p2pnet - rss feed: Will legal fees be the RIAA’s undoing?
p2pnet news | Music:- Ever since Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG used their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to launch the sue ‘em all campaign against their own customers, p2pnet has been saying the ’settlement’ offers the RIAA waves in front of its victims are no more than a form of extortion, the concept of which would have done The Sopranos proud.
It’s, “no secret that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has responded to the growth of online file sharing with a wave of copyright infringement litigation,” write James Alonso, Marc Friedenberg, Michael Nguyen, Shawn Oakley and Sarah Calvert from The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review.
“Often, the individuals targeted by the RIAA fear the overwhelming costs of defending themselves in court, and many have agreed to pay large settlements.”
Or put another way, “Most of those who agreed to buy the RIAA off did so only because they literally had no other alternative,” p2pnet posted a couple of years ago, going on:
They simply didn’t, and don’t, have the financial or legal resources to take on the multi-billion-dollar industry with its bottomless pockets, teams of lawyers and obscene political influence.
It’s as if the labels have taken the famous line from Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather where Brando says chillingly, ‘I’ll make him an offer he don’t refuse.’
Well, the RIAA makes its victims offers some of them don’t refuse ‘Pay us. Or else’.
However, the tide is turning inexorably against the Big 4 and their various hit organisations such as the RIAA and the case of Oregon mother Tanya Andersen, who’s already causing the RIAA serious pain and discomfiture, may, “dramatically alter the legal landscape by forcing the RIAA to pay attorneys’ fees for those who have been wrongfully accused, say Alonso, Friedenberg, Nguyen, Oakley and Calvert in their article >>>
How Legal Fees Might Stop the RIAA’s Campaign Against File Sharing
Attorneys’ Fees in American Courts
Attorneys’ fees are the costs of legal representation. They are usually expressed in one of three ways: 1) as a contingency fee; 2) as a fixed fee or 3) as an hourly billing fee. The standard billing practice for law firms is the hourly rate system, and rates for large law firms can average over $300 per lawyer per hour.
Unless the parties have agreed in advance to a different result, under the default American Rule each party in a lawsuit is responsible for paying its own attorneys’ fees. Certain statutes, however, force the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees or else give the judge discretion to order such a payment. For example, under 17 U.S.C. § 505, a judge has the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a copyright dispute. In a recent case, Gonzales v. Transfer Technologies Inc., the judge considered the cost of prosecuting copyright infringement and the relatively low statutory damage award, and the judge chose to award attorneys’ fees.
The Andersen Case
In February 2005, the RIAA sued Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother living in Oregon, for copyright infringement related to online file sharing. Alleging abusive practices, Andersen filed a counter-claim accusing the RIAA of, among other things, electronic trespass, deceptive business practices, invasion of privacy, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Andersen demanded statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.
On June 1, 2007, the RIAA filed for dismissal of its case with prejudice, reflecting its belief that the case was non-winnable. To determine whether Andersen can recover attorneys’ fees, the federal district court judge must decide whether the goals of the Copyright Act would be furthered by the award. The federal magistrate wrote the judge a recommendation stating that the RIAA’s suit ‘lacked prima facie evidence,’ that the suit ‘did not appear justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law’ and that ‘copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs especially, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement cases [in a similar manner].’ Accordingly, the magistrate recommended awarding Andersen attorneys’ fees. The judge has not yet ruled on this recommendation. (reported at Ars Technica)
Legal and Strategic Implications of Awarding Fees
If legal fees are awarded to Andersen, the RIAA may be forced to rethink its tactics in prosecuting copyright infringers. Until now, the RIAA has relied on a ’shotgun approach,’ filing nearly three hundred lawsuits per week against alleged downloaders of copyrighted music, often without particularly strong evidence of illegal activity. If the court forces the RIAA to pay Andersen’s legal fees, it could establish a precedent upon which other accused copyright infringers will rely. This may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per case, and it may prompt the RIAA to abandon the shotgun approach and focus its legal strategy on downloaders who can be more conclusively tied to illegal activity. On the other hand, the RIAA might not be particularly sensitive to these costs and may instead prefer to occasionally pay in order to pressure file traders to stop downloading copyrighted music.
No matter how the RIAA responds, it is certain that a ruling for Anderson would make it more difficult to bully defendants into settling to avoid costly legal fees. Defendants with strong cases may be more willing to go to trial and to stand up to the RIAA if they believe they will recover their legal fees. These recoveries can be quite large - Andersen’s lawyers, for example, estimate their fees to be well over $200,000. Some argue that this would simply force the RIAA to be more careful about whom it sues and to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Others believe that even the RIAA has a right to have its day in court. Therefore, it’s clear that the judge’s decision in the Andersen case may prompt a dramatic change in the way the RIAA approaches copyright infringement cases.
The authors of these articles are law students, not licensed attorneys. This information is not legal advice. Legal advice is dependent upon the specific circumstances of each situation. The law may vary from state to state, and the information contained in this article is not guaranteed to be up to date. Therefore, the information contained in this article cannot replace the advice of competent legal counsel licensed in your state.
(Thanks, Howard)
Stay tuned.
Also See:
p2pnet posted - File sharing, p2p criminals, March 12, 2007
pain and discomfiture - Tanya Andersen sues the RIAA,June 25, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
A JUDICIAL CRIME
“Andersen’s lawyers, for example, estimate their fees to be well over $200,000.”
If Anderson were not paid her legal expenses, then that would be an injustice, netted out by the person who is supposed to do the opposite, the judge. The judge and the courts would be guilty of committing a crime if Anderson is not paid her legal fees. Morally she should also get punitive damages for her troubles. Of course, court misbehavior is mundane and is to be expected, and shall occur until there is a widespread revolt in America..
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
The more injustice is comited the more dangerous it is for all of us because the justice system lose credibility.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Nah, we’re too rich and powerful to be put off by a few legal fees.
Of course, we’ll make sure that wherever we’re ordered to pay them, we’ll delay and cause as much trouble as possible. In some cases, we are so successful at this, that the defendant just gets so frustrated, that they let it lapse out of apathy and they don’t get a single penny out of us. (smug)
November 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
While I endorse any tactic to bleed out and extinct the RIAA dinosaurs I think it is going to take a very long time to do so. These leeches have been sucking money out of fans and musicians for years; right now they are so bloated they are hemorrhaging cash.