reply papers in Capitol v. Foster, repeating their argument to the Judge that his prior decision, which directed that Ms. Foster be reimbursed by the RIAA for her reasonable attorneys fees,was "erroneous":

RIAA Reply Papers in Further Support of Reconsideration Motion*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

3 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

"defendant Debbie Foster resorts to conclusory assertions, rhetoric, and repeated misstatements of plaintiff's positions in this case."

Oh, gee. Goes around, comes around.

---

Oh here's another one. Plaintiff's "had attempted to dismiss this case for almost one year."

Where is the motion to dismiss? The motion to really dismiss? The motion to dismiss with prejudice, as opposed to the motion to dismiss until we feel like pursuing you all over again?

---

"...in the many months in which they (plaintiffs) were simply trying to dismiss this case, against defendant's ongoing and inexplicable resistance."

Oh, you mean dismiss the case on our (RIAA) terms after we've run up thousands and tens of thousands in legal bills for you because you dared defy us in our extortionare demands.

You sound like you grabbed the Tar Baby here, and were caught by your own foolishness. And now you cry that the defendant was running the whole thing, keeping you from dismissing the case at all. The judge should slap you with sanctions for such a claim.

---

"...this Court applied a standard far more stringent than that adopted by the Supreme Court..."

Oh, it's the Court's fault too. Wow, it's everybody's fault except your own. Imagine that!

---

"...plaintiffs showed that very little discovery has occurred in this case and that the factual record was only minimally developed. This fact alone makes an award of fees inappropriate."

Oh, only if you spend a REALLY REALLY LOT OF MONEY, should you get it back for winning. If it's only a few thousand in pocket change, and a few months of your life scared that you may lose everything you have, YOU DESERVE NOTHING!!!

---

From the Cake And Eat It Too Department:

"...plaintiffs demonstrated that, notwithstanding the minimal discovery that had taken place, plaintiffs had nonetheless developed substantial evidence to support their claims of contributory and vicarious infringement."

Then why were you trying to dismiss the case for nearly a year? Why weren't you pushing for a trial to win on the merits? How do you talk out of both sides of your mouth so well at the same time?

---

"Plaintiffs' undisputed actions reflected their continuous good-faith effort..."

Good-faith effort. There are a couple words that the RIAA should never be allowed to use again. Nothing I've seen here about this was a good-faith effort for any proper justice.

---

Oh, and this is good. "Plaintiffs gave defendant repeated opportunities to end this litigation without paying anything..."

Anything but all the costs you're run up already. Anything, but admitting you're a criminal when you're not. Anything, but opening yourself up to future suits since you've now admitted exactly what they want you to admit, true, or not. Good definition of "anything" there.

---

Plaintiffs sure love the Grokster case. They seem trying to make that case into this case. Yet as I read Grokster, you have to induce others into performing infringement. The RIAA is trying its best to fit this square peg into the round hole of making an Internet account available to others means you have told them to infringe record industry copyrights, and that you should have know this from the beginning. They (want) to believe that this is blindingly obvious to anyone.


---

When I read the RIAA's arguments, their position seems to be that fees should NEVER be awarded to defendants under any possible conditions, which seems greatly at odds with both the language, and the intent, of this part of the law. How high is the bar really in the award of fees to the prevailing party in a copyright case?

The RIAA should shut up, pay up, and be thankful that worse hasn't yet happened to them over these terrible suits. I hope they will have to pay more for all these extra, delaying, unreasonable tactics. It's not like they can't afford the legal bills in this case.

Anonymous said...

mlzzmve

Mark Sassak said...

I was just forced to settle. I reached out to Ray, but he could not help me. My atty. was provided to me at no cost, as a benefit, I get as a TEAMSTER. i COULD NOT GET ANY MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED. This is the nature of the extortion. If I had to pay a lawyer, I would have already lost. They dropped their case against me after three years. They told me they would bring suit against my 3 oldest children, (they were 11, 12, and 16 at the time RIAA illegally to pictures of what they say were files on my computer). I caved in when they supoewnaed my kids to be deposed. they would not have been legally represented that day. These people need to be stopped. I cannot understand why the courts have not stopped this madness.I am still waiting for the judge in NYCity to rule on the arguements he heard on Jan. 26th. His taking his sweet time left me no ammunitition to fight back with. "settle now or we will keep you and your children involved in this mess until it bankrupts you". The 5000.00 I sent them went on a credit card and may still harm us financially. Why aren't thew courts acting quickly to resolve this. all Riaa lawyers should be disbarred and given 20 years in attica. thank you for letting me vent. mrdriver9637