Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few days ago it was reported that, in view of the RIAA's one-month delay in paying the $68,685.00 attorneys fee award in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion for entry of judgment so that she could go ahead with judgment enforcement proceedings. In response to that motion the RIAA submitted a statement that it had no objection to entry of judgment, and intimated that it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment, and that it would ultimately file an appeal. After seeing that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has filed a motion for the Court to require the RIAA to post $210,000 in security to cover the past and future attorneys' fees and costs that are expected to be incurred."

Comments

New train of thought

[Gothic_Walrus]

So you can not pay the judgment as long as you might possibly decide to appeal the case?

God, I'd love to see somebody use that tactic against the RIAA. Something tells me it wouldn't work so well the other way around.

Re:New train of thought

[Gonrada]

Sweet! New way to get out of speeding tickets... or not.

What you can see me telling a judge that I didnt pay it because I was thinking about appealing it?

Re:New train of thought

[conlaw]

Actually there is a time limit on how long the user has in which to file an appeal. These time limits typically are quite short, like 20 or 30 days, but the time period usually only begins from the date of the judgment. Since there hasn't been a judgment entered yet, the time hasn't started running.

Re:New train of thought

[shystershep]

I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.

Re:New train of thought

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order [ilrweb.com] was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered. Issue isn't time to appeal. It's time to avoid paying the judgment. Appeal doesn't stay obligation to pay the judgment. For that you have to post security.

Re:New train of thought

[Half a dent]

"God, I'd love to see somebody use that tactic against the RIAA. Something tells me it wouldn't work so well the other way around."

I don't know about that, surely if they get away with this they have set a legal precedent that could be used from the other side too? In weaseling out of paying here they might find cases where they win result in no payment of fines either.

All depends on the judge in the end.

Re:New train of thought

[kilgortrout]

This is all standard stuff. Enforcement of judgments are not automatically stayed during the pendency of an appeal. If you want enforcement stayed, you have to post a bond called either an "appeal bond" or a "supersedas bond". The amount of the bond varies from one jurisdiction to another but it's usually set by court rule as the amount of the judgment plus interest and costs. The trial judge entering the judgment has discretion to vary this amount in some jurisdictions. Here, the judgment holder apparently wants the trial court to require more than usual amount.

No appeal has been filed yet because no judgment has been entered. In response to the motion for entry of judgment, the RIAA stated it did not object but that it would be filing an appeal upon entry of judgment which prompted the other party's motion for the large appeal bond.

In Other Words

[TheMeuge]

In other words, RIAA has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of paying the money. Instead, they intend to continue a farsical court battle with no prospects of winning, no end in sight... merely for the publicity of being seen as being above the law.

Re:In Other Words

[Borealis]

For the most part they have been party to the crafting of the law, so it is no wonder that they believe themselves to be above the law. That said, they do not care about paltry things like right or wrong, they wish only to protect their interests and as such a protracted law suit in the long term does them little harm.

Re:In Other Words

[Professor_UNIX]

This sounds like the same thing I recently read about in the Spamhaus FAQ. They mention they always invoke "Security for Costs", which is apparently some U.K. privilege in civil trials, since you can never trust spammers to ever pay up after losing their frivolous lawsuits. It sounds like this type of thing is badly needed, if it isn't already available, to people defending themselves in U.S. courts against underhanded organizations like the RIAA.

Re:In Other Words

[dattaway]

In other words, RIAA has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of paying the money. Instead, they intend to continue a farsical court battle with no prospects of winning, no end in sight... merely for the publicity of being seen as being above the law.

Its called the SCO offense. Litigate until the other side gives up and signs something.

Re:In Other Words

[nine-times]

I don't know that they want this publicity for being "above the law". If enough people see them as "above the law", then people might actually get pissed off enough to do something to change the laws.

I doubt the issue is really about the money, either. They probably just don't want to admit defeat, since it would encourage others to fight them in court.

Re:In Other Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, even when the good guys win in court the bad guys never pay. The police system is completely overwhelmed at this point perhaps because they are too busy arresting kids for drugs and blacks for being black. Meanwhile, con artists, white collar crims and politicians walk away with the booty.

Re:In Other Words

[fwarren]

So how is that working for them?

Re:In Other Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second. We're talking about the police system. Their only equipped and manned to catch kids for drugs and blacks for being black. In order to catch a criminal, the police have to be smarter than the criminals. IMHO, 99 times out of 100, the police don't even have a chance.

Re:In Other Words

[Tmack]

In other words, RIAA has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of paying the money. Instead, they intend to continue a farsical court battle with no prospects of winning, no end in sight... merely for the publicity of being seen as being above the law.

And while I know it would never happen, cases like this, where the plaintiff lost and had counterclaims entered against and lost to the original defendant, yet refuses to pay up, should not be allowed to begin other cases of similar nature (same claims against other defendant(s)) until they either pay up or file appeal or make some motion on the case rather than just delay it. As it is, they seem to be merrily going about their business of launching hundreds/thousands of lawsuits, and still doing so in ways advised and ruled against by the courts (ie: multiple individual john doe cases instead of class-action or bulk filing, ex-parte against students, etc). If they cant be held to honor judgments held against them, or even honor the courts' previous rulings, why should anyone else honor judgments made in their favor? At the least, awards found in their favor should be suspended until they pay up or prove they shouldnt be paying rather than just sitting around wasting the time of the people and the courts as they seem to be doing now.

Asbestos suit is on, and expecting flames of why this is a bad idea...

Tm

Re:In Other Words

[orclevegam]

and as such a protracted law suit in the long term does them little harm.

They only think that, but they can only abuse the legal system for so long before their luck runs out and they get a judge that is sick of their antics. It also does terrible damage to their public image (what little they actually have). If they tick off enough people, eventually there will be a boycott of RIAA labels, although I'm not sure they could actually tick off that many people before some other legal smack down gets put on them.

Re:In Other Words

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh no, they care all right. Right = copyright enforcement (since it equals more money). Wrong = piracy (since it equals less money). Why, did you have some other definitions?

Re:In Other Words

[thc69]

There already IS a boycott of RIAA labels. It's not organized, and not big; and I seriously doubt it can ever be big enough to make them change their ways.

I've been boycotting them for a couple years...basically, since I bought my house and then realized that I now have something to lose if they decide that I've got a purty mouth.

Here's my take on the whole thing, and strategies/tools for the boycott:
http://slashdot.org/~thc69/journal/

Re:In Other Words

[MacGyver2210]

No doubt. If my wish comes true, the RIAA will be denied an appeal and be forced to pay all legal fees from this proceeding.

Re:In Other Words

[thc69]

Asbestos suit is on, and expecting flames of why this is a bad idea...

Seems like a damn fine idea to me. I say your post should be modded +5 Insightful.

Re:In Other Words

[orclevegam]

There already IS a boycott of RIAA labels. It's not organized, and not big; and I seriously doubt it can ever be big enough to make them change their ways.

Yes, I know some people already are boycotting RIAA labels, but I meant precisely what you say doesn't exist, a large well organized national boycott. Unless at least 50% of the public is boycotting the RIAA I doubt they'll even take notice, and I don't think we'll ever manage to get that many people interested. It's far more likely some sort of legal shenanigans on the part of the RIAA will backfire and they'll get a nasty judgement that shuts them down. Either that or all the old guard labels will continue their current practices and swirl down the bowl while some new upstart that actually gets with the program takes over and becomes the dominant distributer in the market.

Re:In Other Words

[Rich0]

The essence of security for costs is loser-pays.

In the UK (and a large part of the world), the loser in a court case pays any reasonable costs of the winner. This discourages any frivolous suits (since instead of just standing to win 1/3rd of the award the plaintiff lawyers stand to lose the opponent's costs as well as their own). It also encourages lawyers to take strong cases on contingency, since their costs are likely to be covered (in addition to any cuts of the award itself) - even if the final award is small. And, it encourages wronged parties to not just settle against their consciences just to avoid running up a huge legal bill.

If you're a UK citizen you just need to go into court and the costs are settled after the fact. The logic is that if you don't pay up they know where you live.

However, if you're not located in the EU then you're required to post security before being able to sue - in the amount of any likely award for costs. The logic is that if you lost you could just refuse to pay, and the British courts don't have easy access to you. If you've paid security, on the other hand, they don't need access to you.

Many have aruged for a loser-pays system in the US. It arguably has its own downsides, but it would be likely to greatly reduce them number of cases in the courts as plaintiffs could no longer just file a suit and hope for a small settlement so that the defendant doesn't have to pay legal costs.

Re:In Other Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second. We're talking about the police system. Their only equipped and manned to catch kids for drugs and blacks for being black. In order to catch a criminal, the police have to be smarter than the criminals. IMHO, 99 times out of 100, the police don't even have a chance. QFT

ps. I just recently found out from a co worker that DWB (driving while black) is an arrestable offence.

Re:In Other Words

[eheldreth]

It must be working really well for them. A friend just told me that SCO got something handed to them in court. Maybe I misunderstood what he was trying to say. What is ones arse anyway.

Re:In Other Words

[tixxit]

I think their primary goal is to discourage lawyers from taking these cases with the expectation of making some quick cash. Normal people are easy to intimidate and extort a few thousand dollars from, but lawyers? Not so much. If lawyers start taking these cases on a "only pay if you win basis," then the RIAA will actually have people fight back, rather than just bend over. But, if lawyers see that these cases are just going to end up being long, drawn out affairs, they may think twice.

Re:Big ol' mug...

[higman.schmidt]

Money?

So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[djasbestos]

...how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers......how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize. Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[Saib0t]

Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.

I don't know about the Nobel something, but at the very least you're making it apparent that not all lawyers are scum (and that's quite an accomplishment)... May seem strange to you, but I've yet to meet one likable lawyer. I'm curious about something though. Did Mrs Foster have to pay the money already (what she owes you) or are you waiting for the collection of the RIAA money?

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[DoctorPepper]

My apologies to all, but when I think of "Lawyer", even "good" ones, I keep remembering this quote from Rustler's Rhapsody:

Rex O'Herlihan: "You're not a good guy at all!"
Bob Barber: "I'm a lawyer, you idiot!"

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[cyphercell]

Did Mrs Foster have to pay the money already (what she owes you) or are you waiting for the collection of the RIAA money?

I'm guessing that Ray can't really answer this question. So, here's my experience with my likable lawyer. When I was getting divorced I had filled and drained my retainer three times, when it came to my court date I had about $50 left on account. My lawyer assured me, though that he would not leave me high and dry, the case was essentially won and I had a good track record for paying him. I assume that Ray doesn't intend to leave this lady high and dry simply because that check hasn't come in yet. It seems after all that the situation is won and pursuing the money is an means to an end for Ray anyways.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Let me clarify.
1. I don't represent Ms. Foster; her lawyer is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson of Oklahoma City.
2. If I were her lawyer I probably could not answer the question anyway, since it is confidential information the RIAA would just love to have.
3. As a general proposition, it would be legally irrelevant how much of the bill was paid and how much unpaid.
4. If I had to guess, my guess would be that Ms. Foster is a poor hardworking person without much dough and she has probably paid only a very small portion of the bill.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[TheViffer]

Blade: "You're human,"
Lawyer: "Barely, I'm a lawyer,"

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but not in a gay way.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[networkBoy]

FWIW
When I was facing litigation from Farmers and/or Zürich Financial for my gripe site, the two lawyers who were going to handle the case for me gave me a no win/no pay provision. That was awfully generous of them, but they could have also fronted me the retainer and forgiven any unpaid money had we lost*. As it turned out Farmers blew (an estimated) $750K litigating a case in Washington with another gripe site owner and all but lost the case (it was settled out of court, but the website is still up, and the owner is not in bankruptcy, which in my book is a win).
-nB

* we were planning on filing a SLAPP motion with a SLAPP-back rider in the event of charges being filed. A total of three lawyers gave me pro-bono time on the issue (about 10 hours in total) valued as high as $1K/hour. There are *good-(guy|gal)* lawyers out there, I have a feeling /.'s resident (and only?) IAAL guy is one of them. Count this as my nomination for both the "Slashdot Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" and "Good lawyer hall 'o fame, founding member" awards ;)

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[cyphercell]

...but they could have also fronted me the retainer and forgiven any unpaid money had we lost

I don't understand why you feel this way. It seems you're asking for a discount and credit for a case that your lawyers were working on. Why do you think your lawyers should have worked for free with or without a loss? I'm sure they had bills to pay among other things while they were working on your case. Of course if they were spending a lot of time on your case I could see how it would get expensive quickly, but, if you can find a way to keep pace, you really aren't out of anything in the long run. It's like loaning your lawyer money to work on your case, doesn't sound that bad.

Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers...

[InvalidError]

When lawyers pick up cases with no-win-no-pay clauses, they usually also aim for a larger share of any settlement or other gains when they win. It is a double/triple/etc.-or-nothing proposition lawyers usually offer for cases they have high confidence in - a lawyer may have a normal rate of $150/h but in no-win-no-pay, they will usually want to collect over $500/h up to the sum of any gained amounts.

It may look like charity to some people but it is simply lawyers gambling to maximize their gains while also making their services available to less fortunate people.

Re:Big ol' mug...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean hell?

Not the least bit surprising ...

[crackerjack911]

With the RIAA, even if you win, you lose. Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property, but they laugh in the face of the American judicial system by throwing a fit when they have to pay out a relatively small amount of money to someone for a frivolous law suit.

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

With the RIAA, even if you win, you lose. Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property, but they laugh in the face of the American judicial system by throwing a fit when they have to pay out a relatively small amount of money to someone for a frivolous law suit. Well spoken.

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[Billosaur]

Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished.

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[markov_chain]

Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished

Well spoken.

*waits for his Interesting* :^)

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[JWtW]

*waits for his Interesting* :^)

Not so much well spoken, but well done! I too had a WTF moment when I saw the moderation, and nearly coughed up a lung when I saw your comment. Thanks

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[nacturation]

Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property... What you're missing is that it is those content creators who agreed to be paid the amounts they are. If enough of them don't like their current arrangement and up-and-comers want nothing to do with the RIAA, then why don't you start up ARIA (Alternate Recording Industry Association) and offer them a better deal? As a bonus, you can be a nice guy in court too!

Re:Not the least bit surprising ...

[croddy]

You make the fundamental assumption that the RIAA labels don't employ deception in persuading artists to accept those terms. That assumption is not correct. Major record labels just about run on deception.

live by the sword, die by the sword

[circletimessquare]

or rather, live by the conbination financial/legal power play, die by the combination financial/legal power play

bleed the RIAA dry folks. given the opportunity, they'd do the same to you

Re:live by the sword, die by the sword

[noidentity]

Of course, the evolutionary "The fox is chasing its meal, the rabbit is running for its life" somewhat applies. This is small change for the RIAA, so they don't really care that much if they screw it up, but it can be financially ruining for the defendant.

When in a hole

[changling bob]

keep digging?

Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the best for its lawyers, which suggests where the real balance of power lies.

Re:When in a hole

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

When in a hole...keep digging?
Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the best for its lawyers, which suggests where the real balance of power lies. I wonder when the record companies' shareholders are going to come to that realization. They seem a little slow.

Re:When in a hole

[radarjd]

Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case.

While it's certainly an issue on slashdot, I would say the average person on the street doesn't know (or likely care) because there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity. From talking to the people at the RIAA, they don't seem to care about the perception. My perception of their perception is that they believe the people who are against them don't understand the problem.

And, as a side note, the "RIAA" is essentially a group of lawyers. There's no issue about where the power lies because they were created to lobby and to sue.

Re:When in a hole

[changling bob]

And, as a side note, the "RIAA" is essentially a group of lawyers. There's no issue about where the power lies because they were created to lobby and to sue.

Duly noted, but isn't the payment judgement against capitol, as that's who's listed in the court documents?

Re:When in a hole

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. While it's certainly an issue on slashdot, I would say the average person on the street doesn't know (or likely care) because there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity. That hasn't been my impression; it seems to me that almost everybody I've met knows about Big Music's lawsuits against single moms, kids, grandparents, and dead people.

Re:When in a hole

[radarjd]

That hasn't been my impression; it seems to me that almost everybody I've met knows about Big Music's lawsuits against single moms, kids, grandparents, and dead people.

That hasn't been my experience, but even so, settling this particular case isn't going to stop that general awareness. My assertion was primarily that most people are unaware of this particular case.

Re:When in a hole

[changling bob]

I suspect the subset of the populace you have dealings with may be different from the Average Joe on the street though :P

Re:When in a hole

[radarjd]

Duly noted, but isn't the payment judgement against capitol, as that's who's listed in the court documents?

Yes, as Capitol owns the copyright and was the origin of the suit. You used the term RIAA, so I was following your convention. In most cases on /., people use the term RIAA as a proxy for "the major record labels". I quoted RIAA to indicate I was talking of the actual group -- though I suppose that's the reverse of what I should have done...

Re:When in a hole

[Eivind Eklund]

Capitol records is owned by EMI. EMI is - or was - publicly traded. The last news is this: Terra Firma seals takeover of EMI (for 2.4 billion pounds).

Terra Firma is a private equity firm; they specialize in buying out companies, restructuring them and fixing management issues, and taking profit from the restructuring.

So, the NEW owners haven't yet had time to do much. Whether they will change or not remains to be seen - they've only had a couple of weeks on their hands...

Eivind.

Re:When in a hole

[richie2000]

they believe the people who are against them don't understand the problem. At this point, I don't think anyone understands the RIAA.

Re:When in a hole

[hxnwix]

there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity The RIAA makes maximal publicity about these cases, but can they really draw attention away from one of them when it goes sour? Does the recording industry own the media?

IMHO, each case that goes our direction draws more attention than any of the many cases that break for the RIAA.

Re:When in a hole

[iminplaya]

I wonder when the record companies' shareholders are going to come to that realization. They seem a little slow.

Are many of them divesting yet? A more secure investment might be something like...household products. However if the share prices and dividends(do they still do that?) are holding up, I would think that they have nothing to react to. May I assume that the record companies have a fairly diverse portfolio also? Don't some of them have big investments in heavy industry, such as ship building? Or shipping? So that, even to them, this could be nothing more than a blip? I could see this going on indefinitely.

Re:When in a hole

[lazyl]

Losing isn't necessarily bad publicity for them. It still scares some people away from downloading if there's a chance you could be sued and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in laywers fees to defend yourself without any gurantee of getting it all paid back even if you win.

Re:When in a hole

[Insightfill]

From talking to the people at the RIAA, they don't seem to care about the perception.

I think, as a whole, the RIAA doesn't care what people think of them. Their customers are the major record labels, and if the RIAA can act as the "muscle", then we won't associate these antics with the labels them. Face it; if the headline read "Warner Brothers Sues 80-year-old Grandma Without a Computer for Piracy", people would think negatively of the label and be less likely to buy their product.

Re:When in a hole

[Bacon Bits]

Well, it doesn't particularly matter about the details of this particular case. When all the news people hear is about how greedy, unethical, and litigious the RIAA is, it gives a fairly general impression of their business practices. RIAA is going to sue their customers right out of business, just like SCO.

The only difference is that RIAA has some legal standing here, while SCO didn't even have that.

The fact that the RIAA is suing their customers strongly suggests that not only is their business model dead, but that they know it's dead. They're trying to get as much blood from that stone as they can, now, because they can't get a law passed that would grant them a telephone-style monopoly on all music distribution. That kind of regulated monopoly is the only thing that can save the RIAA.

Eventually, once bandwidth speed reach a certain limit, this same issue will affect the MPAA just as strongly. It's already affecting TV broadcasters, who are working as fast as they can to get on-demand systems up and running so that they can protect their revenue. Netflix and Blockbuster may just save the MPAA yet, but I'm not quite convinced of that.

Re:When in a hole

[PMBjornerud]

What would the odds be for Terra Firma considering the music industry to be running around with its head up its ass and behaving in a suicidal and completely retared way? And do they fix "management issues" with a shotgun? (Oh, oops, that was the mafiaa, my mistake)

It's probably a pipe dream, but it would be amazing if they could actually restructure a record label to make it more fit for the digital age. People like music, and I'm sure you could make a hefty money machine from a record label. And yes, I mean without attempting to force-fit a business based on selling uncopiable music files with a gazillion % markup. That is a pipe dream.

Re:When in a hole

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> And, as a side note, the "RIAA" is essentially a group of lawyers.

Well, maybe we ought to put them on a siding by essentially disbarring
them for failure to comply with a court order.

Re:When in a hole

[poetmatt]

I apologize for the contradiction here but in my personal experience (I live in an upper middle class chicago suburb), only technologically apt individuals (the kind who could understand stuff on slashdot regardless of interest) seem to follow how this case is going. Even a friend of mine who is a lawyer and a video gamer doesn't follow groklaw and/or your website recordingindustryvspeople. For some reason out here people seem more apt that "it's news on the TV it must be true" and "pirating software/movies is evil" and "obviously if a big corporation is getting away with it that must be because they're successful". I would (with abated optimism) that more people overall paid more attention to things like this so that they understood how it affects their own civil liberties but not everyone has the interest nor the knowledge.

just call debt recovery

[Anonymous Coward]

its only when people start showing up at offices with trucks and start removing property does anything happen

So how is it..

[JustNiz]

How come they don't enforce judgments against large corporations in the US?

Surely the fact that the RIAA has to pay is not at question as a court of law has already determined they should, so forcing them to pay is not a matter for needing another judgement, just enforcement.

why should the defendant have to appeal for another judgement after the RIAA didn't pay, and why do the RIAA now have an opportunity to back out of an already decided case?

Re:So how is it..

[darkmeridian]

RIAA will eventually pay if the judgment holds up on appeal. This enforcement of judgment business is typical and doesn't mean a huge corporation is being favored. The RIAA is claiming that it is planning to appeal and will not pay until after it has exhausted its appeals. In response, the defendant (or the Good Guy) wants RIAA to post a bond not only for the amount of the judgment but also for the expected costs of a failed appeal. They'll probably get interest and stuff, too, if the judgment is affirmed on appeal. This is both pretty standard procedure, except RIAA forgot to inform the Court of its intentions.

Re:So how is it..

[dannannan]

IANAL, but the defendant doesn't need to appeal anything; they "won". From TFA it sounds like RIAA is not paying up yet because they think they can win on appeal. They think the lower court was wrong and can get a higher court to say that they don't really owe anything, so why pay up. The defendant is asking the RIAA to post a $210K security in anticipation of the additional cost of fighting an appeal. Technically this could go on through each level of the US federal court system, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, but the higher you go the less chance your appeal will actually be heard by the court (which is good if you're not the one who lost in a lower court).

Re:So how is it..

[pegr]

Technically this could go on through each level of the US federal court system, all the way up to the US Supreme Court,
 
Well, no, not exactly. If my years of lurking at Groklaw have taught me anything, it's that for an appeal to be granted, there has to be a matter of law in dispute. I don't know if there is such a matter or not, but no, you can't appeal just because you didn't like the verdict...

Re:So how is it..

[l3v1]

except RIAA forgot to inform the Court of its intentions

It all would sound ok, if the above quote didn't happen. I mean come on, forget to inform the court ? Geez.
 

No news here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Move along.

This is simply normal legal process (on both sides) for a case like this.

Same headline written differently:

RIAA lawyers and Ms. Foster's lawyers do standard day-to-day lawyer work.

Re:No news here...

[changling bob]

Yes, but since when have the RIAA accepted standard practices when scare-mongering and delaying has worked?

SCO?

[dcollins]

This is starting to look like SCO writ large...

Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[Sycraft-fu]

I mean it isn't like you are going to draft an appeal the very next day, so it shouldn't surprise you that courts will let you hold off paying for a bit if you are going to file. However if she gets the judge to force them to put up a security, that means they can only use it as a delay tactic for so long, because the court will be able to decide it has gone on too long and award her money without them having any say in the matter.

Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal).

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal). Not only wouldn't it surprise me, it seems that that outcome is inevitable. The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. I wouldn't be surprised if the cross-appeal Ms. Foster files wound up increasing the amount of the old award, and no doubt there will be another $100k or so in attorneys fees and disbursements on the appeal.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[j00r0m4nc3r]

The thing is, that's chump change to the RIAA. It's probably easily worth it to them to risk the $$ for the slightest chance they will prevail in appeals court.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[NickFortune]

The thing is, that's chump change to the RIAA. It's probably easily worth it to them to risk the $$ for the slightest chance they will prevail in appeals court.

mmmm... now multiply it by the number of court cases they have outstanding. And the number they intend to bring in the future.

A precedent like could get expensive very quickly, even by recording industry standards.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[Weezul]

It's more the "inspiration" for other lawyers taking people's cases on contingency which they must fear, not any "precedent". At the end of the day, the RIAA must pay it's own lawyers since it's victims have little money & can possibly declare bankrupsy. If suddenly victims don't pay their own lawyers, the RIAA starts seeing higer costs and fewer profitable victims.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[sampson7]

The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. Forgive me, but I found the Judge's analysis of the appropriate attorney's fees to be awarded to be extremely well-reasoned and thorough. Obviously, Ms. Foster's attorneys are likely to disagree, but the Judge's opinion speaks for itself: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= capitol_foster_070716OrderAwardAttysFees.

I suggest most people taking the time to read the 16 page order will be convinced that, regardless of whether the Judge reached the precisely "correct" dollar amount, he certainly gave it due consideration.

One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.

Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me not to include these costs. Basically, the Judge went through each bill and evaluated its reasonableness. Exactly my managing partner does to me each month and more importantly, exactly what the law requires in copyright cases.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[ajs]

It's good to see the courts taking such care with respect to costs. I just wish that they took such care uniformly. Sadly, they do not. It's still the unchallenged case that when a company assesses damage due to computer-related criminal activities, they total up the cost of all of the hardware involved and all of the staff involved without any analysis of how much staff time was dedicated to dealing with the problem or how useful the hardware was and continues to be.

The same is the case with many drugs. Last I heard, for example, LSD had an interesting double-standard. The mass of the "drug" is measured with respect to the medium used (e.g. the mass of the blotter paper it's laced in plus the inconsequential mass of the drug itself). Then, that mass is compared to the effective dosage to determine "intent to distribute." You see, if you have a 1g piece of blotter, and the effective dose for LSD is 50-100 micro-grams, then legally you are said to possess between 1,000 and 20,000 doses of LSD, which implies your intent to distribute.... Follow that logic if you can.

If the courts were uniform in how they deal with quantifications during their cases, it would be a much more reasonable system.

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[sampson7]

Interesting point. The inaccuracies in the drug war laws are legion and we could have an entire thread about that. But in regards to attorney's fees, I have a couple of thoughts.

First is that the statutes and resulting case law are relatively specific on the standards that are used to determine "reasonable" attorney's fees. I suspect that the "logic" you laid out with respect to LSD is completely in keeping with the language of the statute (which itself sounds like it may be flawed). This is not coincidence. The courts are very good at applying the same law uniformly in most cases and there is an elaborate appellate system designed to iron out inconsistancies in the interpretation of the same law. Due process requires that every person caught with LSD is held to the same standard (regardless of whether that standard is reasonable). Here, attorney's fees are intended to be consistent across the system and the standards are thus fairly well laid out. Of course, humans will always react differently to the same set of facts, but the system largely tries to discourage that in many instances.

The second thing to keep in mind is that most lawyers have limited scientific knowledge. Attorney's fees are something most judges are intimately familiar with. But evaluating the potency of LSD? Not even close.

Just a few off-the-cuff thoughts!

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[StrongAxe]

I believe that you have a certain amount of time to file an appeal, but in order to do so, you first have to file a notice of intent to file an appeal, and for that there is a much smaller time limit. This temporarily stays the judgment and gives you a reasonable time to work on the appeal itself.

it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment

This is rich. If I paid lawyers substantially more than $200 an hour, I would expect far more from them than "uh, gee, yeronner, that's how we thought the law was supposed to work..."

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[RealGrouchy]

A precedent like could get expensive very quickly, even by recording industry standards. Good.

If they tell people to consider the consequences of downloading/allowing open networks/etc., then why should they not be expected to consider the consequences of unnecessary and excessive lawsuits?

- RG>

Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably

[vuffi_raa]

not necessarily- it is not only a loss in the court system that opens up other cases, but it also means that they wasted court fees and attorney fees on themselves- 210k may not be much for the defense but prosecuting these cases is very expensive- discovery process could bleed a lot of $ out of the RIAA. I know for an average case (working in the industry) that it is not uncommon for a corporation to throw down a few million on a case like this to get it to court on discovery, submissions, depositions and attorney fees.

I think I've changed my mind

[tyler.willard]

As a matter of principle I pay for music. I've spent thousands of dollars over the years and that was OK with me. This was mostly to support the artists, but also because I make my money in a similar fashion.

Now I think I should stop. I like the convenience of iTunes, so this might be difficult. But an organization like the RIAA is wholly without merit and needs to opposed; even though for me it means changing my principles.

What about the artist's cut? I could take the easy way out and figure that it was small anyway and they were mostly getting screwed, but I think that's a facile argument. I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[bentcd]

I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you. A definite case of "if you team up with the devil, expect to become collateral damage" :-)

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[M. Baranczak]

My advice: download the music from p2p, and if you like it, just send the musicians fifteen bucks worth of drugs. Cut out the middlemen, so to speak.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[apt142]

What about the artist's cut?

This has been my qualm for years. The RIAA is so entangled in the artist they "support" that listening to music in any legal way means that some money has been funneled to them. The only ways that I can think of that let you listen to the artist's music without giving money to the RIAA is through concerts and pirating. And I may be wrong with the concerts.

With pirating however, you don't get to support the artists financially. If that aspect could be incorporated somehow, I would have no moral reason to prevent me from pirating.

It would be nice if there was a giant tip jar that people like me and the parent poster could drop money into for the artist we like. Something that let us contribute to an artist specifically or that could be divided up among the artists.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rationalization, but it doesn't speak well for strength of character.

Being principled when it's easy means little. Being princpled when it takes sacrifice is the only measure of ethics. If you've come to the point that you can't support the RIAA in good conscience, good for you; now accept that there's a cost to your princples and walk away from RIAA-owned music.

Reshaping your principles to make it painless to avoid supporting the RIAA would leave you ethically no better than they are.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[JDevers]

Yea, but that can get so complicated...you never know what type of drugs people want. The only surefire solution is to only listen to electronica and send the artists ecstasy. Of course most of those guys aren't on a label anyway. You could always listen to country and send them gallons of cheap whiskey and beer, but the shipping will eat you alive.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[CODiNE]

So next I suppose you'll stop paying your taxes right? Considering how badly the government misuses our money and very little is actually used for what you'd prefer. They should spend all that military money on education right? I understand how you feel, but that doesn't make your argument valid. When the foxes are running the hen house you shouldn't burn it down. Now if you dug a hole out of the back of it and snuck out all the chickens maybe you'd have a better argument. :)

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, however I would have been even more impressed if that comment had come from a signed-in user who was willing to sacrifice some mod points for the principle of it, rather than taking the easy road (like me) of AC.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Greymane]

I buy all my music directly from the independent musicians on their personal website or at concerts. I gave up on major label hacks a long time ago.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if you dug a hole out of the back of it and snuck out all the chickens maybe you'd have a better argument. :) So we should dig a hole to Canada (or is it Mexico?) and sneak out all the citizens, and then we can stop paying taxes? I think I got lost somewhere in the analogy there.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[pegr]

My advice: download the music from p2p, and if you like it, just send the musicians fifteen bucks worth of drugs. Cut out the middlemen, so to speak.
 
Two, actually!

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough; I've just never bothered to register.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and they'll thank you from prison when they are caught receiving drugs in the mail. (This is actually a good way to get revenge on someone you don't like. Don't put your return address on the package, of course.)

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Jason Levine]

The problem with the "I don't like the RIAA therefore I'll stop buying music entirely" argument is that it assumes that all music is "RIAA music." Check out eMusic or Amie Street for a lot of great music from artists not affiliated with the RIAA. Since March, I've bought all of my music from Amie Street and I'm loving the artists that I've found. A lot of them deserve their own multi-platinum record deals... except that would lock them into the RIAA's anti-artist contracts. So I hope that they do what is unlikely right now (but becoming more likely each day) and get a huge hit without being signed to a large record label.

I'm not sure about eMusic, but as far as the artist's cut on Amie Street goes, Amie Street gets the first $5 in sales of a song. After that, the artist gets 70% of the take. Using tools that Amie Street provides for their artists, I figured out that songs reach the $5 mark after only 41 sales. (This translates to a price of about 37 cents. So if a song is 38 cents or more, the song has broken even and the artist is now earning money from it.)

And just to help those artists out a bit, here are samples of their music: http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/what-im-listening-to .php

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

what if my principles have always been that music is free, no matter what the law may say about it? that music is information and communication and sound, and that it flies in the face of reason for someone to create a sound and then try to tell me, under threat of force, that i don't have the right to hear it?

you might not agree with my principles
you might say that i don't have the right to hear a song unless i pay for it

then, you would set the law against me, and if i resist the law, the men with guns
it will always end with the men with guns, all so you can try and stop me from hearing a song without paying for the privilege

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Jaysyn]

You don't have to stop buying / listening to new music. Just stop buying RIAA music.

www.riaaradar.com

I have no idea what genre of music you like, but I guarantee it's represented there in some fashion. I've purchased 10 CDs through them in the past 5 months or so, which is awesome because before that I hadn't purchased a CD in 7-8 years.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[tyler.willard]

I think you might have misinterpreted what I meant, or perhaps I didn't make it clear in my original comment. It's not just that I no longer want to give the RIAA money, I want to actively take it away from them.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[apt142]

My point is, that you shouldn't have to in order to satisfy your moral values. There are lots of great Indie artists and I applaud your support. But, there are lots of great mainstream artists too. We shouldn't have to give up on them just because the only way they saw to make what they do into a living was to sign their souls over.

The good ones are doing it for the love of music just like the Indies.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Mister Whirly]

This would never work. It isn't illegal to receive a package in the mail. Unless the person had prior knowledge that the package did contain illegal items , there is no crime. If you are arrested for buying/selling drugs, they DO still have to prove you knew what you were doing... If it were as easy as you think to nail someone this way, everyone who has any enemies at all would be going down.

A smarter way to attempt this (but still would have very little chance of working) would be to send drugs to an address that is likely to be inspected and put your victim's name as the return address.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[monxrtr]

I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you. Nor should you have any qualms because "artists" are themselves "stealing" musical tools they didn't invent or create to build musical compositions they then claim copyright on. If they didn't "steal" those tools by going to schools like Juliard to learn by copying (or on their own), they would never have even become musicians in the first place. That's the dirty little secret. In order to even become musicians, those musicians must "download" musical tools into their brains and muscle memory. They accomplish this by copying and practicing previously existing ideas. And they sure as hell ain't writing any checks or deducting their paypal accounts to do so either.

You'd be a fool to pay anyone for polluting the airwaves with sound waves. But if you really want to support an artist you can pay them by buying a ticket to a private property venue performance, or voluntarily donate to them personally. Otherwise you might as well be encouraging aggressive bioengineered crops to wipe out naturally existing food crops whilst those corporations can then extort 3rd world farmers to pay them for growing food strains on lands which bioengineered seeds aggressed upon. And of course pharmaceutical company scientists "steal" scientific methods as well when they went to school to learn by copying the methods and ideas of others. Yup, there is never a time where copying does not by definition increase net societal material wealth and increase the rate of technological and artistic advancement. Universities charge 6 figures to teach you how to copy. That's why it's called education, and not some new unknown shit.

That's what the music industry does today, flood the airwaves with their product (and even payola for that pollution too) and attempt to extort you for using your ears or other faculties by which you may shape your own person and property. Any artists who are signed with RIAA labels, or even any artists which even claim copyright, are complicit parasites, who are stealing from you, stealing your ability, stealing your right, to copy, whilst they themselves have only made their creations through copying others. Starving all of them into getting real jobs and learning non-violent cooperative respect would only benefit peaceful cooperative society. And by exposing yourself to more musical ideas by copying whatever you feel like copying whenever you feel like copying it, will only make you a better musical connoisseur, better than if you were arbitrarily limited by fake violently imposed economic cost means of paying to hear sound waves which freely inhabit the earth.

Salute the brave uploaders who liberate content. Salute those who grease the anonymous facilitations of cultural exchange. Salute the cheapening technological and economic costs of transmitting all the content ever created for cheaper and faster. And fuck the RIAA. :P

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[sherpajohn]

Most good electronica (though I admit my tastes are somewhat limited to chill, ambient, and psytrance and psy-ambient) is on small independent labels. Have a look at http://myspace.com/sherpajohn for some links to other myspace pages of these sorts of artists and labels, or go to a good 90% of the CD's I bought in the last 3 years are from there, sometimes I find something decent in a local HMV or the little used CD shop I go to now and then. As for the intoxicant of choice for these folks, you will have to ask them, personally I find the music itself intoxicating enough.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[monxrtr]

Being principled when it's easy means little. Being princpled when it takes sacrifice is the only measure of ethics. Not so. Society exists because by definition people benefit from voluntary consensual trade. This is not "sacrifice", but mutual profit. Those who produce "copyrighted" works, produce those copyrighted works by copying others. And everyone benefits. Nobody can produce more new original content than they receive in return, just by the sheer volume of the number of people who have spent lifetimes producing content.

Even if you were to mean the hypocritical artists and the hypocritical scientists need to sacrifice from shortsightedly tying their bogus chains of intellectual property to the freedom of others to also freely copy, it will still not accurately reflect the reality that those artists and scientists are copying others. And those artists and scientists are themselves net poorer than they otherwise would be without copyright. It's just that all the derivative works which could have and would have been produced, have violently been prevented from being produced. And they are still even in a lower material wealth state better off because they copy (whether because artificial time copyright periods have expired or arbitrary restrictions on employing ideas don't exist), just as you are better off when you copy, whether it's learning how to read and write, employing medicinal remedies discovered by others to cure your ailments, or copying some music you heard. And you wouldn't even be copying some music you heard if those artists themselves also didn't copy some other music they heard.

There's no sacrifice to principled ethics. That's shortsighted. Principled ethics exist, evolve, because they increase material wealth prosperity and survive, while those principles or non-principles which cause poverty, die out in strict Darwinian evolutionary fashion. Sacrifice is death. Easy mutually beneficial profit is life.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you aren't who I was responding to, are you?

And yes, I do disagree with your principles (on different grounds than those stated in my previous post -- which is no surprise, since I wasn't speaking to your position in my previous post).

However, since you've opted to lead with anarchist sensationalism about all law enforcement boiling down to men with guns, I don't feel any urge to debate the matter further with you.

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[RealGrouchy]

You could always listen to country and send them gallons of cheap whiskey and beer, but the shipping will eat you alive. Send them over in a pickup truck driven by their ex-ex-girlfriend?

- RG>

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[elFisico]

Well, instead of stopping to buy music I'd suggest you start buying from the honest ones like http://www.magnatune.com/ where not only artists get 50% of what you pay, the music is without DRM and you can listen to everything beforehand and decide if you really like it...

Re:I think I've changed my mind

[fwarren]

Almost everything I find worth listening to, is out of print...and often rare enough, that it does not show up on p2p networks.

Once upon a time. I supported the system. I owned HUNDREDS of cassettes. Then back in the summer of 87, someone was so nice as to break into my parents place and liberated them from me.

So now, I am in a world where the vast majority of that collection is not available. I have contacted some of the artists. They can't get the masters to even do a limited run. Contracts or money always seems to be the issue. Which as a side note sucks. The artist created the music. A profit was made for the record company. Now, they see so little money a particular album that they won't take the time to press it. So I can't do the "right" thing and pay the record company lots of money and the artist a little. It is sitting around for the day when someone uses it in a movie. Or to go on some compilation album when "clogging" or whatever becomes hot. Who knows. Someday it could be hot and make them lots of money. But until that day. It costs them almost nothing to keep it on a shelf. Unused and unheard by anybody. (not to mention calling anyone a pirate who is not willing to wait until a possible someday when they will re-release it)

Sure, they will let the artist borrow it to cut an album. If they agree to some terms that leaves no doubt they are getting screwed for touching their own material.

I often buy from Gemm where I can run down a dealer whom I can purchase the album as an LP and have them convert it to a CD for me. It gets me my music. But alas, does not support the artist.

Every time you buy a used album. A friend gives you an album they bought and decided they did not like it. Every time you record something off the radio. Every time you shift format. Or make a copy of a song for some. Or email an mp3 to a friend. You are using that music without paying the artist for it again.

Also, all of these things are covered by fair use. Just like getting screwed by a bad recording contract. It is part of the game if an artist wants to be recorded. There are a great many ways you are entitled to use, purchase or be given music where neither the artist or the industry are financially supported.

Now for the questions

1. Is p2p piracy any worse?
2. Do the artists get any money from the sale of blank CD and tapes? Or just the record company?
3. Every time a song is played, moves from person to person, or shifts format. Is a record company really entitled to be paid for it?
4. Should music by artists that are independent and not represented, have money collected by the RIAA?
5. Should the RIAA have the right to keep money and not pass it on to the artist?

What plublicity?

[LWATCDR]

Really it is a small news story at best and the tv news are run by media companies so they have no interest in making a big deal out of it.
Shows like the Daily Show should be making a field day of this. But they are in the entertainment business so they have no motivation to go up against their own.

The RIAA really have NOTHING to loose and everything to gain. If they loose the 70,000 big deal. But if they win they show that even if you win your case you loose so it is better to pay up.

boycott time......

[3seas]

...don't think about it, just do it.

Re:boycott time......

[gemada]

if the artists could all put a paypal donation link on their personal websites that says: "if you downloaded our music and liked it, please donate a dollar. We promise none of it will go to RIAA or our label". of course their labels would probably dump them if they did this.

I'd love to see ....

[Muad'Dave]

... the judge declare Capitol in contempt of court for not complying with his order, and get seriously slapped upside the head.

Re:I'd love to see ....

[sharkey]

IANAL, but I would think that slapping a judge would NOT be the best course of action towards winning your case.

Re:I'd love to see ....

[Muad'Dave]

Har har. Naturally I meant that the JUDGE should slap CAPITOL, not the other way around. Slapping a judge would bring about all sorts of bad juju.

Law School 101

[sampson7]

Enough with the outrage people. Welcome to Law School 101. For your first class in civil procedure, we will discuss entry of judgment. Here are the basic steps common to almost all legal proceedings (simplified):

1. Sue someone.

2. Have a trial / reach settlement.

3. Reach a verdict.

4. Judge enters judgment. Note: This is not a "final" judgment. Judgment only becomes final after the period for appeal has ended.

5. Losing party has right to appeal or it may simply pay.

6. Appeal is processed and after all appellate rights have been "exhausted", FINAL judgment is entered.

7. Winning party seeks formal entry of judgment in a separate proceeding (usually called "enrolling" the judgment, although that term varies by jurisdiction).

7. ???

8. Collect judgment.

9. Profit.

In short, I know RIAA are a bunch of scum-sucking *ahem* lawyers, but this whole case is premised on a serious misunderstanding of how the legal system works. Any one of us could go through the same process and draw out any case to the same degree. Most reasonable parties settleup after the initial entry of judgment, but there is certainly no requirement that a party forego its legal rights just to be "nice."

In fact, it somewhat makes sense that things work this way. Put aside your dislike for RIAA for a second. Assume that a losing party justifiably feels that it was wronged by the Judge's decision and wishes to appeal. Does it make sense that they should be required to pay the judgment before the decision has been reviewed by a higher court? In order to protect against the danger of default, it is common to request that the losing party be required to post security in an escrow account during the pendancy of the appeal.

In short: I admire the marketing arm of this particular law firm, but really, nothing to see here.

Re:Law School 101

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous. If anyone has grounds to appeal it would be Ms. Foster, who was awarded only $68,685 even though the attorneys fees and sdisbursements were around $114,000.

Re:Law School 101

[keepingmyheaddown]

But if they lose on appeal wouldn't that make it a precedent that could be used in other cases?

Re:Law School 101

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes, the higher up they lose, the better the precedent will be for us. For all the other RIAA victims, the best possible scenario would be for this to go up to the Supreme Court.

Re:Law School 101

[Deagol]

best possible scenario would be for this to go up to the Supreme Court.

Not after the current administration has padded the current SCOTUS with business friendly justices. Note that my keeping tabs on the SCOTUS is pretty much high-profile headlines on Slashdot and Plastic, but the trend over the years seems pretty clear to me. Excepting an abuse of the law so laughable and egregious on the part of the RIAA that it would be foolish to rule for them, I would almost certainly expect the current Supreme Court to hand the RIAA the defendant's head on a silver platter.

Re:Law School 101

[sampson7]

There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous.

First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.

Second, if Ms. Foster and her attorneys believe that an appeal is her best interest, she has every right to pursue such an appeal.

Third, you are correct that there is a law against frivolous appeals. If an unbiased court finds that an appeal is truly frivolous (and that's a pretty high burden) the court may again order attorney's fees, sanction the attorneys involved, or even report them to the state bar for disciplinary action.

Remember, frivolous =/= stupid or dumb or unlikely to succeed. Appealing a judgment in favor of the other side is rarely going to be considered frivolous under the legal standard.

For the record: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

(1) How Initiated.

(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.

(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.

(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a pena

Re:Law School 101

[Anonymous Coward]

First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.

That wasn't opposing counsel, and he wasn't speaking generally, he was speaking about this case, with which he's rather familiar and is particularly well-qualified to do.

Second, if Ms. Foster and her attorneys believe that an appeal is her best interest, she has every right to pursue such an appeal.

Thanks for that news flash. You say it as if it has some meaning beyond the "duh."

Third, you are correct that there is a law against frivolous appeals. If an unbiased court finds that an appeal is truly frivolous (and that's a pretty high burden) the court may again order attorney's fees, sanction the attorneys involved, or even report them to the state bar for disciplinary action.

He could all of those things without that specific law. It carries other penalties.

Re:Law School 101

[AK Marc]

There is a law against frivolous appeals,

There are laws and/or bar rules against frivolous suits in the first place. Let me know how well those laws/rules are working. And no, one or two lawyers a year disbarred out of the large number of frivolous suits doesn't mean the system is working.

MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this guy reply to the OP with absolutely NOTHING to do with it? Some guy basically saying "First Post!" and this guy replies in order to try to get karma. Mod down accordingly.

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Nullav]

What's wrong with clinging to a troll FP? There was no topic there to stray from. It's not like there's a '-1, cheater' moderation.

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This kind of thread grabbing, where someone posts a fairly vacuous opening comment after a "funny" or otherwise throwaway popular first post, seems to be on the increase around here. The child poster is hoping to gain karma from the first +5 post, by being in between it and the +5 insightful comments s/he inspires from better posters. The mods seem to be working on automatic, or are being exceptionally lazy. Unfortunately, by the time anyone figures out what's going on, the opportunist's post has already spawned a discussion and obtained his points.

If the mods would wake up and mod the original opportunist offtopic, which he is in the context of that thread, I think we'd see a lot more thread diversity around here.

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

You think about this too much...

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Nullav]

If the mods would wake up and mod the original opportunist offtopic, which he is in the context of that thread, I think we'd see a lot more thread diversity around here.

I don't think a discussion about semi-frozen urine in a mug would last too long.

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

erm...how do you start a new thread?

Re:MODERATORS!!! Mod GP DOWN!

[Net_Wakker]

reply to the story (bottom right of the story).

Security reasonable

[redelm]

The request for security might well be reasonable. The RIAA has a valid judgement against it, and no visible assets. They don't own the back-catalogs, they're just enforcement agents.

The RIAA could easly go bankrupt over the judgement and the labels start another shell RIAA2.

Re:Security reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldnt this mean the people that the RIAA represent ie the major record labels would be liable as well??? :)

Re:Security reasonable

[GreyPoopon]

The request for security might well be reasonable. The RIAA has a valid judgement against it, and no visible assets.

As has been mentioned before, this case directly involves Capitol. They have visible assets.

Re:Big ol' mug...

[Odin_Tiger]

Pretty sure it's a big ol' mug of Frosty Piss.

Email?

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email

It's interesting that email is stated specifically. Is it legally acceptable these days to use email for important correspondence? If so, given the number of possible failure modes between sender and receiver, how can it be compared to mature methods of communication like fax and registered mail?

Any IAALs out there?

Re:Email?

[Overzeetop]

IANAL, but I read the previous topic (posted...yesterday?), and it appears, according to NYCL, that email is the primary tool of communication between plaintiff and defendant lawyers in these cases.

Re:Email?

[Goobermunch]

IAAL, and email is a commonly used method of communication, both here in my office and in the legal community at large. In fact, in the jurisdiction (Federal and State) where I live and work all pleadings filed with the court are filed in electronic format, and service of those pleadings is largely accomplished via email.

It makes life a lot easier. For example, if you've got a deadline and you're not going to be able to make it to the court by 4:45 to file a motion, you can e-file at any time up until midnight (this is especially nice when the case is filed in a court that's 150 miles away). Also, our postage costs (which are paid by the client) have been reduced significantly. We also get immediate notice of filings in our cases, without having to wait for the USPS to deliver the goods.

That said, there have been days where I'd like to be able to run stuff to the courthouse myself. Like the day our ISP collapsed and no one could connect to the e-filing service from the office.

But overall, I'd say it's a great improvement over "the old days."

--AC

delay tactic makes sense to me

[ArcadeX]

I'm not on the RIAA's side, but I can completely understand the delay tactic. It's not about the money in this one case. I'm willing to bet they have accepted the loss internally, but want to keep the 'official' loss off the books until they can collect in the countless other cases. IANAL: legal standings and precidents aside, not paying now could keep other currently undecided cases in doubt, instead of fueling the other people into fighting. just my 2 cents.

Stephen Wright: How come you have to put your two cents in, but it's only a penny for your thoughts? Somebody's making a penny...

Re:delay tactic makes sense to me

[Lonewolf666]

In this context, it seems like abusing the legal process to maintain the impression of a legitimate legal campaign as long as possible.
Technically legal but IMHO unethical. I hope it comes round to bite them in the ass.

Re:delay tactic makes sense to me

[knight24k]

In this context, it seems like abusing the legal process to maintain the impression of a legitimate legal campaign as long as possible. Technically legal but IMHO unethical. I hope it comes round to bite them in the ass.

The RIAA Lawyers doing something unethical??? I'm SHOCKED, shocked I tell you! =)

Try saying it ten times quickly.

[Edie O'Teditor]

Possible future headline - RIAA writes IOU.

It's not RIAA its ...

[xednieht]

EMI North America
EMI Recorded Music
Virgin Records America
EMI Christian Music Group
RCA Music Group
SonyBMG
Geffen Records
Island Records
Universal Music Group
The Atlantic Group
Warner Bros Records
Warner Music Group
Buena Vista Music
Concord Records
Curb Records
Koch Entertainment
Tommy Boy Entertainment
Univision
Wind Up Records
many others...


RIAA is just the name of the front-org to shield consumer entertainment companies from backlash of the ill-will they create.

More like SCO writ small...

[Lonewolf666]

SCO vs. IBM looked pretty big with its multi-billion dollar claims. This is peanuts in comparison.

Of course the RIAA's tactics are just as slimy as those of SCO, but so far the RIAA stuff has a lot less publicity. This may change if they do something really stupid and get thrown in jail for contempt of court (which would be news by itself), but I guess a lot more has to happen before that. US courts seem rather tolerant to abuse of the court system.

Way ahead of you

[BlackCobra43]

I haven't bought (any) music in years! Yarrrr.

Re:Way ahead of you

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't "pirated" any music in years, and I have only bought music from local bands that play in the bar I work. As it turns out you can survive just fine without having your brain mushed up by Britney.

Re:Interesting

[asphaltjesus]

When I posted a similar observation yesterday, I was modded a troll. The RIAA can drag this out for at least 6-12 months on negotiating the security payment alone. Add another 6-12 months on other procedural road blocks alone.

The RIAA **still** wins. Months and months of lawyering costs for supposedly violating copyright. That's the story they want every consumer to know and fear.

It would be very misguided thinking to believe that the Rule of Law applies to the RIAA.

Just Pay Them

[mugnyte]

  Gifts are easy to make. We all pay bills to all kinds of companies every month. Get out your stinkin' checkbook or whatnot and simply send the your favorite artists some money directly.

  Please, skip buying their music from this insane system. Trade, beg, borrow or steal it, but donate to the artists you like. Send them the $10 for the album. Remove the guilt, feed your inner pirate, and get some new tunes. There are actually a lot of great bands out there, and plenty of ways to find them. And they would make much more from this than from wait for royalty checks from the AA

Re:Just Pay Them

[apt142]

I hear this said a lot. How easy is it to track down a method of sending money to the major artists? I've attempted this on a few artists and it's near impossible to guarantee it's not a method that the RIAA doesn't have it's sticky little fingers in. Indies and locals are much easier to figure out in this regard. You can often meet them after the show or buy their CD's at the concerts. Hell, some even have tip jars.

Somebody needs to make a database of bands and their paypal accounts or check mailing addresses. More people would send the artist 10 bucks if there was an easy way to find out where to send it to.

Any takers out there?

Re:Just Pay Them

[mugnyte]

Old school perhaps, but if they have no web presence, and you don't go to their shows just find their mailing address from their booking agent, mgr agency or fan club. You can bet artists:

- want to hear from fans
- want to be accessible for donations
- enjoy knowing you like them and are willing to pay

Re:Just Pay Them

[Anonymous Coward]

On a slightly different note - what if the artist is already dead?

Re:Just Pay Them

[mugnyte]

  Hmm. Keep yer money. You're certainly not going to be getting any more music from them.

Re:Just Pay Them

[l3v1]

Actually, I like the idea. We could make a pay per preview system, where for very little money - or for free - one could listen to tracks (let's say in 128kbit), working similar to radio stations but not quite, it would be like a place for artists to advertise their new albums. Then, getting the albums would happen directly from the artists' sites. Of course, people would buy only what they like - hardcore fans are an exception, as always :) -, well, at least artists would work harder to produce higher quality albums.

Older bands would have a hard time though. I mean I still don't own every Deep Purple or Pink Floyd album, and still buy them from time to time, and I probably couldn't buy them through such a system.

How about

[pedestrian crossing]

If you like music, hate the RIAA, and want to support the artists, instead of going "pirate", go here.

It Will Be A Huge News Day...

[Nom du Keyboard]

It will be a huge news day when the RIAA actually coughs up a penny to any defendant. I expect years of delays, appeals, legal wranglings, and outright ignoring court orders before the RIAA cuts a check to anyone, no matter now deserving. And they'll probably try to conceal it with a confidentiality agreement when it happens!

Why would anyone who won ever agree to such an agreement? The RIAA says, we'll pay you now if you sign the agreement, or we'll wait and see if you die before this overcomes all the tricks our lawyers can play on you first. Would you sign to get the money you're entitled to under such circumstances?

Re:It Will Be A Huge News Day...

[LouisJBouchard]

Even if Mrs. Foster does die, the heirs to her estate can continue the suit (and it would be to their advantage since the lawyers can attach the estate). Therefore, someone dying does not end a lawsuit.

In fact, the same works for bankruptcy (as we will see in the SCO case). When an entity declares bankruptcy, the trustee takes over all of the affairs that have a financial impact to the estate, including legal cases. The trustee can then decide whether it is in the best interest in the creditors to continue the fight or give up.

Capitol Records will eventually end up paying. The only issue is when and how much by the time it is all settled.

Re:It Will Be A Huge News Day...

[Tuoqui]

Considering this is a TRIAL and a matter of PUBLIC RECORD... I do not see the possibility of any sort of 'confidentiality agreement'. You typically get those given to you when settling for an 'undisclosed amount' not from getting your pants sued off of you.

Shareholders

[Trojan35]

Notice how the shares of these companies are not taking massive hits? It's way overvalued. I assume the Market realizes that the current strategy couldn't be worse, and therefore there is vast unrealized profit potential in these companies. The boards should make me CEO of all these media companies. I'd be terrible, but not any worse and MUCH cheaper.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

--parasonic

Not uncommon

[dmpyron]

It is not uncommon for a judge to require a large bond to be placed by the appellant, particularly when the judge does not believe that they will prevail in the appeal. This bond would only be about 3 times the judgment. I've seen cases where it was as much as 5 times. And, or course, the judgment also includes, but has not been listed yet, legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff. So they could quite conceivably be out much more.

Does anyone have a name/address/phone number of her attorneys? I'd love to send them a check for $100 to help fund her legal fees. Given the number of /. readers who just love the RIAA, $5 a pop would probably cover her through the Supreme Court.

Re:Not uncommon

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Does anyone have a name/address/phone number of her attorneys? I'd love to send them a check for $100 to help fund her legal fees. Marilyn D. Barringer-Thomson, Esq.
Post Office Box 54444
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154

Re:Not uncommon

[HarvardAce]

Sure: Make checks payable to "Cash". HarvardAce 123 Wallabee Way Sydney, Australia

Little Harm - Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

They are playing the lottery.

Re:Little Harm - Exactly

[thc69]

Here's a comic that's actually about the RIAA:
http://analbumcover.com/images/riaa.jpg

This is S.O.P.

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

So you can not pay the judgment as long as you might possibly decide to appeal the case?

IANAL, but I hire them a lot to defend schools. Yes, this is pretty much SOP. Leaving aside that the RIAA are bottom feeding slime suckers, what they are doing is pretty standard. Winning side is awarded costs. Loser does not pay while deciding whether or not to appeal. One standard gambit is to trade a waiver of costs for no appeal. It is also standard for the winner, Foster, to demand and get an escrow of costs during appeal, as he is doing here. Appeals can be tricky, because you can generally only appeal on the law, not on the facts that have been decided at trial. This kind of thing tends to drag out a long time.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Capitol Records. This case isn't "RIAA vs Foster" it's "Capitol vs Foster."

I'd tell you to RTFA but you didn't even RTFS.

And it matters because....

[kjkeefe]

Umm, you make this sound like it is some game to be won... Do you really go around wearing a T-shirt that states your current Slashdot karma? Who cares who gets points and who doesn't? That is NOT the purpose of the moderation system... Seriously, you should try to get out a bit more.

Tag all RIAA articles "annoying"

[williambbertram]

Seriously, is there a Greasemonkey script or something that will blot out all articles containing the text "RIAA"?

Re:Tag all RIAA articles "annoying"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Is there someone with a gun to your head forcing you to read them?

If you find something "annoying" why don't you just try not reading it?

Like I'm going to do with any future comments from you.

Re:Tag all RIAA articles "annoying"

[Anonymous Coward]

>Seriously, is there a Greasemonkey script or something that will blot out all articles containing the text "RIAA"?

Now, now, you mustn't deny Slashdot the only thing that consistently brings in traffic these days.

Why so long?

[jhRisk]

Granted there's plenty of changes needed in the US legal system but I'm wondering why you would have so long to respond to the judgement. Why don't we have tight deadlines? IMHO you sould have 24 hours to "reply" to the judgement with intent to appeal or accept. Whether you're ready with all the details of the appeal is irrelevant as the courts just need to know if this should remain on the radar. What we appear to end up with without a short deadline is an indeterminable amount of time to come up with a reason to appeal. If it's isn't clear at the time of judgement exactly why you warrant an appeal then we shouldn't allow people the time to come up with one. IANAL but wasn't the intention of the appeal process to provide, as needed, an opportunity to re-examine a case and not as a standard part of the judicial system whereas everyone gets at least 2 shots so long as you can conjure up some new angle?

Re:Why so long?

[Titoxd]

24 hours would be all right... except, you know, that the mail could be delivered 48 hours after the judge's ruling.

Also, you have to remember that whomever has to make the appeal needs to balance their options. They need to consider whether shelling out a non-negligible amount of cash makes sense. This usually involves consultations with lawyers to try to find any potential holes in the ruling. Now, if your attorney answers on the middle of the night, then it could probably be feasible. But most attorneys I've heard of have multiple cases, have appointments to keep, and/or need some sleep.

Is a month too long? Perhaps. But 24 hours is absurd.
----

~~~~

Re:Donations to the legal fund

[ekimminau]

Has anyone set up a PayPal donations site yet?

NYCL does NOT represent Foster!

[Anonymous Coward]

> First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.

You might want to fact-check some more. As you might know if you'd RTFA, Foster is NOT represented by NYCL.

In other words, an unrelated lawyer, familiar with RIAA tactics, is calling this appeal frivolous. That carries a bit more weight than her own counsel calling it that.

Re:NYCL does NOT represent Foster!

[sampson7]

Please read my post. I said "I would exepect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case." The "her" I refer to is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the attorney for Ms. Foster. NYCL is Ray Beckerman and is a male (to the best of my knowledge and belief). I fully expect Ms. Barringet-Thomson will be making the same argument.

But more importantly, you are looking for an unbiased analysis from someone whose blog is titled "Recording Industry vs. People" and subtitled "About the RIAA's attempt to monopolize digital music by redefining copyright law, through the commencement of tens of thousands of extortionate lawsuits against ordinary working people." I respect Mr. Beckerman's work, but he is hardly "an unrelated lawyer". Moreover, it would be a serious breach of legal ethics if he did represent Ms. Foster and then went and blabbed about it in this way.

I am not all sympathetic to the RIAA, but someone's critical reading skills need a little work.

I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[benhocking]

One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.

Absolutely.

Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me not to include these costs. Basically, the Judge went through each bill and evaluated its reasonableness. Exactly my managing partner does to me each month and more importantly, exactly what the law requires in copyright cases.

Why shouldn't the paralegal's fees be included? Who should pay for that work to be done? If you're saying it's too expensive, I have no knowledge with which to disagree. But if you're saying it shouldn't be included at all, I'd have to disagree. Someone has to pay for the paralegal's work - why should it be Ms. Foster or the firm?

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[sampson7]

Why shouldn't the paralegal's fees be included? Who should pay for that work to be done? If you're saying it's too expensive, I have no knowledge with which to disagree. But if you're saying it shouldn't be included at all, I'd have to disagree. Someone has to pay for the paralegal's work - why should it be Ms. Foster or the firm? Happy to clarify. First, $80 per hour is a high billing rate for most paralegals. But it depends on the type of work involved. Highly technical and skilled paralegals, working in a complicated area of law they are skilled in, can easily command this type of rate. But as the Judge's opinion clarifies, this was not a person with any particular specialized knowledge of copyright. Thus he found the hourly rate was too high. Second, the Judge goes through and discusses the specific tasks performed by the paralegal. He finds that many of the tasks were no not "legal" in nature and thus could not be reasonably billed at legal rates. For example, on more than one evening I have stood at the copier preparing documents for a meeting. I can't (ethically) bill the client for my non-legal time (especially when it was just because my lazy ass didn't feel like getting get the docs prepared in time for the secretarial pool to take care of it). Essentially, I am for that period of time a secretary and should bill like one.

In short: It is perfectly normal and accepted to bill for paralegal time. But in this particular case, the Judge made a rather detailed finding that these specific bills were excessive.

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the fees and cost claims of the defendants placed under such high analytical scrutiny, but the RIAA routinely gets away with claiming damages of $millions and even $billions due to these cases? Such obvious fictional nonsense, but the claims get treated like they were engraved on stone tablets by divine will.

"Oh the RIAA claims its lost billions, though it cant substantiate or document the loss of a single cent, so the case must be very serious indeed, the RIAA would never lie about such a thing!"

They are frauds gaming the legal system and robbing helpless victims for cash, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[Anonymous Coward]

First, $80 per hour is a high billing rate for most paralegals.

What are you high?? Or never had anything to do with a lawyer in your life? I'd be ecstatic if I could find somebody to work for $80 an hour, most Massachusetts lawyers are $200+ an hour.

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[sampson7]

Are you familiar with what a paralegal is? Most importantly, a paralegal is not a lawyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal

Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd

[sampson7]

Why are the fees and cost claims of the defendants placed under such high analytical scrutiny

Why? Because the law requires it. Please do not mix up what you think the law should be and whether a judge is doing a good job interpreting the laws as they are.

Section 505 the Copyright Act states:

505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

OT: Why the quotation marks?

[NickFortune]

It's more the "inspiration" for other lawyers taking people's cases on contingency which they must fear, not any "precedent".

Why the quotes? Do you think I've used the word "precedent" inappropriately?

(not disagreeing with you - just confused)

Re:OT: Why the quotation marks?

[Weezul]

I maybe wanted the opposite of quotes :) I think you used it confusingly since it means something specific in legal circles. Of course you usage was correct for common english.

Re:OT: Why the quotation marks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quotation marks should only be used when quoting someone.
That said, you should have qualified the use of the word precedent with persuasive since this is not a binding precedent.

RIAA not the liable party.

[Mr. Yetti]

Pay attention to whom you're making out to be the offending party. The RIAA -IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANYTHING HERE-, Capitol Records is. They're even listed in the summary as the party involved, plain as day. The RIAA just connects the dots. Company A owns the rights to bone the artists out of money they deserve for music they created. User B downloads said music, bypassing Company A's 'right' to collect money (and forget to pay the artist) on that music. The RIAA simply digs through traffic records (and throws darts at a board) to find out that User B has done this. The RIAA then gets Company A in contact with User B to extort money by attempting to scare the piss out of them. The RIAA is not in litigation - Capitol is. The RIAA won't be magically destroyed by this. (which sucks...)

Re:RIAA not the liable party CAPITOL is.

[redelm]

Thanks for the additional detail. I hadn't realized that the labels had to sue directly. They have a lot to lose.

False: You are a shill of the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

"What you're missing is that it is those content creators who agreed to be paid the amounts they are."

Nice try, but wrong.

The RIAA members routinely cheat their artists who signed with them. It's one thing to pay pennies on millions they make from the sweat of other's brow, but even those few pennies are routinely cheated from artists.

Look here, naive one:
  http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04 .html

Goodness, the RIAA is really sure about who is downloading music (which is impossible), but they can't be sure about who they owe royalties too. Goodness, their head must be in a tizzy!

Maybe not such a tizzy. When you are used to not paying anyone, just getting money, I guess even paying a few cents to artists really burns!

    http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8218.cfm

Of course, maybe it's all a desire to make the world safe for full accountant employment:

    http://www.prosoundweb.com/studio/articles/royalti es/royalties.php

What wonderful people you defend! And clearly, they have no desire to do anything but stuck to stick to the contract. What just people they are. Just wonderful.

Your composition lacks clarity.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please read my post. I said "I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case." The "her" I refer to is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the attorney for Ms. Foster. NYCL is Ray Beckerman and is a male (to the best of my knowledge and belief). I fully expect Ms. Barringet-Thomson will be making the same argument.

Thing is, NYCL called it "frivolous" NOT Ms. Foster's lawyer. And "her case" can be understood as "Ms. Foster's case" as well as "Marilyn Barringer-Thomson's case." Especially in this context, where your ambiguity made it appear that you thought NYCL represented her.

So what I'm trying to say is that what you wrote was very much prone to misinterpretation, especially when it's in reply to the very place where Mr. Beckerman called the appeal frivolous (and nowhere near any similar statement by Ms. Barringer-Thomson) and my critical reading skills are just fine and your composition lacks clarity.

Finally, as to whether NYCL is biased or not, he has no financial interest in the case, plenty of experience with the RIAA's "sharp practice", lots of information on the case, no obligations towards Ms. Foster, and good reason NOT to call cases "frivolous" when they're not.

In other words, he's not biased, he's well-informed.

Yesssss

[harvey the nerd]

Yes, make RIAA put their money where their deadbeat mouth is. Show there can be justice dealing with consortia and corporate megaliths. After all, there are the frequent public examples of oil spills where court ordered payments have been delayed decades if not generations.

That one's definitely NSFW

[DavidRawling]

Next time could you put the NSFW tags on it? Please!?

Re:That one's definitely NSFW

[thc69]

Wha? It's a cartoon of a beach scene where a guy gets sliced into a few pieces. What kind of work would that be any more not safe than any other comic?

Judgment entered on August 16th

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Update:

Judgment was entered against the RIAA on August 16th. It has been reported that the RIAA intends to just pay it.