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: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

[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: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

[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