In Capitol Records v. Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma, a case against a mother — whose only connection to the alleged filesharing was that she was the person who paid for the internet access — has been dismissed with prejudice.
Faced with the mother’s motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion dismissing the case against her, and awarding her attorneys fees, the RIAA made its own motion for permission to withdraw its case.
The Court granted the motion and let the RIAA drop its case.
The Court went on to hold that the defendant, Ms. Foster, is the “prevailing party” under the Copyright Act and is therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees.
Signa that most definitely is a loophole. It would be even better if they came and seized your puter and you happened to have Windows ME running on it showing yourself to be a complete n00b. You’re not responsible to secure your wifi that’s how come they come set from the factory in unsecure mode. So Ne007 just hush you have no idea.
I’m surprised this wasn’t a bigger story here would have thought people would be very interested.
So isn’t this the first only time one of these lawsuits has been fought to conclusion? The Record companies lost. That’s an interesting statistic to keep ready for the next time you’re arguing with someone who claims the Big Four are an invincible opponent and we should all just bend over and take it.
Signa that is not a loophole. You are responsible for securing your network therefore you are responsible for everything downloaded. Even if a neighbor comes over and downloads something. You are responsible. If someone downloads off of your non-secure wireless router…not making it secure is where you went wrong.
just like they cant prove that some one wasnt accessing my wireless internet. such a simple and effective loophole if i ever get challenged
she won because she didnt cave into their threats they couldnt prove that she did anything but pay for internet