digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Innocent man pinched by RIAA asks SCOTUS for attorney's fees

arstechnica.com — With US appeals courts giving different answers, a Texas man is taking his case to the Supreme Court to ask why he has a stack of legal bills after the RIAA bailed out.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • KevinRoseMustDy, on 03/26/2008, -7/+96The losing party should always pay the attorney's fees, especially by corporations who can afford. Such a move would cease frivolous and irrational lawsuits
    • carpespasm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+30not on their part. Large companies can easily write off a big lawyer's bill as part of doing business if that legal action earns or saves them more money than it costs. It does wonders to stop normal people from suing an entity that has a seemingly bottomless pit of money though.
      • scbysnx, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8yeah this is the one scary thing about it, it would do a lot to stop frivolous lawsuits by people looking to sue a bus company because the bus hit a lamp post but it would be horrible for someone who had a legitimate claim that the company would spend a fortune on defending then "punish" the person for even trying with mountains of legal fee's
        • Nerys, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I believe this should always be ONE SIDED. IE the loser should always pay ONLY if the loser is a corporation and the winner is a normal citizen. In any other case it should not apply. That would solve that problem. IE it should only apply to litigious corporation.
    • coheedcollapse, on 03/26/2008, -1/+42I think it'd make more sense to make the losing party pay attorney's fees only if they initiated the lawsuit in the first place. It's ridiculous that the RIAA can go around and accuse whoever they please, but just drop a case and never give anything back if it turns out they're not going to win it.
      • fkr3, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3You realise they've had ~30,000 people not fight back and/or not win? And only a dozen or so actually fight back, and only a few of them win?
        • coheedcollapse, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9Of course! Not many people are going to fight back just because they know that even if they do fight and win, they're going to be out more than the $3000 fee that the RIAA usually "settles" on out of court. That and the fact that completely circumstantial evidence seems to hold up quite well in court when it comes to digital crime.

          Also, I'm not saying a majority of people DO win, I'm just saying that it's crap in this single situation where the guy DID win that the RIAA can just be like "whoops" and go on their way.
          • fkr3, on 03/26/2008, -8/+1Right..... all those people who choose not to fight do so because they're innocent but can't afford a lawyer, in a society that until recently would happily give them a half a million dollar loan for an apartment.
          • coheedcollapse, on 03/26/2008, -0/+91) I never said anyone was innocent or guilty, I was just stating a fact.

            2) So tell me, if you were in that position and COMPLETELY innocent, you would rather spend countless thousands of dollars on something you're not even guaranteed to win rather than spend the $3000 or whatever on a settlement? I'm sorry, but even in a world of $500,000 condos, not many people have the balls to put up their life savings to fight against the RIAA's best.

            You can think what you want of the innocence or guilt of those prosecuted, I'm just saying that most people, no matter how innocent, don't have the money to go out fists flying against the RIAA. I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or what.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"That and the fact that completely circumstantial evidence seems to hold up quite well in court when it comes to digital crime."
            That totally incorrect. It only holds up when the people explaining it explain it in a certain way to their favor, and the people listening to them have little knowledge about how computers work.
            They use the suceptability of ignorance to sue both the people who know nothing, as well as convince those who decide to rule in their favor of such a suit. When argued against correctly, their evidence doesn't hold much weight at all, unless they prove it was the person they're sueing.

            How do you think the some cases that did come to trial get turned into the accused's favor?
    • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -3/+20FAR more often lawsuits are the other way around. Little people suing large corporations.

      Making that a be all, end all law that the losing party pays legal fees would pretty much guarantee that the little guy would NEVER stand up for themselves and sue a large company.
      • xlar54, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10Agreed. So the answer should be in the type of lawsuit. The RIAA is clearly in the legal business, second only to Scientology for making legal claims against people. So if you file more than X suits in a year, then should you drop and run, you must pay the defendants legal fees. This would make both the little guy AND the big guy reconsider constantly filing suits frivolously.
        • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3There shouldn't be a limit to the number of times. It should be like it is now. IF the judge rules that your lawsuit was frivilous or malicious, then you pay. But not just to lose. That is like the stupid NFL replay rule. You get 2 chalenges. That is stupid. So, if you have a ref make a lot of bad calls in a row against you, you are screwed. Yes, if you win both challegnes, you get another, but if you miss just one, you get only 2, no matter how terrible the calls are afterward.) They could just make the definition of malicoous or frivilous less strict. But again, that could scare off the little guy from suing a large corporation too.


          And in this case, the RIAA had every reasonable reason to believe it was this guy. A computer at his house, using his IP was doing the sharing. It was not malicious
          • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1One way they could possibly do it is to cap the award for legal fees at a percentage of the amount that the plantiff sued for. Say, 10%. That way, if you sue someone for $1 million, you could be forced to pay up to $100,000 of the defendants legal fees if you lose (and the judge finds the lawsuit to have been malicious and/or without merit) If you sued for $100,000, then you are only potentially on the hook for $10,000.

            The logic would be that a defendant wouldn't likely spend more if they faced a larger loss. The upside of this is it would eliminate the ridiculous $50 million lawsuits for someone who slipped on a wet spot at a Walmart that caused them "permanent injuries". So, while a person who DID legitimately slip could still sue for medical bills and a small nominal settlement for pain and suffering(say, $2000) and not have to worry too much about losing, they would think twice about wasting the courts time by trying to claim that they are having nightmares over their sprained wrist they suffered and they require $5 million in pain and suffering.

            But still, it can't be automatic. Right now it is VERY hard to get awarded legal fees if you are a winning defendant. IT has to be shown that the suit was malicious. Basically that the plaintiff knew all along that they had no chance to win but did it just to disrupt your life or cost you money. So what they could do is make that threshold a little less strict, but then add the cap.

            I think 10-20% is agood start. Let's face it...if you are being sued for $5000, you are not going to need to spend more than $1000 on lawyers to defend yourself unless the case has SOME merit. If it is truly a frivilous and malcious lawsuit, then you should be able to defend yourself pretty cheaply since there would be no evidence agaisnt you.

            Tying any potential losses to the plaintiff to the size of the lawsuit might make the RIAA decide to come up with more reasonable numbers for their per song damages. Maybe $50-100 per song, rather than $1000.

            Either way, the guy in this article will not win one penny. The guy's daughter was using his computer and his internet connection. Of course he is going to be the target of the lawsuit. It is not like they just pulled his name out of the phone book. The lawsuit was reasonable, whether you agree with it or not.
          • Nerys, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1But thats just it THEY DID just pull his name out of a phone book. They got an IP thats it and they said ISP who owns this IP. Name out of a phone book. They made NO ATTEMPT to actually identify the PERSON on the other end of that connection. This would be like a gang running through a neighborhood and as they run across your LAWN in front of your HOUSE one gang member shoots another gang member dead and the police do nothing more than call up the township and say WHO OWNS this house and they arrest and charge that person with murder.

            SO YES its quite literally analogous to them pulling a name out of a phone book. Well over 20 people a month use "MY IP ADDRESS" I have 7 people in this household. We have at least 10 "regular" friends who visit and utilize the connection while they are here and I have at least 5-8 "unknown" logins to my "open wifi" connection. (no I will not lock it down thats not very neighborly I lock down my internal network as it would be silly not too though)

            The RIAA is being given a free ride to simply declare whoever "owns" the IP address is the one we are going to sue. If you do not SEE how this is a problem then your pretty wacked or have NO CLUE how this stuff works.
      • coheedcollapse, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Completely true. I should have thought about it both ways before I went straight to that conclusion.

        it's always hard for me to get it out of my head that people sue for REAL reasons in this day and age of frivolous ***** and staged lawsuits.
      • daborg, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1"Making that a be all, end all law that the losing party pays legal fees would pretty much guarantee that the little guy would NEVER stand up for themselves and sue a large company."

        Here's a possible solution to that: The losing party would pay the winning party's legal fees *up to the amount they themselves paid in legal fees*.

        With that system, if a small person loses against a large company, they would only have to pay up to double what they spent themselves, and it would have the additional effect of reducing the amount of frivolous lawsuits. If a big company (say RIAA) loses against a small person, they will most likely have to pay the entire sum of legal fees for the person who won the case, as the company will most likely have spent more than the single person did.

        You could also combine this with only having to pay the fees if you drop out of the case.
    • Murdats, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3thats what we do in australia, and how many people have been sued over here by our equiv of the MAFIAA?
      next to none.
      • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2And how many little people get screwed over by large corporations and are afraid to sue for the same reason? Thousands? Millions?
      • zongamin, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3Well how many? Or don't you actaully know?
    • IMJGalt, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1And that is precisely why the democrat party which is financed by trial lawyers can not allow this to happen.
      • daborg, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Dude, honestly. Stop trolling and get a life.
  • willski, on 03/26/2008, -2/+32Yes, but that would work both ways too. What if you're the little guy suing a huge corporation? If you lose, you'd be liable for millions in legal fees, which would probably weigh heavily on your decision to file suit, whether you're in the right or not.

    They can't just make the rule "The party with the most money shall pay legal fees"
    • KevinRoseMustDy, on 03/26/2008, -9/+5Yes, they can!
      • buddypriefert, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1Um, Kevin little baby, when you grow up, you will understand.
    • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -4/+9At least SOMEBODY on Digg has some common sense and is not hypocritical. And what you said is not only 100% corect, but it is the more common situations. LArge wealthy corporations are sued by the average person far more often than the reverse.

      Any law that made it automatic that the losing party had to pay the winner's attorney's fees would do FAR more harm to the "little guy" than it would help him. No one would ever risk it.
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -0/+12ATTENTION: Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people.

      You can make a law that applies to corporations and not to individuals. You can do that because corporations are not people.
      • rilus, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1True. There's a lot of laws that apply only to people and not corps and vice versa.
      • Nerys, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Actually niku THATS whats so ***** up in this country today. CORPORATES ARE PEOPLE in the eyes of the law! They have LEGAL personhood. Thats a BIG reason we have so many PROBLEMS today.

        To me this law is simple. Make it so it ONLY applies when its a corporation suing an individual or small set of individuals. Thats it.
    • Ozymandias42, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1That brings up the question of what's a fair amount of legal fees. If you sue me, and I hire ten thousand attorneys and beat your one attorney, clearly I have paid an irrational amount of legal fee. But was it irrational, since I did manage to win with it and might not have won with a mere 2 or 3 of 9999 attorneys? Hard to say. Is the possibility of losing enough of an incentive to be reasonable with your legal costs? Tricky question, but likely not.

      Anybody know how countries where the loser pays legal fees handle it?
  • Cubedude04, on 03/26/2008, -5/+50Anyone using KaZaA in 2006 deserves to be sued.
    • mtdaugherty, on 03/26/2008, -1/+9Dugg for correct capitalization of KaZaA.
    • Jenadae, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7For stupidity?
      • tonzophunn, on 03/26/2008, -0/+12One must be pretty damn stupid to use the only client in which the RIAA is actually tracing people through
    • pentalive, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Are there no non-infringing uses for KaZaA? Linux distro?
  • Needles13, on 03/26/2008, -1/+17I don't think legal fees should be paid by the losing party if there is a verdict. But when you bring someone to court, make them hire a lawyer, waste their time, then drop the case because of a blatant ***** up, then you need to pay their legal fees. Especially if it's the RIAA ^_^ ,***** em'.
    • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -7/+2It isn't a "blatant ***** up" They have good reason to beleive it was him.

      I rally want to know if the RIAA turned around and sued his daguther. Because if they are not doing that, then this guy would do himself a favor to leave well enough alone. Whatever legal fees he winns will simply find their way into the lawsuit against his daughter that they would surely file out of spite, and based on this article, they would win.
      • JcbAzPx, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Please, this is the RIAA. Not only are they likely already suing his daughter, they're probably suing his dead grandmother and his cat, Mittens, too.
        • WoollyMittens, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Oh noes! Not Mittens!
        • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Really...what precedent are you going by that they have sued without ANY reason? None.

          Let's see..in the case of the "grandmother" it was becuase her grandkids were using it. Not at all a malicious lawsuit. same with all those poor, poor single mothers. Or that poor Jammie Thomas who apparently was the victim of a set up where a man used her non-existent WiFi signal to downloadthe EXACT same non-mainstream songs that she had in her collection, using the same screen name that she uses for many sites. Those bastards.
          • Nerys, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Sure I can answer that. They never identify a person. They only identify an IP and then SUE that IP OWNER.

            YOU fail to realize IP does not EQUAL PERSON.
        • cawpin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"Let's see..in the case of the "grandmother" it was becuase her grandkids were using it."

          And the dead woman? Yeah, didn't think so.
      • cawpin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"It isn't a "blatant ***** up" They have good reason to beleive it was him."

        The ONLY reason they thought that is because they are getting away with finding evidence after they bring it to court. Get your evidence and THEN sue.
  • DarkerMaster, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6BURN YOU ASSHOLES, BURN!!!
  • Shaman760, on 03/26/2008, -2/+11No wonder the SCOTUS can't start prosecutorial proceedings against BushCo.....they are inundated with *****-for-brains lawsuits brought about by these whining bitches known as the RIAA.

    ***** THE RIAA
    • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2Well, that and the fact that Bush hasn't one anything illegal. Take your pick.
      • sulthernao, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2The SCOTUS has really become an extension of the executive branch. They are letting him walk all over the constitution.
      • Nerys, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Signed The Patriot Act ? Treason
        Signed Patriot II ? Treason
        Signed the Mill Comm Act ? Treason
        Violated his Oath of Office on DOZENS AND DOZENS of known instances ? Treason
        Intentionally and maliciously lied to the american people and congress in order to INVADE without provocation another nation? Treason.

        Nothing illegal ehh? Just in case you think I am nuts I quote

        Article II, Section 1

        President

        "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  • Jenadae, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1If the person who sues loses the case they should be liable for fees. Not one, but both of those, if met, should pay.
    • Netrilix, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Little guy sues big company in a decently legitimate suit, with a roughly 75% chance of winning it. He hits some back luck, the case falls through, and he pays his cheap lawyer. Then he has to pay a whole team of multi-million dollar lawyers, and ends up going bankrupt just because a legitimate case falls through?
      • Jenadae, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1appeal
        • nextyoyoma, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1you're assuming that the person who wins the case is always right. That's ridiculous.
  • LALDET, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Good, take every penny from those bastards that you can.
  • skyz, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2this i want to see !
  • bingobongony, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2The man should sue his daughter. I am sure the RIAA will.
  • zbeast, on 03/26/2008, -0/+11I think that the riaa should pay...
    They can pull it out of that pool of cash they have been collecting but
    not forwarding on to the recording artists.
  • davidzet, on 03/26/2008, -6/+9dugg for SCOTUS -- only a few letter from SCROTUM
  • MentalHazard, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6The easiest solution here would be a mixture of things.
    1) If there was any fault in the losing party beyond an honest mistake, they should have to pay the the fees.
    2) We need to stop the mandatory liscence requirement of lawyers and let the free market decide who is god enough to do the job.
    3) Overhauling our present IP system for a much less invasive one is the only thing that's going to stop all this copyright/patent nonsense.
    Of course I'm probably going to be buried for offering anything other than a kneejerk, politically polar reaction.
    • Langford, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5A different IP system would cure the RIAA. I think the problem is that copyrights last for too long. If they were far shorter, there would be no profit in the RIAA dragnetting for kids to sue.
    • Murdats, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1"We need to stop the mandatory liscence requirement of lawyers and let the free market decide who is god enough to do the job."
      ok, let me charge you $2000 to defend you.
      you can tell others if i can do the job or not, I have to start somewhere.
    • rilus, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I think that certain jobs require a little more discrimination such as jobs that may put a life or lives in danger (e.g. Doctors or civil engineers) or jobs that may also put a man's freedom in jeopardy.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1The pro business Bush white house will be in favor of the guy who makes a few thousand a year to pay the legal expenses since the corporations are always right.
  • lerker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Is this true? You guys actually refer to your Supreme Court as SCOTUS?
    • Netrilix, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5In my case, no, never. Heck, I wasn't even sure what SCOTUS was until I saw your post. I just call it the Supreme Court.
    • thomas, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4SCOTUS is mainly an internet term it isn't something you would see in formal writing or when someone is talking about the Supreme Court.
    • Chassit, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States, an acronym.
  • Codeblew, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Supreme Court of the United States.
  • dlowder, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Lerker: Many Americans refer to the Supreme Court as SCOTUS. It sort of makes sense when you realize that in the U.S. each state has its own state Supreme Court, so it's a good way to make sure people know you're talking about the big one in Washington, DC.
    • Wartz, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3the Supreme court is the Supreme Court.

      The others are State Name Supreme court.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Really? Being an American who has never heard of the Supreme Court called "SCOUTS" I find it a little hard to swallow.
  • sodoh, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1SCOTUS won't do anything and here is why. The second the lawyers even think SCOTUS will intervene against them, then they will go for settle out of court. The danger with SCOTUS that once they rule on anything it is almost the be all, end all ruling and it can screw up a number of other cases.

    The current administration is a fine example. Torture and illegal detentions is against what the USA stands for, but the administration have been quite cute in that the second any of the cases gets a hearing date in SCOTUS the administration backs down. They know if one case is ever really ruled as illegal then all the detainees and torture would be gone.

    It is about the only check+balance you have left in the USA and why nothing of importance will ever be allowed to go to it.
    • ka2err, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2> Torture and illegal detentions is against what the USA stands for
      Then what does the US stand for?
      For some imaginary ideals or for what it really does?
      I guess that in your world China stands for civil rights because it's called "Peoples Republic of China"?
      • sodoh, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Read the US constitution. It details the ideals that the USA should stand for, but due to certain administrations that is no longer the case.

        SCOTUS rule based on the constitution. They are pretty final in their rulings for the most part as well.

        I would also look up what a strawman argument is as well.
    • Trick07, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Cool, you found yet another way to take one topic and turn it into some stupid rant about the current administration... I would assume it must suck being you but then again, you seem to enjoy your stupid rants so keep on going, Sparky.
  • breakaway, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2SCROTUM
  • kanabiis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4I think alot of people here have a grave misunderstanding of tort law. Common tort law does have the loser pay attorney fees. If you sue me, and I win, you pay for my attorney.

    This situation is not that case, in this situation, the RIAA sued, and after the defendant came back with a solid defense and the RIAA legal team realized that taking the case to court they would loose they dropped the case, however the defendant had amassed a large debt in attorney fees paying for his defense. Had the case gone to court and the defendant won, the RIAA would have had to pay his legal fees in addition to any other monetary judgment, but since the RIAA said we give up, the case was never heard, and a judgment never entered. Thus, the defendant technically 'won' however he was also still in debt to his attorney.

    Now, he could sue the RIAA for wrongful litigation and attempt to recoup his expenses, and continue to dig deeper in debt to his attorneys for this new lawsuit, but how fair is that really, he was innocent to begin with? Its not, and is contrary to the entire concept of justice.

    There is an interesting article on Pointoflaw.com regarding the inconsistencies in the application of the 'loser pays' principle in American tort law, which this appeal to the SCOTUS is looking to have clarified:

    http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php
  • malingo73, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2There is a law that says companies can not drag unions into arbitration on every grievance simply to bankrupt the union. The company will be in trouble if that is the case. The same should apply to major corporations that figure you will just settle because they have vastly greater resources than you do. That intimidating factor should not be allowed to decide the outcome of any lawsuit via a settlement. The corporation should be liable since they are the ones trying to intimidate you into settling.
  • DestroyFascism, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3To allow a serial litigant to get away with this is crazy!
  • doug22, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1what's a SCOTUS? why not just call it the USSC like everyone else
  • ghostfaceDX, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2I wish they'd remake the movie Fight Club, except change the ending to the RIAA buildings blowing up.
    • cawpin, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Buried for suggesting a remake of the ***** heap that was Fight Club.
  • joelito, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1I think a loser's pay position would be a good Idea. But to protect the smaller party (in case it loses) from having to pay excessive fees, i would set the maximum pay at no more than twice the losing lawyer's fees. Of course if the winning lawyer's fees were higher than that, then it's up to the winner to pay the difference:
    maxLoserPayment = LOSER_FEE * 2;
    winnerPays = (WINNER_FEE > maxLoserPayment)?WINNER_FEE - maxLoserPayment : 0;

  • slimjimworm, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1If someone wants to sue for a legitimate claim they should easily be able to find a lawyer who for 40% of the winnings will represent them. If they lose (frivolous or not) the person suing is not out any money...just the attorney for time/etc. - The attorney then would be the first "stop-gap" to deciding what is a frivolous lawsuit or not.

    All losing parties should foot all fees...attorney and court
  • diggydougie, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I think that the government should pay all the legal bills. It's their court system which necessitates them in the first place. And what the hell are "court costs"? Don't our taxes pay for the courts!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.