The RIAA doesn't enjoy reality
File this under "what, you mean there are risks in this strategy?"
The cartel of record companies in Capitol v. Foster have filed a motion for reconsideration of US District Court Judge Lee R. West's decision to award the defendant Debbie Foster attorneys' fees. In it, the plaintiffs lay out their disagreement with the judge's reasoning while taking time to point out that the fees awarded far exceed any damages they could have recovered should their suit have been successful.
What a complete bunch of tools. I swear, some prosecutor should start applying the RICO laws to the RIAA.
Update: Oh geez - the RIAA is willing to just lob grenades everywhere they go. I hadn't considered this, from Wired:
Predictably, the RIAA has filed a "motion for reconsideration" of Judge West's decision to force the RIAA to pay for Foster's legal fees. In the motion, the plaintiffs emphasize a key point: They want the judge to rule that the owner of an ISP account is responsible for all activity on that account, which could have a chilling effect on public wireless access and open hotspots. (The appeal also made the point that Foster should be held liable if she was aware of the infringement occurring via her account; in the case of someone with an open Wi-Fi network, that could constitute something as simple as experiencing traffic slowdowns.)
If they got their way on that, any entity that offered a net connection - Starbucks, a hotel, a municipality (etc) - would have a huge potential liability on their hands. They might well decide to just discontinue in order to not expose themselves. Yeah, there's a world I want to live in.
Technorati Tags: music
