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?"
So where is all that cash going that they are "winning" in settlements??
Oh, that's right! Straight to the artists' pockets. Sorry for the stupid question. I was wondering how Fiddy Cent's new gold tooth was financed.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
IANAL, but I think this would be a good time for Foster to hit 'em with Contempt of Court... Is that possible?
Actually, this shouldn't surprise us. They haven't lived up to their end of the copyright bargain, either.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Why should they pay when they can ignore it and make her go through the extra steps to actually get the cash? Is there any penalty for failing to pay?
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
...refuse to buy from our music industry overlords.
According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment.
If you're trying to collect money owed due to a legal ruling, it'd be prudent for your attorney to pick up the phone, and/or put the request in writing and send it via certified mail.
I hate the RIAA and the assorted *IAA's that seem to want nothing more than to force me to re-buy something I've already bought over and over again, but is an email inquiry really worth anything? There's no real mechanism for guaranteeing delivery of the email, short of a reply from the recipient. If they'd sent a certified letter and heard nothing back, that'd be one thing. But an email seems to be wide open to "we never got it" or "the guy that checks that account was out the last two weeks."
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"Your Honor, we ask for your understanding and leniency in this case. Rest assured my client and I are suing people as fast as we can. I mean, it's not like money grows on trees. We have to wring it out of grandmothers and college students and people who don't even have PCs and hey, those cheap bastards just aren't coughing it up like they used to. Plus, it's getting harder and harder to trick the public into buying the latest Bubblegum Boys album. So even with a crappy contract that guarantees poverty for the musician via advance fees, bills for studio time and 18th century "breakage" clauses, times are tough for us over at the chrome & glass RIAA skyscraper. We need just a little more time to get some cash together. We've got hungry executives to feed, and those Gulfstream jets don't exactly fly themselves, you know... etc. etc. etc."
Or something like that.
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.
Other than having assets seized by the Sheriff and auctioned off to settle the debt? No, none.
Which occasionally leads to an attorney for a major corporation running to the court house steps as said corporation is about to have its home office auctioned off to cover some paltry judgement. Sometimes the suits forget that the legal process does in fact have an end game, and that their team lost.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Get some perspective, consider how much record labels make, then look at the amount they owe: $68,685.23. I dunno but that seems like a bit like saying someone is broke when their child asks them for a quarter for the gum-ball machine and they shrug it off. Even if said person was broke you'd think they'd find a way to get a quarter to keep the screaming kid happy :-p
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
It's true that the person themselves has no mechanism to force payment, but that's just true in general - if someone owes you money and won't give it to you, you have to petition the court for redress. The court has the power to enforce the judgment, up to and including having officers of the court forcefully seize property to auction and even piercing the corporate shield and finding the corporate officers in contempt and jailing them. It would require a blatantly, outright corrupted judge to refuse to enforce the ruling (you could possibly petition a superior court in that case) and they never would have won the judgment in first case if the judge was that corrupt and that willing to show it.
IANAL, but I think this would be a good time for Foster to hit 'em with Contempt of Court... Is that possible?
Kind of. However, you damn well shouldn't be using email:
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?"
What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive? Gimme a break, guys. This crowd should know, email is easy to lose (on purpose or completely accidentally) or never get in the first place. Registered mail, someone has to SIGN for and accept. Then they have no wiggle-room...the other party is holding on to a piece of paper with your (or your representative's) signature.
Please help metamoderate.
I had thought the intent was more about fear than moneymaking on the part of the RIAA.
In other words, I had thought that it didn't matter so much to them whether or not they made money off of any given suit, but made people afraid that they might be the next target.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Sounds like they're too busy spending money producing good music. And by good I mean horrible.
IANAL, but it appears that dia-RIAA has the option to appeal the judge's order. The defendant needs to get an official judgement in order for the clock to start ticking. Otherwise dia-RIAA can just wait forever.
Regards,
Art
This isn't really news so much as it is just the result of the apathetic civil justice system in America. Our judicial system here is really only expedient with executing (most) sentences when it is a criminal trial (convict goes to prison immediately usually). When it comes to civil cases, orders and judgments can take forever to be enforced. This isn't news, just a fact of our broken system.
The worst is when an attorney for whichever side will act as an officer of the court and then you're liable never to get your paperwork from them (or judgment). These private attorneys are money-hungry and as a result over-worked and almost never bother to make sure that things get done unless it benefits them directly.
In this case, I'll bet the only reason her lawyer is pushing the judgment is so they can collect the fees for their time. If she were collecting something she'd never see it except for maybe pennies on the dollar from the collection agency.
It's the RIAA's stubborn refusal to pay a single cent in exoneration that puts them at the top of the list of most evil organizations ever!
no, sorry. not even close. no one dies because of 'music and greed'.
you want to talk evil? talk big pharma co's.
people DIE and its because of drug company profits being placed above ALL else. sickening! makes the 'music guys' seem like a bunch of hippies in comparison.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Get a clue. ALL governments (whether legitimately elected ones or even evil dictatorships) should enforce a strict monopoly on violence - no one else allowed to shoot people except the government. Whether you're the Gov of Switzerland or Saddam, that's how you keep order in a country AND stop others from usurping your authority - if you allow a mob leader to go about bashing others, he might gain power and kick you out next.
The justice system decides who should be punished. The cops/military are to come in whenever the justice system gets ignored.
With your suggested "abolition of the civil justice system" it'll be "winner is the one left alive with the most after the civil war".
You may like that, but I hope most people don't.
This is precisely the kind of behaviour to be expected of a big modern corporation. It's not quite accurate to say that they ignore the law completely. It's more that they don't have any of the emotional respect for law that some (I hope, many) of us individual citizens have. Sure, we might cut corners in a few small matters... parking where we technically shouldn't, taking some stationery from the office cupboard, that kind of thing. But we would never dream of defying a court order.
Joel Bakan explains what's going on in his great book The Corporation. Thanks to a framework of laws set up in Britain, the USA and other places in the late 18th and 19th centuries, corporations get treated as people - except that they don't have all the responsibilities of people. You can't imprison a corporation, and if it runs out of other people's money, it can simply declare bankruptcy and leave everyone else holding the bag.
As Bakan explains, while corporations are hard to pin down legally, they are increasingly compelled by law to leave no stone unturned in the search for profits. Not just profits, maximum profits. Not just maximum profits, but maximum profits NOW. That makes them liable to behave, in some important ways, just like human psychopaths. A corporation has no "better nature"; no decency, no innate or learned morality, and very little actual reason to fear the law. To it, "ethics" means a set of showy acts designed to improve its public image.
So it's hard to be surprised when a corporation behaves the way the RIAA has done. It simply compares the upside with the downside, and acts accordingly. Don't expect it to think or act like a decent human being: there's no "there" there.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.