Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
the lawyers, of course.
Do they have to pay this in cash, or can they give the defendant part of a CD? After all, each song is worth $150,000 or so...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm really sorry.
I suspected this will noticed by lawyers as much as by anyone threatened. I imagine that cases will be taken on contingency that wouldn't be touched before. Not that I can blame a lawyer. Working for months at the risk of not being paid wouldn't be attractive to anyone. That risk is now much less if your lawyer believes in you.
I do wonder if this really does cover costs though. I couldn't read the link the article posted too - busy - but I did read the New York City lawyer reply indicating he feels the dollar amount isn't enough. I am sure he has a better idea of costs then I do.
It's sad when it costs you $70,000 to defend yourself against an RIAA suit. At least in this case the RIAA had to pay for the defense's lawyers, but there have been plenty of others were the defendants were on their own when all was said and done. On top of that, the RIAA is well aware of the costs of defending against their lawsuit and uses this cost to force people into settlements.
The whole situation makes me sick.
The summary is mis-leading the reader as it makes it seem like all fees are paid for by the RIAA and the defendant got off untouched. Depending on how solid her fees were, it could still end very badly for the defendant. If her stated fees are actually due, this judgement will still cost her about $46k which doesn't sound like much of a victory to me.
This is exactly the reason why so many capitulate and take the RIAA $3000.00 settlement. maybe, just maybe people will begin fighting these RIAA thugs in suits because of this ruling.
That'll teach those bastards a thing or two!!!
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
Per the Judge's opinion, she was apparently asking for about $114,000.
Viper is the preferred editor of the Emacs operating system.
The first thing I wondered was, what on earth do the lawyers do that cost this much? First she requested $55,000 for lawyer fees, which the court gave her. The RIAA complained that it wasn't reasonable, and of course since her lawyer had to work extra to deal with that request, they raised the bill to $114K. This includes $225/hr for the lawyer, $100/hr for the paralegals, and 8 cents a page for copies. Apparently the court thought this was a bit high because they reduced it down to $68,685.23. Still, I'm sure it's quite a win for the lawyer.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!!
Qxe4
Yay! guess music labels wud be better of if they just shut RIAA down. they'll save millions in attorny fees at the least & will earn people's respect in addition
peace!
I think we should stop referring to the big, bad RIAA whenever possible. One of the reasons this organization exists is to funnel bad press away from specific companies (e.g. oh I dunno, Capitol) and toward an organization that doesn't really do anything on its own. Saying "the RIAA is suing somebody" doesn't really tell me anything.
If, instead, we referred to the actual company(-ies) involved, it would let people know who is really filing these lawsuits. I realize that it's mostly the Big Four who are doing this, but I feel that just slapping the RIAA label onto everything clouds the discussion.
Even if they did end up paying all her legal fees, plus interest, plus lost wages, the MAFIAA would still be ahead.
The point of these lawsuits isn't to recover "damages". It's to frighten the rest of the country into acting the way they want them to. If their skin were a little darker, it would be called "terrorism".
Looks like modern times have made the inquisition a fair system, and now the commoner can burn the inquisitor at the stake.
Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
Unfortunately, they've only been made to pay the defendant's legal fees so far. Maybe one day the **aa "theives" (sic) will get jail time as well.
I don't care why you're posting AC
$68K ought to be enough for anybody.
Eh, I dunno. It looks like the lady still has $46k in fees to pay. She just doesn't have to pay the lawyer.
A $3k settlement would suck, but I'd sigh, whip out the credit card, and resign myself to not buying any goodies for the next month until it's paid off. $46k would basically ruin my life for the next couple years. I completely understand why people settle.
Now I feel that the effort I made to do technical analysis of the RIAA's evidence and post it here and on another forum was worth it. Even if my particular work didn't help directly. I don't think the lawyers are winning nearly as much as they could be if they had to do all the technical analysis through leagal companies. Also, this kind of situation shows up the RIAA and is likely to slow down their similar actions in future.
Sigh.... I know I'm feeding a troll, but I can't seem to help myself today. I haven't downloaded a single tune in my life (I'm 49). I like classical music for the most part, and have a decent CD collection of my favorites; I also like some contemporary music, and have a few CDs of that nature, as well. I just never really got into downloading tunes; I don't expect them to sound great on my computer, and I don't have any players or whatever.
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which comprise it are being vicious, vindictive and petty in their approach. I think they are going after people who can't afford to defend themselves and trying to bankrupt them, merely to scare others away from "piracy". They don't care whether their victims are actually guilty of any wrongdoing; they're counting on the fact that they can throw expensive lawyers and "expert" witnesses at them, and that the victims can't afford to fight, regardless of their actual liability in the matter.
I don't "steal" music, but I don't buy it anymore, either. I listen to what I already have, or I turn on the radio (I know, that does indirectly support them; but then, I can't remember ever buying anything as the result of a radio ad). I think the music industry as it exists now does not deserve the support of my dollars, and they're not going to get it.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
From the filing:
[Plaintiffs] further argue that the defendant is not entitled to fees for work that could have been avoided had she assisted the plaintiffs or acceded to the settlement.
She can't charge for attorneys' fees because she decided not to settle? Does that imply that if she had settled, she would have gotten attorneys' fees? What planet are these people from?
Finally, [plaintiffs] contend the case was of too simple and mundane a nature to warrant a fee in excess of $100,000.
Yet they see nothing wrong with a fine of $100,000 per violation for copyright infringement.
How did the judge feel about this?
The plaintiffs argue that the defendant is not entitled to fees incurred after some point when she allegedly "could have avoided [fees] altogether but chose not to do so." Throughout the course of this litigation the plaintiffs have alleged that had the defendant appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation, she could have avoided being sued. The Court has rejected this argument on numerous occasions and declines to entertain it yet again. The defendant was entitled to litigate the claims the plaintiffs chose to bring against her and, as the prevailing party on those claims, she is entitled to recover the reasonable attorneys' fees she incurred in doing so.
Or, in layman's terms: Did your Mom drop you on your head when you were little?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The great thing about RIAA suing people is that they're the ones doing the dirty work. But as in the MAFIAA, you can be sure that there is never any specific company that ordered each lawsuit. So how can you blame, say, Capitol?
Boycotting the big fours is a good start, but a good thing would be RIAA-tracking sites like http://www.riaaradar.com/ or some other way people can know. It's very difficult, since idependent labels might have a joint venture with a small RIAA member, but it's probably possible to turn it into some kind of "rotten" percentage.
The problem is how to make it easy to use. A user-friendly, but probably infeasible solution would be if you just took a picture of the bar code of an album, then submitted that image to a search function that would immediately return all the dirt of any company involved in releasing said album.
I lost my sig.
$68K, that's chump change to them. I'm sure they waste 100 grand monthly to pay for Madonna's Kabbalah Water. The only positive side to this is that it shows that that there is some good left in our legal system and others will not be scared into not downloading music because the big RIAA will give them a maximum penalty of $250,000 and 5 years in prison. Still they will eventually win the battle, because they have the Benjamin and we don't.
It's a type of Parrot you dolt
Look into
cdbaby
magnatunes
jamendo
I've found some great music from all of the above. I'm sure that there are others.
Judging from the decision, it looks like the defendant may have been overcharged by her lawyers, in the sense of being billed for more time than was reasonable. The judge makes several disparaging remarks about the defense lawyers block-billing time rather than keeping accurate records of exactly how much time was spent doing what, and about "almost frenetic" activity once they knew they would be recovering costs.
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
Ouch.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It should of course come from the lawyer, who does it at a personal loss. Much like when I set up computers and networking for non-profit charity, I don't charge anyone for those hours, but accept that I won't be paid for those hours, and thus make less. If I charged other clients more to cover getting paid for those hours too, I would be committing fraud.
I thought The Law was there to protect the people, but continuous harrasment of the people by organisations with $$$ is perfectly ok.
Stealing is not ok, but the penalties are way out of proportion and should be in line with the people you're punishing ("feel" the punichment equally (*1)) and not with what the corporations want.
In Sweden AFAIK there is a system with fines that relate to your income. This sounds more fair to me.
Privacy is terrorism.
i hope all of you fucking theives goto jail. assholes.
/.
I didn't know Britney came on
In Soviet Russia, YOU sue the RIAA.. er... in America, YOU the RIAA sues... nevermind.
Someone had to say it.
Why would the lady have to pay $48k? The judgement stated that the rate that her legal counsel set for her via fee agreement was $175 per hour. I would suspect that the bill that her counsel initially submitted was purposely set high under the assumption that the court would not grant the initial fee request. Sort of an initial horse-trading position.
PS
Buying a cd from cdbaby is worth it for the order confirmation email alone :)
For music thieves and their apologist mates here on slashdot.
For Robber barons and their extorting lackeys at ShiTAA.
Read radical news here
This is somewhat OT, but the "haha" tag should get a picture attributed to it; and I know just the one!
o n.gif ...of course I assume it's copyrighted, which means we'll eventually see a Slashdot story entitled "Slashdot forced to pay damages to Matt Groening"... and it'll get the "haha" tag. Come on CmdrTaco, you know it's worth it.
http://inverse.physics.berkeley.edu/archives/nels
They nickle and dimed the Capitol Records. Just because this is what they asked for in a ruling, doesn't mean that is what they were going to charge her. They might have even taken the case pro bono, and agreed to charge her nothing. Doesn't mean they can't still be awarded fees. Well when you are asking for an award from the court, you throw in everything you can think of. Reason is that you want to get as much form the other party as you can and the judge will rarely raise award you more than you ask for.
What's $68,000 to the RIAA? They blow $68,000 on human blood beverages in the conference room, every day. The gold slave collars they give the midgets who wash their balls cost more than that.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What did you get your Ph.D in? Those figures definitely aren't typical for a CS Ph.D.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This is almost definitely true. Just like car manufacturers have actuaries that calculate the expected number of deaths from a design flaw and whether they can withstand the expected legal costs, etc., I have no doubt that the RIAA is doing exactly the same thing here.
However, and this is an important point, this ruling has just increased the cost of doing business "as usual" for the RIAA. Their actuaries suddenly have to adjust the parameters in their equations accordingly. That makes this ruling a good thing and not revolting, IMO.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Capitol records have to pay Ms Foster money. The legal entity known as the RIAA does not owe anyone a dime.
Please can we stop allowing the record companies to hide behind the RIAA? The RIAAs job is to shield record companies from bad publicity and keep their names out of messes like this.
Why are all of you helping the RIAA? Why do you hate freedom and democracy so much ? Puppy killers!
Wouldn't this be another example of turnabout == fair play? I imagine that in order to beat the RIAA at their own lawyering game, you have to overcharge and then settle on a less, but still significantly high, price.
Just like the RIAA was trying to "charge" people $150,000 per violation which usually gets whittled down to $5,000 per, these lawyers were likely knowingly overcharging.
Here is a thought, in order to prevent the RIAA from continuing to use the copyright violations as a very lucrative revenue stream, only grant them actual damages plus reasonable court charges.
And you seem to be an asshole. I get more pleasant attitudes than yours from 6 year olds. If it's true that you're a teacher I feel sorry for your students. You have no business being in charge of other people - go back to Mom until you can learn a modicum of decency.
That kind of publicity they can do without, as it will turn their prophecies (of internet music sharing being the doom of the music industry) into self-fulfilling prophecies.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Used girlfriend dot com?
What's a "girlfriend?"
$ rant --subject music\ industry\ lawsuits | sed s/RIAA/Capitol/g
(IANAL)
Sorry your divorce didn't work out so well for you.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Actually, this was the conclusion -- or should I say opinion -- of the "expert" hired by the RIAA to study the bill. The Court itself made no such finding, although they did agree with this expert on some of the points he made.
Considering the novel aspects of this case -- note that no filesharing case has actually made it to trial so far -- this was far from simple, and was breaking new ground in all aspects. I think the judge was a penny pinching [vernacular for posterior] about the fees, once he decided that the defendant was entitled to them. I don't know if this furthers the Copyright Act goals of encouraging meritorious defenses, or not.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
or scumbags like you could stop stealing music. oh forgive me, its always those evil people who actually make the music you like who are the bad guys isn't it?
fucking hypocrits.
Bill Gates drops quarter; doesn't pick it up.
Mine actually worked out fine.
I have 50/50 joint custody of our son, I pay a reasonable amount of child support and no spousal support.
But..... in researching all this stuff about divorce and family court I found out that many laws have been on the table in my state which state no sposal support unless the circumstances are special and a default 50/50 custody split. In each case a team of lawyers who practice family law argued against it and get women like the poster aboves wife to somehow believe a failed marriage entitles them to somehting.
It really does disgust me, especially after seeing an unfounded accusation of "he threatened me" result in a friend not seeing his children for 7 months, then no action against the ex when she admitted she lied.
i dunno, the family court system is broken in this country and it pisses me off.
by the way the only was I got all the stuff above was letting my lawyer and her lawyer duke it out, total cost between the 2 of us, about $19,000 to come to a conclusion that was my first offer to start.
As a surgeon, Medicare reimburses a $482.62 "global fee" for a laparoscopic appendectomy in my area (there are no provisions for charging "by the hour.". So it's tough to say how much I make in an hour. But I'd say it is safely below these "reasonable attorney's fees." Not to whine here. I'm not starving.
And FYI, after high school: 4yrs undergrad, 4 yrs med school, 5 yrs surgical residency.
I'm a lawyer. It's likely (almost guaranteed) that her lawyers will call it quits at $68k. Lawyers regularly write time (revenue) off for all sorts of things and although they will have given chapter and verse for the Court, they'll happily take a lower number. You always shoot high in these things - you're not being dishonest (you can prove what work you did) but *in reality* usual practice is to write off or not charge for every little thing that you do. When you think the other sides going to be paying for it though, you ask.
I wasn't trying to insult anyone (car manufactures or the RIAA) by the comparison, just stating that I'm sure they both use actuaries to calculate expected costs, etc. You're absolutely right that there's no simple ethical choice that is obviously correct. One has to, at the end of the day, attribute some dollar value to an anonymous human life if you want to decide algorithmically on the best course of action. Saving everyone's lives (if it were possible) at the cost of abject poverty and misery probably isn't the most ethical thing to do. Allowing people to make their own choices (and not hiding the actual risks from them), I think is more ethical, although it is admittedly never black and white. As you say, let them decide between the $20k car and $100k car.
On a side note, I was on a trial a while back where we were deciding how much money to award a plaintiff for the loss of a father. We all agreed rather quickly on the liability of the defendant, and we agreed very easily on a reasonable figure for the expected lifetime earnings, but the hardest part was trying to decide what was the value of a father? More than one juror (rightly) pointed out that one could not put a price tag on that. However, (and I'm not sure I ever completely conveyed this point to one of them), by not putting a price tag on that, we were effectively putting a price tag of $0 on it. I don't want to give all the details, but I am satisfied with the final dollar value that we came up with.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The parent is modded as flamebait, and rightfully so. However, it brings up an interesting point (and question...)
Your wife was in court for "support"? What type of support?
If it was child support, I understand and good luck.
If it was alimony, why would your wife be entitled to that after she has remarried (you)? Just curious, even though it's none of my business.
However... I don't think spousal support is always uncalled for. My wife has been home taking care of the children for eight years now - an economic (not to mention emotional) arrangement which has worked out well for us. If I were to take off, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect me to support her for at least some length of time - say, for her to finish her graduate work.
But yes, the system is awful, and has been traditionally heavily biased against men, and fairness is often hard to come by. Good luck on your new life.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
minor nit-pick:
Capitol Records didn't make that music. And they almost certainly screwed the artist in question royally in their contract.
$68K is pocket change to these people. At best, this is a neutral outcome. When they dig up the rotting corpse of Jack Valenti and charge him with barratry, then we can call it positive.
However, the rest of the jurors don't want to reveal too much about our deliberation process for their own privacy concerns. The final verdict was for $4.5 million.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It was. Luckily, everyone in the jury got along.
Or, as in my case, you have a father that you think is irreplaceable.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
fuck off linux faggot!