Good news folks, some weeks ago we reported on the case of the lady who was sued by the cartel even though they knew she had commited no infringing activity but merely wanted to use it as leverage to extort money from her.
This policy of extortion operated by the recording industry has at last backfired in on them, they have been found liable to pay all costs of the action they tried to withdraw from. Withdrawing from a case as they have done in the past is their usual way of leaving the victim of the scam with a massive legal bill to foot, this case should see the end of this rather disgusting and underhand activity.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070207-8786.html"The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. Rather, the doctrine of secondary liability emerged from common law principles," wrote Judge Lee. "Under those common law principles, one infringes a copyright contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging a direct infringement."
Judge Lee set out the three elements of a claim for contributory copyright infringement: direct infringement by a third party, knowledge by the defendant that third parties were directly infringing, and substantial participation by the defendant in the infringement. "Merely supplying means to accomplish infringing activity [e.g., an Internet connection] cannot give rise to imposition of liability for contributory copyright infringement," according to the opinion.
The record labels could not support their argument of secondary liability, according to the judge. Perhaps most importantly, Judge Lee could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."
The judge also had harsh words for the RIAA, saying that it looked as though they had pressed the secondary infringement claims to force Foster into a settlement, even after they realized she was not responsible for the alleged file sharing.
We can see why they got worried after this announcement that is going to cost them more than just a loss of face.
The ruling also opens the door wider for a "prove it was me using the computer" defense. The RIAA's strategy of relying heavily on IP addresses to identify infringers is likely to draw even closer scrutiny as a result of this ruling. This is the first ruling that we know of where a direct relationship between an IP address and an accused party was demonstrated, but deemed insufficient to prove infringement.
The court's finding that the owner of an Internet account cannot be held liable for copyright infringement that occurs without his or her knowledge is more significant. Although the judge in Elektra v. Santangelo declined to dismiss the labels' infringement claims against Patti Santangelo, he doubted that "an Internet-illiterate parent who does not know Kazaa from a kazoo" could be found liable for file sharing done in her house without her knowledge or consent. In short, it means that merely owning an account used for infringement doesn't rise to the level of liability under the Copyright Act.
Justice has been done in this case, I,m sure many of you will agree with me.
