Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees

Posted by Zonk on from the must-be-because-of-all-those-lost-record-sales dept.

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?"

8 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Re:That is the problems with our INCs. by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:E-mail? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. I have been involved in more cases than I would like, and I can't say that I am aware of any situation in which e-mail was regarded as reliable. If my lawyers wanted to make an on-the-record contact with representation for the opposing side, it was usually by courier, and occasionally by snail mail or fax, with back-up confirmation over the phone. I can't imagine the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to regard delivery of e-mail to a recipient's inbox as reliable. As you know I am in constant litigation with the RIAA attorneys, and I can assure you that email is their primary way of communicating with opposing counsel, and it is my primary way of communicating with them. I have been in constant communication with them every day for over two (2) years in a multitude of cases, and have never had a single instance that I can recall of any email communication going astray.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Maybe they really do need the money by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  4. Re:Show Me the Money by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  5. Re:And How Much Does That Cost? by taustin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:They'll drag it out for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Just look at the history of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Prince William Sound`in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spil l#Litigation Exxon lost in court and they still have not paid many of those affected after nearly 20 years.

    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.

  7. Re:Show Me the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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

  8. Re:not if they're using email... by nickfrommaryland · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.