The article RIAA Pays $107,951 to Alleged Filesharer caused my eyebrows to go up in surprise. But that was nothing compared to this claim:
[With Capitol v Thomas] looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA’s ‘war on downloading’ have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong and [was] ordered to pay the fees.
Here are the details of these three cases:
- In Capitol v Thomas, the Judge told the jury that “making songs available online for distribution to others was copyright violation.” But it’s not, as other court decisions have made clear. So, the Judge is “weighing granting Ms. Thomas a new trial.” News.Google hits: 467.
- Atlantic V Anderson. Three years of litigation and then the RIAA drops with prejudice, ie, they accept fault and the defendant gets to go after attorney fees. Of course, it was another year of court battles before RIAA paid out $107,951 in fees. The judge denied a fee multiplier requested by the defendant’s attorneys. Anderson is now proceeding with a malicious lawsuit claim; one would hope the RIAA’s withdrawing with prejudice in these two cases would give merit to her claims. News.Google hits: 15.
- Capitol v. Foster. In 2004, RIAA filed suit first against Debbie Foster and then added her adult daughter Amanda. In 2006, Judge Lee R. West dismissed the case “with prejudice.” July 2007, the Judge awarded Foster $68,685.23 in attorney fees. She also got interest. News.Google hits: 27.
See a very long list of RIAA-related litigation. It’s kinda hard to believe that these cases have been going on for five years: RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers and Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA.