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."
...of you know what.
Hint: it's awefully frosty
Living With a Nerd
A web-based management tool for setting up and. administering conferences, ShoreWare conference. director enables administrators to quickly view the
I agree with the post completely, but...
1. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" in the US. The very concept is unconstitutional. The "intellectual property" belongs to rthe people. All I, as the writer of this copyrighted comment own, is the publication rights to this comment, which expire after a "limited" time (with the word "limited" having been gutted by the US Supreme Court).
I do not own the songs I write, nor the stories, nor the software. I don't even own the Paxil Diaries. I only own a limited time monopoly on publication of that stuff (but not so limited that I won't be dead before my monopoly expires).
2. The artist doesn't own copyright to their recorded songs; US copyright law says the label owns the copyright, that the artist is just for hire.
This is, after all, the US. We have the best government Corporate Money can buy.
-mcgrew
PS- Yay, Ray!
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.