RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees 341
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?"
That is the problems with our INCs. (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll drag it out for years (Score:4, Interesting)
Compartmentalized? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compartmentalized? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I would not be surprised to see any of them go belly up, as they are the most poorly managed businesses I have ever seen.
Reading the actual document... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Dragging their feet (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm assuming Capitol Records is in CA, specifically LA County, as I regularly drive by the Capitol Records building -- it's shaped like a stack of 45s with a needle stylus on top.
LA County Sheriff Lee Baca is well known for being starstruck and accomodating to the entertainment industry. See the Paris Hilton fiasco for details.
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:4, Interesting)
But they do own copyrights in some sound recordings which she can seize.
Re:Her bill (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Interesting)
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:4, Interesting)
Re:Do I Hear A Bid For (1) Capitol Bldg? (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd be amazed at the little details that get missed by major corporations. Just look at microsoft forgetting to send in their $8 payment for hotmail.com...
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:3, Interesting)
The defendant who won the judgement could probably ask the court to seize the personal assets of the RIAA officers (or at least hold them in trust) pending satisfactory payment...
And the defendant could also report the debts to various credit reporting agencies, which would make it very interesting next time said officers tried to get a mortgage or applied for a car loan or buy insurance, etc.
If I were the defendant, I'd be checking with my attorney(s) to ensure that the foregoing was indeed legal under the applicable jurisdiction, and then I would hold a press conference to announce it. The RIAA has tried very hard to get as much publicity as possible about their lawsuits in an attempt to intimidate people, and perhaps now is the time to respond in kind, since it's been proven that at least some of their actions have been thrown out in court. Furthermore, it's time that the individuals in RIAA management who are responsible for this aberrant behaviour are held personally accountable and not hide behind the skirts of the boardroom tablecloth.
Re:You wouldn't steal a car ... (Score:4, Interesting)
You wouldn't make them sign their rights away forever...
You wouldn't sue your customers...
You wouldn't pay for legislation...
You wouldn't grossly exaggerate the effects of music copying...
You wouldn't compromise the fair use rights of your customers...
You wouldn't illegally pay to put your songs on the radio...
You wouldn't promote awful music just as a grab for money...
You wouldn't do more harm than good to musicians and music consumers...
So why would you pay up?
Perhaps it's time (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not RIAA, the real culprits include: 20TH CENTURY FOX
A&M Records
Arista
Capitol
SonyBMG
Universal Music Group
Virgin Records America
and a slew of others you can find at http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=
Of particular note is their board of directors http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=
Honestly, are their lawyers telling a judge that Sony, Universal, Virgin and the rest are low on cash?
Pathetic to the n-th degree.
I don't know if he meant it to be funny... (Score:4, Interesting)
I bought more music when I had the chance to decide if I liked the CD first... and I was happier with my purchases.
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, so I don't know if this is provided for, and with a company the size of Capitol, it is unlikely to me that a lein against nonmonetary assets would be more than an annoyance, so the only way to rectify this is to point out to larger companies that they have responsibilities under the law to honor judgements and that failure to do so will have consequences which are not in their favor.
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Now here's maybe a law to create (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt that they can't pay. They just don't want to. They want to make people suffer. They want to make people invest all their life to fight the harrassment, because they dared to stand up against the extortion. The message: You better just pay and go on with your life, because the alternative is to invest more of your time than it's worth.
Create that law. As long as you didn't pay in case A, your case B is stalled. Because, hey, if you can't pay in A, what keeps you from suing everyone and their dog, even if you lose you don't lose. You can't lose more than you have.
Because for me at least it's clear what should be the logical consequence if you lose against the RIAA and are forced to pay more money than you make in your lifetime: Sue every single record company for idiotic reasons. I mean, what can you lose?
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't immediately cut a check because that's standard procedure in this kind of situation. Why should they lose the interest on the better part of $100k? It would be a disservice to their stockholders to part with that money before they absolutely have to.
Regardless how they got to the point of owing the money (which, if not EVIL was at best unkind) it's bad business to pay your bills before they're due. In case of a court judgment, the bill isn't due until the court gives you the option of either writing a check or handing over your stuff--there isn't a time limit for paying, believe it or not.
Therefore there is an incentive for the creditor is to go to the court immediately and force the issue. Most creditors don't do that, either out of (perhaps misguided) nicety or because they're naive. In this case it sounds like the creditor 1) gave Capitol a month to pay of their own accord, then 2) sent a friendly email reminder, then 3) went to the court. It was nice of them to go through steps 1 and 2 first--it shows they're better people than the RIAA hacks, a Good Thing in what amounts to a publicity war between RIAA and music buyers/downloaders--but it wasn't necessary.
I've had to go through this exact process myself, only I added step 2a: send a much less friendly reminder via registered mail.
All my attempts to collect were ignored until I sent the county Sheriff to the loser's place of business with a subpoena for a listing of all their physical assets and all their bank information. Lo! and behold, I got a check within a couple days. Not because there was any real danger of their building being seized but because Johnny Law sent over an armed guy in uniform who parked a squad car in front of the building and then paraded around in front of all their employees (and any visitors who happened to be around) with a bunch of paperwork that made it clear they were in some kind of trouble. Embarrassment gets them every time.
Re:Show Me the Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Most states have some type of small claims division in their lower court, whether designated justice, municipal, or district (the latter is also used in some jurisdictions, such as this one [Nevada]), for the court of general jurisdiction [handling felonies and larger civil cases]).
I've seen small claims limits ranging from $2,500 to $15,000. They are typically lower than regular limit of the lwower court, but often not by much. Often the cases are heard by lawyers acting as a part time judge (perhaps designated as "commissioner," "judge pro tem", or "referee"). Appeal is generally to a judge in the lower court, who hears the case "de novo" (from the beginning), who can often be appealed to the higher court--but typically not to the regular appellate courts.
hawk, esq.