Rich Fiscus
18 Oct 2007 22:59
Despite their humiliating retreat in the P2P copyright infringement case against Tanya Anderson, the RIAA is acting as though they won the case and arguing in court that they shouldn't have to pay her legal bills because she's probably guilty.
As crazy as it sounds, RIAA lawyer William Patton wrote in his brief to the judge deciding the matter "It would be an extraordinary coincidence indeed if this defendant had nothing to do with infringement at issue in this matter." That's right. The RIAA is saying she shouldn't be treated as though she was exonerated when they dropped the case for a lack of evidence. And the legal argument appears to be that they're reasonably sure they're right. What the legal precedent for such an argument would be is unclear at this time.
Meanwhile, Anderson's lawyers have said her legal tab "may exceed the amount the RIAA is publicly crowing about in the absurd verdict against Jammie Thomas." Of course, the exact amount in fees they can collect would be up to the judge.
Anderson plans to use the money to pay for a countersuit she plans to file against the RIAA. That countersuit, also in the Oregon federal court, seeks class-action status to represent "those who were sued or were threatened with suit by defendants for file-sharing, downloading or other similar activities, who have not actually engaged in actual copyright infringement." The lawsuit alleges "the class is comprised of many thousands of individuals."
Source: Wired