Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
/. readers who just love the RIAA, $5 a pop would probably cover her through the Supreme Court.
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
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.
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.