|  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Weather Reports > RIAA Refuses to Share Even After Verdict in Defendant's Favor | 
|
|  RIAA Refuses to Share Even After Verdict in Defendant's FavorNiki R. Woods, Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic - Boalt Hall, February 23, 2007 Abstract: In a move to alleviate some of the damage done to its future prospects of winning on file sharing infringement cases, the RIAA decided to appeal the attorneys’ fees awarded to the prevailing defendant in a copyright infringement claim. In a move to alleviate some of the damage done to its future prospects of winning on file sharing infringement cases, the RIAA decided to appeal the attorneys’ fees awarded to the prevailing defendant in a copyright infringement claim. The RIAA sued Debbie Foster in November 2004 because file-sharing activity was found on an IP address assigned to an internet account in her name. (Capitol v. Foster) It was quickly discovered that it was actually Debbie’s adult daughter, Amanda, who was doing the infringing, and Debbie had no knowledge of the activity. (Ars Technica story) The RIAA named Amanda as a defendant in the action, which resulted in a default judgment against her when she didn’t answer the complaint. However, plaintiffs kept Debbie on as a defendant also, claiming that the use of her IP address to file share was enough for her to be held liable. Debbie filed a counterclaim against the RIAA for a "declaratory judgment of noninfringment". The Oklahoma court ruled in July 2006, however, that Debbie was in no way secondarily or contributorily liable based simply on the fact that her IP address was being used for the infringing activity. The court ruled that in order for someone to be liable for the copyright infringement of another, in addition to direct infringement by the third party, the person to be held liable would need to both know about the infringement and substantially participate in the infringement. The court dismissed both claims and declared Debbie the “prevailing party”. If other courts take hold of this reasoning, this will make it very hard for the RIAA to go after individuals for file sharing based on the IP address alone. Evidence of knowledge and participation will become much more important. In an even bolder move, the court ruled this February 7 that Debbie was also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. The RIAA filed a motion to appeal those fees. It argues that even if there is no knowledge of the activity, account owners should be held secondarily or contributorily liable if their IP addresses are being used for infringement. The RIAA claims she should have known about the activity because her contract with her ISP required her to keep her account clear of copyright infringement. The RIAA also claimed that the discovery process was cut short, arguing that additional evidence of Debbie’s knowledge might have turned up eventually. In fact, the RIAA stated, “the computer may well have been in a common area such that defendant heard music coming from the computer when admitted infringer Amanda Foster was using it.” As Ars Technica puts it, “That’s right…the RIAA is arguing that [the] mere act of listening to music on one’s PC is evidence of copyright infringement.” This case is a big deal for the RIAA and other plaintiffs alleging copyright infringement through file sharing. The possibility of successful defendants being awarded attorneys’ fees means they might have to think twice about throwing these types of suits around.
|
|
|
|
Recent C&Ds