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."
And the winner in all of this is . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the winner in all of this is . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the winner in all of this is . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Or original cds... aparently
Two points (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA members: alienating customers one by one!
Cost of doing business (Score:3, Insightful)
This is almost definitely true. Just like car manufacturers have actuaries that calculate the expected number of deaths from a design flaw and whether they can withstand the expected legal costs, etc., I have no doubt that the RIAA is doing exactly the same thing here.
However, and this is an important point, this ruling has just increased the cost of doing business "as usual" for the RIAA. Their actuaries suddenly have to adjust the par
Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't trying to insult anyone (car manufactures or the RIAA) by the comparison, just stating that I'm sure they both use actuaries to calculate expected costs, etc. You're absolutely right that there's no simple ethical choice that is obviously correct. One has to, at the end of the day, attribute some dollar value to an anonymous human life if you want to decide algorithmically on the best course of action. Saving everyone's lives (if it were possible) at the cost of abject poverty and misery probably i
And the winner in all of this is . . . ME (Score:2, Interesting)
So (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$68K should be enough for anyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$68K should be enough for anyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$68K should be enough for anyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Iwannahavetux'schildren
Re: (Score:2)
Noticed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that not everybody has $68,000 or $114,000 or even a few thousand dollars to put up that kind of fight. If it's beneficial to continue to carry the fight back to the RIAA in this manner, it's going to take a combination of well-heeled individuals and civic-minded lawyers.
After I read the article and the document, a chilling thought occurred: If the RIAA knows that certain people have the means to turn and fight, will they then concentrate their efforts on those people without the means? That would be students, children, the elderly, people just starting their careers, people working at lower-paying jobs.
Re:Noticed (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
I would be inclined to argue that lawyers are overpaid, especially if you go by skilled or professional wor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 $400,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly all of that is not take-home cash. I agree with your point, but they probably take home around 25%-50% of that, which is still well above occupations with similar amounts of schooling. Especially if they get away with double billing for the same work like the guys in this case tried to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Noticed (Score:5, Interesting)
10 hours @ 200$/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: (Score:2)
The primary client for these page counting devices was... Lawyers.
I guess I should be a little ashamed to say that I have indirectly contributed to the nickel and diming of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why anyone hasn't noticed this before.
Dang (Score:2)
Starting to smell... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few computer consultants make mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is interesting, because it actually turn out to be MUCH less than you would imagine. It all depends on exactly what type of doctor you are talking about, but once you see the long hours that doctors acutally work, their high paychecks don't seem so glamorous. I'd argue that most doctors that work in hospitals make between $80-$100 an hour, based on 80-120 hour work weeks. At any rate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Surgeon's fees (Score:3, Informative)
It's interesting to stop and think what the doctor who takes out your appendix earns in an hour.
If it happens to be an uncomplicated operation, an appendectomy might take me 45min best case. It could take 2 hours. I would say it takes at least an hour (at shortest) before the operation starts to examine / interview the patient, get informed consent, evaluate labs, imaging studies. Then there is postoperative care of the patient in the hospital as well as follow-up visits to the clinic later.
As a surgeon, Medicare reimburses a $482.62 "global fee" for a laparoscopic appendectomy in my area (ther
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once these commercials are plastered all over Judge Judy's commercial breaks, I bet the record companies will stop their foolishness.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I would watch Judge Judy to see that sort of commercial!
It'd be even more awesome to see an RIAA case in Judge Judy's court.
"Let me get this straight. You have no proof the defendant actually violated your copyrights, you don't even own the copyrights, and you want astronomical damages for this? What kind of moron do you think I am?"
Judge Judy does not go for nonsense. Sounds like the judge in TFA is of a similar temperament.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just costs. No damages. I can't see any lawyer being prepared to take a case on contingency if the expected outcomes are either winning and being paid what they should be due, or losing and being paid nothing. They are only going to take cases on contingency where there is a chance of making much more than their costs.
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole situation makes me sick.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Objection: misleading the jury (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to see past the particular case and seek long-term effects from such developments. It's unfair to the defendant, but who said the legal system is fair
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortuntately for them... (Score:3, Insightful)
That kind of publicity they can do without, as it will turn their prophecies (of internet music sharing being the doom of the music industry) into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of these lawsuits isn't to recover "damages". It's to frighten the rest of the country into acting the way they want them to. If their skin were a little darker, it would be called "terrorism".
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA Expenses from fees: $67,000
The look on the dead Jack Valenti's face when he learns RIAA is spending 223 times its income from litigation: Priceless
Re: (Score:2)
But if they're paying out huge legal fees, it's more likely people will spend more in opposition to the RIAA rather than settling. While losing $68K isn't going to kill the RIAA, it certainly sets a bad precedent for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Overzealous lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* Yes, I know it's not the RIAA that's doing the sueing...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not necessarily the case
In asking for over $100,000 in her request for attorney fees, the defendant used a lodestar method of calculating the fee (which is really just a fancy way of saying multiple reasonable number of hours by a reasonable rate and that's what you pay). She said $175/hr was reasonable for one of her attorneys and $225/hr was reasonable for the other, but she gave no reason for the increased rate for the second attorney. IN FACT, $175/hr was the rate she agreed upon rate, so I'm
This is why so many take the RIAA $3K settlement.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why so many take the RIAA $3K settlemen (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
This is great stuff (Score:4, Informative)
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!! [usedgirlfriend.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
The Bill [ilrweb.com]
The Justification [ilrweb.com]
Interesting reading.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!! [usedgirlfriend.com]
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
The defendant's attorneys charged for costs associated with answering e-mails, phone calls, and leaving voice mails. He also billed the same work twice by having two attorneys attend the same motion hearings. The Court got real pissy and took away some hours that it thought were due to the incompetence of the defendant's attorneys resulting in things having to be done twice.
Most tellingly, the Court was annoyed that half of the attorneys fees demanded were incurred after the defendant had been declared the victor and had already initially filed for attorneys fees. It seemed that the defendants/his attorneys belatedly realized that they were going to file for fees and had to rack up the hours. The Court found that there was an "increased, almost frenetic activity on the part of counsel for the defendant after it was determined that Defendant was the prevailing party" and was thereby eligible for attorneys fees.
And the defendant's attorney was trying to get away with $1.50 for each photocopied page. The Court granted them $.20. Kinko's charges $0.02.
So it sounds like I was right -- the defendant's attorney was running up the fee request by asking for things that no sane client would ever pay, and no sane attorney would ever ask from a real-life paying customer.
Re:This is great stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point remains that these charges may be sane for a corporate client, but a client like the defendant probably would not be charged these fees.
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Despite my disappointment at the amount awarded, an attorneys fee award against the RIAA for more than $68,000 is a very important precedent, one which
-is being taken very seriously by the RIAA, albeit with a slight sigh of relief, and
-is being noticed by lawyers and litigants across the country, as a sign of encouragement to stand and fight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the defendant ended up with huge expenses even when winning, could this be used in some form of racketeering lawsuit against the RIAA?
As in "Give us $3000 or we'll sue. Then, even if you win it will cost you ten times more than that."
It's obvious that they're not suing people for money, but to create a public image of it being dangerous to cross them.
Re:Exorbitant charges and the RIAA (Score:2)
Just like the RIAA was trying to "charge" people $150,000 per violation which usually gets whittled down to $5,000 per, these lawyers were likely knowingly overcharging.
Here is a thought, in order to prevent the RIAA from continuing to use the copyright violations as a very lucrative revenue st
Re:This is great stuff (Score:5, Informative)
If you took your company's (assume you work for a company that doesn't manufacture anything for the moment) annual revenue and divided it by the number of employees, it would work out to a staggering hourly rate. Obviously that doesn't all go into your pocket. Same with lawyers. The hourly rate (and the percentage cuts from awards) are a law firm's *sole* source of income. It's not directly comparable to the hourly rate you get paid at your job.
Further, what seems to be a good windfall more often than not ends up covering debt from a pro bono case somewhere else. Lawyers take on massive debts to argue cases with the hope that they'll get paid. It's hardly a guarantee. Chasing down clients for money they still owe is something every lawyer is familiar with. That's why big wins are celebrated--it's what creates the "rich lawyer." Most cases, including this one, are nothing spectacular, but they're enough to encourage lawyers to take the risk, now that this gate is open.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is common practice for lawyers to recuperate their losses for pro bono work by having others pay more than they should, I start to understand why lawyers are hated so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro Bono (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So the wrongdoer should get to avoid paying attorney's fees for their wrongdoing?
First of all, a lot of lawyers do their pro bono work through a pro bono organization, where if they do win attorneys fees in a case that goes back to the organization to help them fund other pro bono work.
Secondly, fraud implies deceit; this is all done very publicly.
Much like when I set up computers and networking for non-profit charity, I don
So is it the RIAA or is it Capitol Records? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So is it the RIAA or is it Capitol Records? (Score:4, Funny)
Hearing less Maroon 5 or Rihanna would just be a bonus
That's their point, and it's tricky. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Much like Piano rolls were a dying business when radio and records took over some 80 years ago, records in their CD reincarnation is a dying medium now. And just like Aeolian blamed and sued others back then (like those who made a record out of a piano roll performance -- see the parallel?), the record companies refuse to
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitol"
In all of these cases, specific record companies are the plantiffs. In this case, it's one company, in other cases, it's two record companies. It's only the press that reports it as actions of the RIAA, since all the legal filings specify the record companies claiming infringement.
Chutzpah (Score:5, Insightful)
[Plaintiffs] further argue that the defendant is not entitled to fees for work that could have been avoided had she assisted the plaintiffs or acceded to the settlement.
She can't charge for attorneys' fees because she decided not to settle? Does that imply that if she had settled, she would have gotten attorneys' fees? What planet are these people from?
Finally, [plaintiffs] contend the case was of too simple and mundane a nature to warrant a fee in excess of $100,000.
Yet they see nothing wrong with a fine of $100,000 per violation for copyright infringement.
How did the judge feel about this?
The plaintiffs argue that the defendant is not entitled to fees incurred after some point when she allegedly "could have avoided [fees] altogether but chose not to do so." Throughout the course of this litigation the plaintiffs have alleged that had the defendant appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation, she could have avoided being sued. The Court has rejected this argument on numerous occasions and declines to entertain it yet again. The defendant was entitled to litigate the claims the plaintiffs chose to bring against her and, as the prevailing party on those claims, she is entitled to recover the reasonable attorneys' fees she incurred in doing so.
Or, in layman's terms: Did your Mom drop you on your head when you were little?
Ouch for the defense lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
Ouch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't nickle and dime her (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ouch for the defense lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Protection (Score:2)
Stealing is not ok, but the penalties are way out of proportion and should be in line with the people you're punishing ("feel" the punichment equally (*1)) and not with what the corporations want.
In Sweden AFAIK there is a system with fines that relate to your income. This sounds more fair to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought The Law was there to protect the people
The law it to protect the people. It is to protect the people who write the law. Most of the people who write the law are lawyers. Until we have a proper separation of judiciary from executive and legislative branches (meaning that anyone involved with the judiciary is disqualified from standing for the other two branches) we will continue to see this kind of abuse. Do your part, and vote against any lawyers who stand for elected office.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, RIAA countersues you!! Eh. .
$68,000 is nothing (Score:4, Funny)
The RIAA don't have to pay anyone a cent! (Score:2)
Please can we stop allowing the record companies to hide behind the RIAA? The RIAAs job is to shield record companies from bad publicity and keep their names out of messes like this.
Why are all of you helping the RIAA? Why do you hate freedom and democracy so much ? Puppy killers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, they've only been made to pay the defendant's legal fees so far. Maybe one day the **aa "theives" (sic) will get jail time as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which compri
Re: (Score:2)
Look into
cdbaby [cdbaby.com]
magnatunes [magnatunes.com]
jamendo [jamendo.com]
I've found some great music from all of the above. I'm sure that there are others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:a sad day (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't know Britney came on
And a considerably worse day (Score:2)