Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees

Posted by Zonk on Tue Aug 14, 2007 04:40 PM
from the must-be-because-of-all-those-lost-record-sales dept.
Government The Courts Media Music The Almighty Buck News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Can it be that the RIAA, or the "Big 4" record companies it represents, are short on funds? It turns out that despite the Judge's order, entered a month ago, telling them to pay Debbie Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees, in Capitol v. Foster, they have failed to make payment. Ms. Foster has now had to ask the Court to enter Judgment, so that she can commence 'post judgment collection proceedings'. According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. Perhaps the RIAA should ask their lawyers for a loan?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees 192 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, the RIAA has been directed to pay the defendant $68,685.23 in attorneys fees. This is the first instance of which I am aware of the RIAA being ordered to pay the defendant attorneys fees. The judge in this case has criticized the RIAA's lawyers' motives as 'questionable,' and their legal theories as 'marginal' (PDF). Although the judge had previously ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, today's decision (PDF) made no mention of the amount that the RIAA had spent on its own lawyers."
Submission: RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorneys Fees by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
[+] Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees 198 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Show Me the Money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moehoward (668736) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:44PM (#20230451)

    So where is all that cash going that they are "winning" in settlements??

    Oh, that's right! Straight to the artists' pockets. Sorry for the stupid question. I was wondering how Fiddy Cent's new gold tooth was financed.

    • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:49PM (#20230507) Homepage
      They obviously have the money to pay. But the point (or one of the points) of these lawsuits is to make people's lives hell, to make examples, to discourage copyright infringement by others. Here, they are trying to make show that even if you fight and win, you still lose.

      • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Informative)

        by jcr (53032) <[jcr] [at] [mac.com]> on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:26PM (#20230841) Journal
        Ignoring a judgement is a pretty dangerous game. A creditor who knows what they're doing can get liens on property, seize bank accounts, etc.

        -jcr

        • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Interesting)

          by no-body (127863) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @06:18PM (#20231315)
          A creditor who knows what they're doing can get liens on property, seize bank accounts, etc.


          Sure - but until it get to the actual act of that, there are steps to take and the deptor can turn around anytime and just put the money (including fees) on the table.

          It's harrassment, as previously mentioned. I have something like that going on with a larger company with a ridiculously small amount - they just show you the finger and have their fun with it.


          Underlying reason for this behavior? I'd say immaturity.
          Pretty much what this whole RIAA chase after small people is. Must be a bunch of brainless corporate robots "doing their job".

          • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14 2007, @06:36PM (#20231449)
            "A bank customer who was angered by the refusal of his branch to refund thousands of pounds of charges responded by sending in the bailiffs.

            Customers at the branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in North London were stunned to see debt collectors that were hired by Declan Purcell seize four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash."

            More:
            Times Online: Bailiffs seize bank's cash [timesonline.co.uk]

            • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Informative)

              by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday August 15 2007, @02:40AM (#20233827) Homepage
              There is an important difference there:

              1. That's under the UK legal system.
              2. Specifically, it's under the Small Claims court. Which is a system we have in the UK which is designed specifically so that small (under £5,000) claims can be heard in relatively informal surroundings, and where it's not really necessary to hire an army of solicitors to fight your case. Neither is it necessary to wait 2 years for your case to be heard.

              Unlike Judge Judy, it is part of the same legal system as everything else and decisions are just as binding. If you decide not to defend, the chances are the court will decide against you. And if you don't pay up, and don't show up when the person taking you to court goes back to ask the court to send the bailiffs in (yes, the court sends the bailiffs in), chances are the court will simply rubber-stamp the request to send the bailiffs in.

                • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by InvalidError (771317) on Wednesday August 15 2007, @12:38AM (#20233421)
                  My mom went through something similar too with the contractor that re-did her basement after a flooding but butchered the decontamination.

                  Since it was a private company at the time (the guy did incorporate his company between that job and the court proceedings) and the guy had no seizable property to his name (all under his wife's), the judge gave my mom the paperwork to request bailiffs at her leisure. Since he wouldn't give my mom her money by claiming he did not have it, my mom decided to pay $2000 to have bailiffs lock up all the guy's credit and banking accounts right away. The guy noticed his accounts were frozen the next day and his wife wrote my mom a ~$60k check right away. (And yes, it cleared.)

                  I wonder how long the RIAA would defer payment of their fine if the woman in this case did get bailiffs to suspend RIAA banking and credit accounts until payment is delivered... that would certainly be funny - imagine how the RIAA's lawyers would react to their bouncing paychecks!

      • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iluvcapra (782887) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:34PM (#20230913) Homepage

        "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
        --L. Ron Hubbard [wikipedia.org]

        Different end in LRH's case, but the same means. The tort system, without careful rules, is just a big harassment system that rich people can use on poor people.

    • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Funny)

      by krgallagher (743575) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:52PM (#20230535) Homepage
      "So where is all that cash going that they are "winning" in settlements??"

      It is being eaten up by all the money they are losing because people are downloading their songs instead of buying them.

    • RIAA attorney's statement before the bench (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JonTurner (178845) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:59PM (#20230597) Journal
      "Your Honor, we ask for your understanding and leniency in this case. Rest assured my client and I are suing people as fast as we can. I mean, it's not like money grows on trees. We have to wring it out of grandmothers and college students and people who don't even have PCs and hey, those cheap bastards just aren't coughing it up like they used to. Plus, it's getting harder and harder to trick the public into buying the latest Bubblegum Boys album. So even with a crappy contract that guarantees poverty for the musician via advance fees, bills for studio time and 18th century "breakage" clauses, times are tough for us over at the chrome & glass RIAA skyscraper. We need just a little more time to get some cash together. We've got hungry executives to feed, and those Gulfstream jets don't exactly fly themselves, you know... etc. etc. etc."

      Or something like that.

      • Re:RIAA attorney's statement before the bench (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dch24 (904899) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:06PM (#20230659) Journal

        We've got hungry executives to feed, and those Gulfstream jets don't exactly fly themselves, you know
        There's more truth to that than meets the eye. I'm sure, if all the assets in Enron were totalled, there was enough to settle accounts. That is, before the Execs cashed out, hopped in their Gulfstreams, and exited the country.

        If the RIAA or the Labels behind it are about to go under, I promise you long before any of us knows about it, the Execs will bail with golden parachutes. Everyone else can scrabble over the pennies.

    • Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:42PM (#20230989)
      This is the RIAA abusing the system. Only at this time they have to pay with more than just their bad name. I"m sure the courts have a penalty system to account for the situation where the court costs aren't paid for in an effort to further attempt to create financial hardship on the defendant and their lawyers.

  • That is the problems with our INCs. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:46PM (#20230467) Journal
    It removes responsibility. In particular, assume that RIAA declares bankruptcy, or simply decides to say that it is none-existent. The labels will simply spin up RIAAII. What is needed is to require the parent companies to take full responsibility for ALL of their subsidiaries, ownerships.

  • You wouldn't steal a car ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by multisync (218450) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:46PM (#20230469) Journal
    Actually, this shouldn't surprise us. They haven't lived up to their end of the copyright bargain, either.

  • They'll drag it out for years (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArchieBunker (132337) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:46PM (#20230471) Homepage
    Knowing they lost the next best thing they can do is delay the payments in court as long as they can.

  • Dragging their feet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by earnest murderer (888716) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:47PM (#20230473)
    Why should they pay when they can ignore it and make her go through the extra steps to actually get the cash? Is there any penalty for failing to pay?

  • I for one.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 3seas (184403) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:52PM (#20230531) Homepage Journal
    ...refuse to buy from our music industry overlords.

  • baffles me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SEAL (88488) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @04:56PM (#20230567)
    According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment.

    If you're trying to collect money owed due to a legal ruling, it'd be prudent for your attorney to pick up the phone, and/or put the request in writing and send it via certified mail.

  • Get some perspective (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ookabooka (731013) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:04PM (#20230641)
    Get some perspective, consider how much record labels make, then look at the amount they owe: $68,685.23. I dunno but that seems like a bit like saying someone is broke when their child asks them for a quarter for the gum-ball machine and they shrug it off. Even if said person was broke you'd think they'd find a way to get a quarter to keep the screaming kid happy :-p

  • Maybe they really do need the money (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:17PM (#20230765) Homepage Journal
    Here [p2pnet.net] they're spending about $5000 in attorneys fees to try and squeeze $543 out of a 20 year old. I guess
    -they really do need the money, and
    -they're really bad businessmen.

    • Re:Maybe they really do need the money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mooingyak (720677) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:31PM (#20230883)
      I had thought the intent was more about fear than moneymaking on the part of the RIAA.

      In other words, I had thought that it didn't matter so much to them whether or not they made money off of any given suit, but made people afraid that they might be the next target.

      • Question I put up above: how much of the foot-dragging is Capitol not wanting to pay, and how much is them arguing with their laywers about WHO should pay? (You lost in court, YOU pay! It's not OUR case, YOU pay!) Second, what's the chances of this coming to an asset seizure to force them to pay?
        Another possible question:
        As between the plaintiff record companies, who pays how much? Let's remember, we've got a bunch of plaintiffs:

        -Capitol Records, Inc.
        -UMG Recordings, Inc.
        -Maverick Recording Company
        -Arista Records, LLC
        -Sony BMG Music Entertainment
        -Warner Bros. Records Inc.

  • Reading the actual document... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codegen (103601) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:21PM (#20230813) Journal
    Looking at the actual motion at irweb, It appears that
    the judge may have erred slightly in procedure. Apparently
    the order and judgement were not put in separate documents
    or were not filed as separate documents. I'm not exactly clear
    since I am not a lawyer. The motion is to correct the paperwork
    by filing a judgment consistent with the court order of July 13, 2007.

  • Apathetic justice system (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jgarra23 (1109651) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @06:42PM (#20231497)
    This isn't really news so much as it is just the result of the apathetic civil justice system in America. Our judicial system here is really only expedient with executing (most) sentences when it is a criminal trial (convict goes to prison immediately usually). When it comes to civil cases, orders and judgments can take forever to be enforced. This isn't news, just a fact of our broken system.

    The worst is when an attorney for whichever side will act as an officer of the court and then you're liable never to get your paperwork from them (or judgment). These private attorneys are money-hungry and as a result over-worked and almost never bother to make sure that things get done unless it benefits them directly.

    In this case, I'll bet the only reason her lawyer is pushing the judgment is so they can collect the fees for their time. If she were collecting something she'd never see it except for maybe pennies on the dollar from the collection agency.

  • Par for the course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archtech (159117) on Wednesday August 15 2007, @03:55AM (#20234135)
    This is precisely the kind of behaviour to be expected of a big modern corporation. It's not quite accurate to say that they ignore the law completely. It's more that they don't have any of the emotional respect for law that some (I hope, many) of us individual citizens have. Sure, we might cut corners in a few small matters... parking where we technically shouldn't, taking some stationery from the office cupboard, that kind of thing. But we would never dream of defying a court order.

    Joel Bakan explains what's going on in his great book The Corporation. Thanks to a framework of laws set up in Britain, the USA and other places in the late 18th and 19th centuries, corporations get treated as people - except that they don't have all the responsibilities of people. You can't imprison a corporation, and if it runs out of other people's money, it can simply declare bankruptcy and leave everyone else holding the bag.

    As Bakan explains, while corporations are hard to pin down legally, they are increasingly compelled by law to leave no stone unturned in the search for profits. Not just profits, maximum profits. Not just maximum profits, but maximum profits NOW. That makes them liable to behave, in some important ways, just like human psychopaths. A corporation has no "better nature"; no decency, no innate or learned morality, and very little actual reason to fear the law. To it, "ethics" means a set of showy acts designed to improve its public image.

    So it's hard to be surprised when a corporation behaves the way the RIAA has done. It simply compares the upside with the downside, and acts accordingly. Don't expect it to think or act like a decent human being: there's no "there" there.

    • Re:Contempt of court? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Speare (84249) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:07PM (#20230667) Homepage

      'Contempt of Court' is a charge that comes from the Judge, not the parties. You can't file to hold the other litigants in CoC. An annoyed Judge might listen appreciatively to the complaint, but usually they don't even want to hear either party make the suggestion.

    • not if they're using email... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:28PM (#20230859)

      IANAL, but I think this would be a good time for Foster to hit 'em with Contempt of Court... Is that possible?

      Kind of. However, you damn well shouldn't be using email:

      According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. Perhaps the RIAA should ask their lawyers for a loan?"

      What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive? Gimme a break, guys. This crowd should know, email is easy to lose (on purpose or completely accidentally) or never get in the first place. Registered mail, someone has to SIGN for and accept. Then they have no wiggle-room...the other party is holding on to a piece of paper with your (or your representative's) signature.

    • Re:E-mail? (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:09PM (#20230697) Homepage Journal

      According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment.
      I have been involved in more cases than I would like, and I can't say that I am aware of any situation in which e-mail was regarded as reliable. If my lawyers wanted to make an on-the-record contact with representation for the opposing side, it was usually by courier, and occasionally by snail mail or fax, with back-up confirmation over the phone. I can't imagine the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to regard delivery of e-mail to a recipient's inbox as reliable.
      As you know I am in constant litigation with the RIAA attorneys, and I can assure you that email is their primary way of communicating with opposing counsel, and it is my primary way of communicating with them. I have been in constant communication with them every day for over two (2) years in a multitude of cases, and have never had a single instance that I can recall of any email communication going astray.

    • Re:E-mail? (Score:5, Informative)

      by arkanes (521690) <arkanes AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:19PM (#20230789) Homepage
      I don't believe that you have any requirement to communicate with someone who owes you a judgment at all, much less prove that you did. It's their obligation to pay, and to prove that they paid to the court. The legal document that needs to be sent certified mail is the complaint they're placing before the judge (and I'm sure it was), not the request for information that was sent via email.

    • Re:Email inquiry? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:22PM (#20230823) Journal
      Email is not verifiable, sure. However the email in this case appears merely to have been a follow-up along the lines of "Remember when that judge ruled you needed to send us a cheque? We still have not got it!" It was a courtesy to send the email at all. Even without sending the email, Capitol is legally required to send the cheque for the amount owed. Failure to do so is breaking the law. It's not the defendant's job to run after them, continually requesting that they pay what they were legally mandated to pay.

      But an email seems to be wide open to "we never got it" or "the guy that checks that account was out the last two weeks."
      I'm sure either excuse would be laughed out of court. The court ruled against Capitol, at which point they were made aware of their legal obligations (in particular, to pay a certain sum). They are now breaking the law, regardless of whether they got the friendly reminder.

      The only reason to mention the email at all is that the fact that they are ignoring communication attempts is itself somewhat amusing.

    • Re:Ay, There's the rub.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by arkanes (521690) <arkanes AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:24PM (#20230829) Homepage
      It's true that the person themselves has no mechanism to force payment, but that's just true in general - if someone owes you money and won't give it to you, you have to petition the court for redress. The court has the power to enforce the judgment, up to and including having officers of the court forcefully seize property to auction and even piercing the corporate shield and finding the corporate officers in contempt and jailing them. It would require a blatantly, outright corrupted judge to refuse to enforce the ruling (you could possibly petition a superior court in that case) and they never would have won the judgment in first case if the judge was that corrupt and that willing to show it.

      • Re:Oh, but there is... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:48PM (#20231049) Homepage Journal

        That's what the 'post judgment collection proceedings' are all about. The RIAA would be wise to just pay up before things get really expensive for them.
        Yes and I imagine they will have to pay the defendant's legal costs for the judgment enforcement proceedings as well.

        • Re:And How Much Does That Cost? (Score:5, Informative)

          by taustin (171655) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:53PM (#20231099) Homepage Journal
          You really should do some research on how this sort of thing works. If you have a judgment against someone who has the assets, it is generally a very simple process to force collection. In California, you subpoena appropriate employees of the company in to court to answer questions - somebody like the CFO, to answer questions like "Where are you bank accounts" and "What is the account number and current balance" and "What is the license plate number and VIN of every car owned by the RIAA and issued to employees to use." Then you just pick what you're going to have uniformed Marshall's deputies go out and seize, at gunpoint if necessary, to sell off. Banks are very cooperative about taking money out of a bank account.

          And if they ignore the subpoena, judges tend to do things like issue arrest warrants, eventually.

          Anybody who fails to collect on a judgement against someone who actually has the wealth has no one to blame but themselves.

          Hell, even $cientology was forced, on pain of prison time for higher-ups, to pay a judgement.

    • Re:Her bill (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Fallen Kell (165468) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @05:43PM (#20231007)
      Too bad that Capitol Records has plenty of office space, furniture, computers, and don't forget very expensive studio recoding equipment that they own. There is probably $5-10 million in each recording studio worth of assets that can and will be auctioned off if they fail to pay.

    • Re:Charity-YES (Score:4, Funny)

      by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday August 14 2007, @06:29PM (#20231399)

      Is there somewhere where we can send donations to help out the poor beleaguered RIAA, who can't afford their legal bills?

      Send them directly to me. Make them out to CASH, which is much easier to write than my entire name otherwise. I promise to be as honest in passing along the proceeds to the RIAA as they are in all of their other business dealings.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.