Debbie Foster's battle with the RIAA appears to be finally over. Today, a federal judge in Oklahoma closed the book on Capitol v. Foster by awarding her $68,685.23 in attorneys' fees, a ruling first reported by Ray Beckerman's blog.

Foster was sued by the RIAA in November 2004 for copyright infringement. She denied infringement and began a legal fight against the music industry. In July 2005, the labels added her adult daughter Amanda Foster to the suit. Instead of dropping the action against Debbie Foster, the record labels continued to press claims of secondary copyright infringement, saying that she was liable for infringement since the ISP account allegedly used for sharing music was in her name.

Judge Lee R. West was unmoved by the argument and in July 2006, dismissed the case with prejudice, making Foster the prevailing party and eligible to recover attorneys' fees. This past February, Judge West awarded Foster attorneys' fees, citing the RIAA's insistence on pressing the secondary infringement case and saying that he could find no case "holding the mere owner of an Internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons."

The RIAA's followed its usual strategy throughout its legal assault on file-sharing, digging in its heels against the judge's decision. Two weeks after the award, the RIAA appealed the ruling, a request that the judge denied in April.

Foster's attorney, Marilyn Barringer-Thompson, submitted a bill for $105,680.75. After taking into account the amount of time spent on the case, how the time was billed, and costs of expert witnesses, Judge West decided that $68,685.23 was adequate to compensate Barringer-Thompson and her legal staff for the time spent litigating the case. He also rejected the RIAA's argument that Foster was not entitled to fees incurred after "some point when she allegedly 'could have avoided [fees] altogether but chose not to do so,'" reiterating that she was fully entitled to fight the RIAA's charges and as a result, eligible for an award of attorneys' fees.

An RIAA spokesperson told Ars Technica that they don't see any disturbing trends developing. "We respectfully believe that this ruling is in error and is an isolated occurrence," said the spokesperson. "In the handful of cases where the person engaging in the illegal activity in the household is not the person responsible for the ISP account, we look to gather the facts quickly and do our best to identify the appropriate defendant."

So far, the RIAA has found itself on the losing end of only a handful of cases, none of which have gone to trial. Resistance to the RIAA on the part of defendants is increasing, however, and other, recent setbacks such as judges refusing to allow the RIAA to conduct ex parte discovery in two John Doe cases. As a result, the price of litigation is going up for the RIAA (although it does enjoy the considerable financial backing of the music industry) at the same time that it continues to take a beating in the court of public opinion and alienate its fans. But hey—at least the RIAA made a cool $300 last week.