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.
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
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".
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
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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'
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 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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?