Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Can it be that the RIAA, or the "Big 4" record companies it represents, are short on funds? It turns out that despite the Judge's order, entered a month ago, telling them to pay Debbie Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees, in Capitol v. Foster, they have failed to make payment. Ms. Foster has now had to ask the Court to enter Judgment, so that she can commence 'post judgment collection proceedings'. According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. Perhaps the RIAA should ask their lawyers for a loan?"
Unfortunately, this isn't RIAA v. Foster, it's Capitol v. Foster. Capitol Records is going to have to pony up or face the wrath of a spurned judge.
Time for more popcorn. This is gonna get interesting.
*piracy - producing crap loads of crappy music and selling it at over inflated prices
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
Marvin the Martian
They haven't, because this lawsuit was brought by Capitol, not the RIAA. The RIAA only digs up the possible infringements -- the actual lawsuits are made in the name of the allegedly infringed company.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Here they're spending about $5000 in attorneys fees to try and squeeze $543 out of a 20 year old. I guess
-they really do need the money, and
-they're really bad businessmen.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't believe that you have any requirement to communicate with someone who owes you a judgment at all, much less prove that you did. It's their obligation to pay, and to prove that they paid to the court. The legal document that needs to be sent certified mail is the complaint they're placing before the judge (and I'm sure it was), not the request for information that was sent via email.
Ignoring a judgement is a pretty dangerous game. A creditor who knows what they're doing can get liens on property, seize bank accounts, etc.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You really should do some research on how this sort of thing works. If you have a judgment against someone who has the assets, it is generally a very simple process to force collection. In California, you subpoena appropriate employees of the company in to court to answer questions - somebody like the CFO, to answer questions like "Where are you bank accounts" and "What is the account number and current balance" and "What is the license plate number and VIN of every car owned by the RIAA and issued to employees to use." Then you just pick what you're going to have uniformed Marshall's deputies go out and seize, at gunpoint if necessary, to sell off. Banks are very cooperative about taking money out of a bank account.
And if they ignore the subpoena, judges tend to do things like issue arrest warrants, eventually.
Anybody who fails to collect on a judgement against someone who actually has the wealth has no one to blame but themselves.
Hell, even $cientology was forced, on pain of prison time for higher-ups, to pay a judgement.
Here is an example what that means in human terms: almost 20% of a group of fisherman involved in the spill have died since it happened. http://www.oiledfishermenvsexxon.com/
To put this in perspective, Exxon-Mobil had the largest single year profit for a corporation in 2005 $36.13 billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/business/30cnd-e xxon.html?ex=1296277200&en=8ec83a7f4025b22b&ei=508 8&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
And they have still avoided paying the roughly 5 billion (2.5 billion to start with almost 20 years of interest.)
This is not justice, it's legalized rape.
"A bank customer who was angered by the refusal of his branch to refund thousands of pounds of charges responded by sending in the bailiffs.
Customers at the branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in North London were stunned to see debt collectors that were hired by Declan Purcell seize four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash."
More:
Times Online: Bailiffs seize bank's cash
What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive?
Registered mail is only necessary when you are trying to give someone notice. The RIAA already has notice of the order. From this point, it doesn't really matter how they try to contact them about collecitng. They could send messages to them via singing telegram.Usually they respond to any email within a couple of hours. If they took 2 days to respond to an email of mine I'd know something is up. A response doesn't have to be "OK here's your check" or "OK we'll get you check on the 18th"... It could also be "Got your email, Marilyn, and client hasn't decided what to do."
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There is an important difference there:
1. That's under the UK legal system.
2. Specifically, it's under the Small Claims court. Which is a system we have in the UK which is designed specifically so that small (under £5,000) claims can be heard in relatively informal surroundings, and where it's not really necessary to hire an army of solicitors to fight your case. Neither is it necessary to wait 2 years for your case to be heard.
Unlike Judge Judy, it is part of the same legal system as everything else and decisions are just as binding. If you decide not to defend, the chances are the court will decide against you. And if you don't pay up, and don't show up when the person taking you to court goes back to ask the court to send the bailiffs in (yes, the court sends the bailiffs in), chances are the court will simply rubber-stamp the request to send the bailiffs in.