They have really overstepped their bounds. The RIAA lawyers are not thinking clearly at this point. They're so desperate to keep the client (and the fee revenue), and so blinded by the humiliation they are experiencing in Oklahoma, that they've lost sight of the constraints within which a lawyer must conduct him or herself in order to continue being a lawyer. The judge has previously pointed to an instance in which they 'flouted' his order, and to do it again, and flout another order issued by the very same judge, is truly insanity.
As of the time of the attorneys fee motion the amount was $55k. But Ms. Foster is also entitled to supplement her application for fees incurred later -- including for all this nonsensical, dilatory motion practice the RIAA is generating.
Yes, HikingStick, it is pleasant to see this ruling.
However the judge could have saved us all a lot of trouble by dismissing the RIAA's complaint in the first place, as I had asked her to do back in the Summer of 2005.
But the lawyers for the RIAA are complaining that the amount of the fees is unreasonable. If they're going to make such a complaint, then their own fees become relevant.
If the RIAA spent $100k on the case, they can't complain that Ms. Foster's attorneys' $55k in fees -- fighting them off -- was unreasonable.
If they stipulated to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees [which were, in my opinion, eminently reasonable, if not 'dirt cheap'], then this issue would go away.
You've explained it pretty well, Skye16. It's just one of the factors the Court needs to consider. As the Supreme Court said, the RIAA can't litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about how hard defendant's lawyer fought back.
-there was 1 link, not 2, to the original article -why do you refer to the collection of litigation documents as a "link farm"? some people actually have the brains to want to read the documents so they can know first hand what is going on... -the whole article and all of the links relate to the title so all i can ask is: who do you work for?
(a) it's relevant to the 'reasonableness' of defendant's fees that the plaintiffs were spending money like there's no tomorrow on the case
(b) only the plaintiffs can answer (b)..... what are they afraid of? i don't know.....
In a situation like this, it's not necessary to enforce an order that way. In these types of situations, if they don't comply the judge will just penalize them. If they don't comply with the order, the judge will just award Ms. Foster every nickel she asks for.
People joining together and fighting back in court. Colleges and universities and ISP's joining together and fighting back in court, and refusing to act as their enforcers and collections agents. That will enough. No need to go to their headquarters.
I personally have never heard of a fully contested case they have won. Or lost.
I do not know of a single case having gone to trial.
(I'm not saying it's never happened; only the RIAA knows for sure. But of all the cases mentioned on my blog, which are all the contested cases I know about, there is not a single fully contested case.)
Yes they are surprised, perplexed, confused, and worried about the increasing tide of resistance they are encountering. Less people are giving in to the shakedown. More are fighting back. And the RIAA doesn't know how to handle it. Their lawyers are now repeatedly begging the courts for more time. See their request for more time in the Santangelo case and their request for more time in Warner v. Stubbs.
In each case they were asking for more time because they had too many briefs to write in other cases.
I've been practicing litigation law for more than 28 years, and have never in my career requested additional time for such an asinine reason. They have hundreds of lawyers working for them. These people are losing it.
Boy are you wrong. They are desparately afraid of the attorneys fees issue. I guess you haven't been keeping up with Capitol v. Foster.
It's not just attorneys fees, don't you get it?
If the judge awards the defendant $100k in legal fees on the most highly publicized RIAA case, that will encourage lawyers to jump into the fight helping the defendants and encourage defendants to fight back. Plus the attorneys fees awards will wind up being a huge sum if more people are fighting back.
They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.
In Capitol v. Foster it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision. (pdf)
You're assuming the RIAA would feel constrained by the copyright laws.... which it doesn't. It might call singing in the shower a "distribution". Singing in the shower is as much a "distribution" as some of the other things which the RIAA has been going about calling "distributions".
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd learned to read, you'd know it was not my case. The lawyer is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
An attorney can get penalized for frivolous conduct. It is a black mark on his or her record.
I don't know about that but they could wind up with a Rule 11 sanction, and that is a major consequence for a litigation lawyer.
They have really overstepped their bounds. The RIAA lawyers are not thinking clearly at this point. They're so desperate to keep the client (and the fee revenue), and so blinded by the humiliation they are experiencing in Oklahoma, that they've lost sight of the constraints within which a lawyer must conduct him or herself in order to continue being a lawyer. The judge has previously pointed to an instance in which they 'flouted' his order, and to do it again, and flout another order issued by the very same judge, is truly insanity.
There's a term for an argument like that.
It's called "frivolous".
As of the time of the attorneys fee motion the amount was $55k. But Ms. Foster is also entitled to supplement her application for fees incurred later -- including for all this nonsensical, dilatory motion practice the RIAA is generating.
However the judge could have saved us all a lot of trouble by dismissing the RIAA's complaint in the first place, as I had asked her to do back in the Summer of 2005.
But the lawyers for the RIAA are complaining that the amount of the fees is unreasonable. If they're going to make such a complaint, then their own fees become relevant.
If the RIAA spent $100k on the case, they can't complain that Ms. Foster's attorneys' $55k in fees -- fighting them off -- was unreasonable.
If they stipulated to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees [which were, in my opinion, eminently reasonable, if not 'dirt cheap'], then this issue would go away.
Yes, I think the Parent was trolling. He's complaining because the links were to first-hand information. Glad you pointed it out, iago-vL.
Good explanation, Unknowing Fool.
You've explained it pretty well, Skye16. It's just one of the factors the Court needs to consider. As the Supreme Court said, the RIAA can't litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about how hard defendant's lawyer fought back.
-there was 1 link, not 2, to the original article
-why do you refer to the collection of litigation documents as a "link farm"? some people actually have the brains to want to read the documents so they can know first hand what is going on...
-the whole article and all of the links relate to the title
so all i can ask is: who do you work for?
(a) it's relevant to the 'reasonableness' of defendant's fees that the plaintiffs were spending money like there's no tomorrow on the case (b) only the plaintiffs can answer (b)..... what are they afraid of? i don't know.....
In a situation like this, it's not necessary to enforce an order that way. In these types of situations, if they don't comply the judge will just penalize them. If they don't comply with the order, the judge will just award Ms. Foster every nickel she asks for.
People joining together and fighting back in court. Colleges and universities and ISP's joining together and fighting back in court, and refusing to act as their enforcers and collections agents. That will enough. No need to go to their headquarters.
Does anyone believe the above post is actually for real?
No additional countersuit is necessary. Ms. Santangelo has demanded her fees and costs, including her reasonable attorneys fees.
Usually the default judgments are in the $4000 to $7000 range. They are usually for $750 x the number of songs on the exhibit list + court costs.
I do not know of a single case having gone to trial.
(I'm not saying it's never happened; only the RIAA knows for sure. But of all the cases mentioned on my blog, which are all the contested cases I know about, there is not a single fully contested case.)
In each case they were asking for more time because they had too many briefs to write in other cases.
I've been practicing litigation law for more than 28 years, and have never in my career requested additional time for such an asinine reason. They have hundreds of lawyers working for them. These people are losing it.
Exactly. The vast majority of the default judgments are uncollectible. If you own real estate, or have money in the bank, etc., you don't default.
It's not just attorneys fees, don't you get it?
If the judge awards the defendant $100k in legal fees on the most highly publicized RIAA case, that will
encourage lawyers to jump into the fight helping the defendants and
encourage defendants to fight back.
Plus the attorneys fees awards will wind up being a huge sum if more people are fighting back.
The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on any contested cases.
They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.
In Capitol v. Foster it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision. (pdf)
You're assuming the RIAA would feel constrained by the copyright laws.... which it doesn't. It might call singing in the shower a "distribution". Singing in the shower is as much a "distribution" as some of the other things which the RIAA has been going about calling "distributions".