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."
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.
Goo goo g'joob.
Money?
...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.
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?
This is starting to look like SCO writ large...
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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).
Yes, but since when have the RIAA accepted standard practices when scare-mongering and delaying has worked?
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
...don't think about it, just do it.
... the judge declare Capitol in contempt of court for not complying with his order, and get seriously slapped upside the head.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
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.
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.
The RIAA could easly go bankrupt over the judgement and the labels start another shell RIAA2.
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.
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.
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?
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...
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
Possible future headline - RIAA writes IOU.
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
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.
Hope is the currency of fools
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.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I haven't bought (any) music in years! Yarrrr.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
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.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
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
If you like music, hate the RIAA, and want to support the artists, instead of going "pirate", go here.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
So how is that working for them?
vi +
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?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
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
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
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
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
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?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
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/
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
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.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Here's a comic that's actually about the RIAA:
http://analbumcover.com/images/riaa.jpg
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
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?
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
Has anyone set up a PayPal donations site yet?
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Why the quotes? Do you think I've used the word "precedent" inappropriately?
(not disagreeing with you - just confused)
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
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...)
Burn the Land and Boil the Seas, you can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
Next time could you put the NSFW tags on it? Please!?
Update:
Judgment was entered against the RIAA on August 16th. It has been reported that the RIAA intends to just pay it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful