Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees 192

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Directed To Pay $68K In Attorneys Fees

Comments Filter:
  • Noticed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mistlefoot ( 636417 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @12:01AM (#19884135)
    I suspected this will noticed by lawyers as much as by anyone threatened. I imagine that cases will be taken on contingency that wouldn't be touched before. Not that I can blame a lawyer. Working for months at the risk of not being paid wouldn't be attractive to anyone. That risk is now much less if your lawyer believes in you.

    I do wonder if this really does cover costs though. I couldn't read the link the article posted too - busy - but I did read the New York City lawyer reply indicating he feels the dollar amount isn't enough. I am sure he has a better idea of costs then I do.
  • by ClamIAm ( 926466 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @12:31AM (#19884299)
    I think we should stop referring to the big, bad RIAA whenever possible. One of the reasons this organization exists is to funnel bad press away from specific companies (e.g. oh I dunno, Capitol) and toward an organization that doesn't really do anything on its own. Saying "the RIAA is suing somebody" doesn't really tell me anything.

    If, instead, we referred to the actual company(-ies) involved, it would let people know who is really filing these lawsuits. I realize that it's mostly the Big Four who are doing this, but I feel that just slapping the RIAA label onto everything clouds the discussion.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:01AM (#19884431)
    While it's true there are some blatant attempts to rack up the bill here and the court adjusted for that, it's misinformed to believe that the court was "annoyed" by anything. It's all just part of the game. You push as far as you can to see what you can get--you'd be doing your clients a disservice by being conservative with the amount of the reward, especially against a party as pernicious as the RIAA. There's some vengeance there--you make them cough up every penny you can, because it's exactly what they'd do to you when the tables turned.

    Moreover, answering emails, phone calls, and voicemail are all billable time. Every attorney charges for those costs. They also charge for long distance airtime. "Billing twice" for attendance is also potentially billable if the services of both attorneys are integral or appropriate for the proceedings. If you've got two people at a meeting from one department, both get paid for the time they spent there. Why should lawyers eat the cost of extra bodies? What you're saying holds true if and only if the presence of more than one attorney is superfluous. Also, given that courts themselves charge attorneys up to $1 per page for photocopying, the $1.50 assessment has to be put into perspective. Copying isn't free--even if you do use Kinko's, there are other expenses related to punching, binding, and preparing documents for filing. I also happen to know that Kinko's charges $.08 for self-serve copies, at least around here, and that's with the corporate discount. They also have a tiered pricing system, but that's beside the point.

    The examples you chose are not all pushing the envelope. Most of them are sane, standard, and assessed charges, in point of fact.
  • Re:Noticed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:04AM (#19884435) Homepage

    That seems a bit low by comparison with what senior attorneys make around here. (Here being the East Coast.) If you think about it, even a higher hourly rate for a lawyer would be fairly well in line with what's commanded by other skilled and/or professional individuals--including computer consultants.

    In my experience (working with lawyers on public and high-profile corporate projects across the U.S.), even mid-level lawyers tend to make more than senior level architects and engineering consultants. For example, (again, IME) an expert engineering consultant (where by expert I mean someone who has 30+ years experience, P.E. registration, advanced degrees, and engineering methods named after them) would bill on the order of $300 per hour. I've seen entry level lawyers bill jobs at $225 per hour.

    I would suspect that a typical lawyer would make far above what computer consultans make unless the consultant has a name like "Woz", "Tog", "Spolsky" or "Berners-Lee."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:06AM (#19884449)

    Eh, I dunno. It looks like the lady still has $46k in fees to pay. She just doesn't have to pay the lawyer.

    A $3k settlement would suck, but I'd sigh, whip out the credit card, and resign myself to not buying any goodies for the next month until it's paid off. $46k would basically ruin my life for the next couple years. I completely understand why people settle.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:08AM (#19884457)
    Now I feel that the effort I made to do technical analysis of the RIAA's evidence and post it here and on another forum was worth it. Even if my particular work didn't help directly. I don't think the lawyers are winning nearly as much as they could be if they had to do all the technical analysis through leagal companies. Also, this kind of situation shows up the RIAA and is likely to slow down their similar actions in future.
  • by PMBjornerud ( 947233 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:33AM (#19884535)
    The great thing about RIAA suing people is that they're the ones doing the dirty work. But as in the MAFIAA, you can be sure that there is never any specific company that ordered each lawsuit. So how can you blame, say, Capitol?

    Boycotting the big fours is a good start, but a good thing would be RIAA-tracking sites like http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] or some other way people can know. It's very difficult, since idependent labels might have a joint venture with a small RIAA member, but it's probably possible to turn it into some kind of "rotten" percentage.

    The problem is how to make it easy to use. A user-friendly, but probably infeasible solution would be if you just took a picture of the bar code of an album, then submitted that image to a search function that would immediately return all the dirt of any company involved in releasing said album.
  • Re:Noticed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:33AM (#19884541) Journal
    At $200/hr, that's at least $400,000 a year...

    You're assuming they get to bill 40 hours per week, and have no costs. They have to spend some of their time on non-billable running-the-business work, possibly pay secretaries and legal researchers, rent, malpractise insurance, attending conferences...

    IANAL, so I don't know what the overheads are like, but they'll be a non-negligable fraction of that $400,000.
  • by jhol13 ( 1087781 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:37AM (#19884557)

    I doubt RIAA would have internal approval of their actions if they start consistently paying the defendant's expenses at the end.

    I disagree.

    Let's assume legal fees are 100k for both sides. If RIAA have to pay 60k extra for every tenth or so trial the average cost is increasing less than 10% - a marginal change.

    On the other hand fear factor is not going down, the defendant still lost 40k, at least few years worth of income (after rent, etc.).

    Now think about how much the losers have to pay RIAA, and how much money they get in out-of-court settlements. So even if RIAA loses two thirds of the cases (and have to pay) I think they still would be winning (monetary wise). Not as much as previously, but enough not to stop their racketeering activities.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @01:49AM (#19884617)
    "Even if they did end up paying all her legal fees, plus interest, plus lost wages, the MAFIAA would still be ahead."

    Nah, I used to love music. It used to make me happy and make me think about wonderful things. It used to excite me and relax me, whichever I needed at the time of listening to it.

    I bought about a half-dozen of CD's every month, of many different kinds of music. I lovest finding new music and listening to it.

    Until this shit started. Almost every time I hear new music now, it makes me think of sleazy bastards in a courtroom, or lying producers with unfounded promises of wealth to naive beginning bandmembers. It now often just makes me angry.

    Sometimes it doesn't, but that is very rare now: I have bought four CD's in the last four years.

    Maybe someday, when the musicians, bands, and artist shed themselves from the bastards and sleazebags, when music re-discovers their soul, their power to inspire, maybe then I'll feel the 'vibe' too and spend my dollars on music.

    Until that day comes, oh I still have some old music that I like, and I'm beginning to get used to hearing the sounds of nature, you know, that what you hear outside of the city when you turn off the music...

    The 'Music Industry', that is sooooo 20st century...

    Does that come with high-fructore corn syrup or aspartame? No thanks anyway.

  • Re:Noticed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @02:44AM (#19884865) Homepage
    My wife just came out of a court battle against her ex for support. While this was done in a Canadian family court and not an American civil court, I think a few excerpts from our legal bill would be enlightening...
    10 hours @ 200$/hr = 2000$
    6 faxes @ 4 each = 24$
    long distance 80m@.90/m = 72$
    court filing fees = 135$ (3x45$)
    mediation fees = 980$
    GST = 336$
    (the GST is the federal level tax at 7%, no the math does not work out, amount listed is for GST on total bill (4800$) while I am only providing selected excerpts to illustrate my point.)

        My wife has an excellent lawyer, the antithesis of all those lawyer jokes you've heard. However, note that while he makes 200/hr, this is only when he is in court for us. (Each appearance seems to be rounded to the nearest half hour in the detailed bill.) On the other hand, he "nickel and dimes" us for absolutely everything done on our behalf. I am quite sure that he charges 4$ per fax because that is the pro-rated amount it costs him to have an employee handle those. Similarly, while he charges more than the prime rate for long distance, I suspect that this rate also includes the basic overhead of having the multi-line phone set up in the first place. He charges a much lower rate when simply meeting us and the ex in a conference room in his own offices, a fee which probably not only covers his time, but the space as well.
      Finally, GST applies to everything except the court filings themselves. My wife was charged almost 5 grand for a comparatively simple case being handled by a small town lawyer. Based on her experiences, I can easily see a battle against a RIAA suit going into the six figures. Where many people go wrong when figuring legal costs is to assume that the entire sum is based purely on "billable hours". Quite often that final sum will include a LOT of little things like faxes or phone calls. While not as large a percentage of the total as the main billable hours, it's not negligible either.
  • Re:Noticed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @07:08AM (#19885785) Journal
    You wanna talk pay? My PhD took me 5 years. Then, I had to work another 8 as a "lecturer", making about 12 bucks an hour and no benefits (this is at a "Midwest Ivy" institution). OK, now I've realized I'm not getting a tenure track position at this joint, so I go to a Cow College where I'm a "senior lecturer" where I'm up to about 15 bucks an hour, but still no bennies. 3 years and I get offered a tenure track gig at Corn U. What am I up to, about 20 years since getting my bachelors (hey, the PhD was NOT in math). Now, I'm tenure track, making 32k WITH benefits and even a TIAA-CREF account. Finally, I get to be an associate prof back at Midwest Ivy and I'm making 48k plus benefits (and the golden ring, tenure). The dude on the back of the garbage truck is making 56k, but I get to bang coeds, so that's a wash.

    Forget doctors and lawyers. You want to hear the story of low pay per unit of schooling, become an academic. It's much better now that I'm a full prof, but I'm married so I don't get to bang coeds any more. I need to take a closer look at that contract...
  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @07:40AM (#19885911)
    They nickle and dimed the Capitol Records. Just because this is what they asked for in a ruling, doesn't mean that is what they were going to charge her. They might have even taken the case pro bono, and agreed to charge her nothing. Doesn't mean they can't still be awarded fees. Well when you are asking for an award from the court, you throw in everything you can think of. Reason is that you want to get as much form the other party as you can and the judge will rarely raise award you more than you ask for.
  • by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @08:36AM (#19886215) Homepage Journal
    A question-- is it likely her lawyers will just take the $68K and call it even, or will they bill her the ($114-68)=$46K and expect her to pay? How much is gamesmanship by the lawyers, and how much is genuine out-of-pocket costs to the defendent?
  • Re:Noticed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kamokazi ( 1080091 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:48AM (#19887359)
    My best friend works IT at a fairly large lawfirm in Columbus, OH. They have about 150 laywers and 200 more paralegals, secretaries, and staff. Their top attorneys bill at $400 an hour broken down to 15 minutes. So one phone call for 5 minutes=$100. That doesn't include the $4 per fax page (and seeing as their fax system is paperless...well), $3 per laser printer page, $1.50 per copy, document preparation fees from the in-house print shop, lunches, paralegal man-hours, and probably a quarter every time they pass gas.

    With that kind of change being thrown around, $68k comes pretty quick.

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...