Talk:Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster

Legal Fees

Does anyone know if a cheque was ever cut for Debbie Foster's legal fees?

66.119.167.130 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article

Rather than nominate this article for speedy deletion because of lack of notability (largely because it has been around for almost 2 years), I've instead flagged it for lacking notability and will explain why I think so here to give other editors a chance to better establish notability.

There is nothing that suggests inherent notability. This was one district court case out of tens of thousands that are filed in the US every year; it didn't even make it to trial. The rulings issued by the court are run-of-the-mill.

The references don't establish notability. Two of the five sources emanate from a personal blogger (Ray Beckerman) who reports on every bit of litigation by the RIAA. The two Ars Technica articles are largely reporting on other Beckerman postings. And the final source is from the EFF, who filed an amicus brief in the case that is the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartboy (talk • contribs) 06:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Impact section

I removed this section from the main article namespace as it has no citations, none of the references listed support it, and if it is original research, then the conclusions are factually inaccurate:

Legal impact

The ruling was significant in two ways:

Firstly, that a party who used a computer, and paid for Internet access, was found to be not liable (either in full or as a contributory or abettor) for usage by others of which they were ignorant.

Secondly, it reinforced the principle that a vexatious litigator should not be surprised at being required to pay costs at a full rate, when the costs of a party were large due to the need to fight the vexatious conduct, and that disclosure of their own legal fee rates would be taken into account as a factor to show "reasonableness".

Hartboy (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/477/561.html#f11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006132049/http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/okwd/okwd_504cv01569.html to http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/okwd/okwd_504cv01569.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)