RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees

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?"

Show Me the Money

[moehoward]

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

[an.echte.trilingue]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[thc69]

Maybe she can seize the copyrights to some songs...

Re:Show Me the Money

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Maybe she can seize the copyrights to some songs...

They don't own the copyrights to the songs.

But they do own copyrights in some sound recordings which she can seize.

Re:

[slashbob22]

This brings up some interesting parallels to SCO. The major difference is that everyone knows RIAA doesn't own the copyrights to the material. So instead of fear-mongering on behalf of M$ and other organizations to freeze peoples choices to current O/S offerings - they are working on behalf of the recording industry to freeze people to current procurement avenues.

$699 license fee (per song) please.

Re:

[thc69]

I stand corrected. Maybe she can seize the copyrights to some recordings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the songs themselves are copyrighted by their writers, who are represented by ASCAP, right?

Re:

[rtb61]

No, they are copyrighted by the owners of the copyright not the authors, the corporations that bought the copyright to the creative works for cents in the dollar ie. they basically exploited the creative artists with promises of wealth, they just didn't bother to explain in by far the majority of instances it was wealth for the publishers and nothing for the artists except what they earned at live performances.

Re:

[shark72]

"That depends on the contract. I'd bet that most of the copyrights are owned by the music companies (for which the RIAA is acting as an agent). I'm not at all sure that misbehavior on the part of the RIAA is enough to allow a lien to be placed on the music company's property."

Ownership of the music and lyrics is typically with the composer and lyricist. The songwriter might assign their rights to a publishing company. Some publishing companies are small (one- or two- person operations) and some are quit

Re:

[thc69]

Actually, re-reading that post, I can see that I might not have been wrong, I may have misunderstood stuff. Look, maybe everything I've posted in this thread should just be modded down into oblivion...

Re:

[kwandar]

They may not own the copyrights, but the Plaintiffs certainly own distribution rights, which have lots of value.

I don't think this is a question of not being able to pay however, more a question as to who will pay as they plaintiffs didn't anticipate being bitten, and now they have to fight amongst themselves to determine the allocation of the judgement. That should keep them busy :)

Re:Show Me the Money

[no-body]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[jimicus]

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:

[hawk]

There's not a lot of difference between the UK typical US legal system (though ours vary from state to state). The US differs from most common law jurisdictions primarily in allowing contingency fees, not having a "loser pays" rule for fees in most cases (but it does for court costs), and having abolished debtors' prisons far earlier. Additionally, we don't have the formal solicitor/barrister split (though I think that we're far from unusual in that). Oh, and outside the military system, a lawyer cannot

Re:Show Me the Money

[ZachPruckowski]

Immaturity is not the reason. The reason is that companies know that making the process as hard as possible discourages others from undertaking that process. They want you to simply eat the loss, and if they make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back, then you wouldn't try again next time.

Ultimately, the big fear is that if you are publically successful in such a suit, then it will inspire others to sue or fight back instead of bowing down. It's the "Millions for Defense, Not a Penny for Tribute" strategy. Same reason we "don't negotiate" with terrorists (not that I'm calling you or Ms. Foster a terrorist).

Re:

[WmLGann]

I love how everyone automatically assumes Capitol didn't immediately cut a check because they're EVIL.

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

Re:

[ZachPruckowski]

But not at this point (wo)/man!

Zach is a man's name :-)

What she did is encouraging others, she insisted and won! Getting attorney fees back. It should scare whatever out of the RIAA if that kind of reaction takes hold

The goal is to get people to settle quickly. This is possible because the only possibility of breaking even (winning and getting your attorney's fees paid for) is very hard to accomplish. Most people can not afford to be out $70,000 for a 2 year stretch, even if they would ultimately ge

Re:

[einhverfr]

There is a simple solution to this problem: punitive damages. If someone can show that there is a pattern where they are either neglecting their duties to pay damages (including attourneys fees) or outright acting in bad faith, they should be punished and *more* money should go to the person they are harrassing. Maybe 3 times more?

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 annoya

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

But not at this point (wo)/man! It's over, the judgment happened, she can collect.

I had a similar experience with a car dealer.

They owed me several thousand dollars, didn't dispute that, but simply refused to pay. I went through the legal process, took them to court. They didn't attend court, and I won a default judgement, but they still wouldn't pay. I went back to the court, and got a bailiff's summons to confiscate property.

They met the bailiff with a cheque for the amount I owed.

I got my money,

Re:Show Me the Money

[InvalidError]

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

[theun4gven]

So where did you stay while your room was flooded?

Re:Show Me the Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I won a federal lawsuit against a car dealer a few years ago and when they wouldn't pay the damages and attorney's fees as awarded by a jury my lawyer froze all their accounts. When employee's paychecks started bouncing they paid up pretty fast. I say freeze their accounts and see if their lawyers work when the checks don't clear

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring a judgement is likely to result in jail for the RIAA's officers and potentially disbarment proceedings against their attorneys, unless the latter can prove that they didn't advise the former to ignore a legal court order.

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

Re:Show Me the Money

[iluvcapra]

"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:

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's the same end, actually. Scare people away from publishing the material you want to sell at your amazingly inflated prices, pretend that it's incredibly valuable, and make sure they don't interfere with the money going to your top executives and not the people doing the hard work.

Re:Show Me the Money

[krgallagher]

"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.

I don't know if he meant it to be funny...

[Almahtar]

But if the parent was actually serious that makes it all the funnier. Before Napster, I'd bought 12 CDs over the course of 3 years. Within a year of using Napster, I'd bought 20. After 4 years of pirating music I'd bought 400 CDs.

I bought more music when I had the chance to decide if I liked the CD first... and I was happier with my purchases.

RIAA attorney's statement before the bench

[JonTurner]

"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

[dch24]

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:RIAA attorney's statement before the bench

[Bobby Mahoney]

But damn, wouldn't it be beautiful irony if in fact, they did plummet to the ground at terminal velocity tethered to golden parachutes?

Re:RIAA attorney's statement before the bench

[chubs730]

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.

So...their gulfstream jets are transformers?

Re:

[deadhammer]

Starscreamer? Starscreamer?!? Hand in your geek card.

Re:Show Me the Money

[HermMunster]

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.

Contempt of court?

[Erik_the_Awful]

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

Re:Contempt of court?

[Speare]

'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.

Re:

[nuzak]

Contempt is the judge's prerogative for behavior related to proceedings they're currently presiding over. After a trial is over, a complainant usually needs to file a contempt complaint to enforce compliance. So it actually is up to the aggrieved party.

not if they're using email...

[SuperBanana]

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:not if they're using email...

[nickfrommaryland]

What, a letter via registered mail was too expensive?

Registered mail is only necessary when you are trying to give someone notice. The RIAA already has notice of the order. From this point, it doesn't really matter how they try to contact them about collecitng. They could send messages to them via singing telegram.

Re:not if they're using email...

[Dragonslicer]

They could send messages to them via singing telegram.

And get sued for copyright infringement again?

Re:not if they're using email...

[andphi]

[to the tune of "Happy Birthday"]

Give me money right now
Give me money right now
Give me money
Effing cheapskates
Give me money right now.

That is the problems with our INCs.

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:That is the problems with our INCs.

[Mattintosh]

Unfortunately, this isn't RIAA v. Foster, it's Capitol v. Foster. Capitol Records is going to have to pony up or face the wrath of a spurned judge.

Time for more popcorn. This is gonna get interesting.

Re:

[Svartalf]

It's only unfortunate if you're Capitol Records. >;-)

For the rest of us, I think it's time to grab a bowl of popcorn or some equally suitable munchie and sit back and watch them squirm- this is going to be fun.

You wouldn't steal a car ...

[multisync]

Actually, this shouldn't surprise us. They haven't lived up to their end of the copyright bargain, either.

Re:You wouldn't steal a car ...

[CopaceticOpus]

You wouldn't give artists a crappy deal...
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?

Re:

[multisync]

You wouldn't send in the lawyers when an artist gets busted for using or possessing drugs so he gets three months at Betty Ford instead of the prison time mere mortals can look forward to...

You seem to be suggesting that artists should be thrown in jail for drug use, as that's what (apparently) happens to everyone else. If that is the case where you live, I'm frankly shocked. Nobody, including artists, should be imprisoned for using drugs, or possessing drugs for personal use.

They'll drag it out for years

[ArchieBunker]

Knowing they lost the next best thing they can do is delay the payments in court as long as they can.

Re:They'll drag it out for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the history of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Prince William Sound`in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spil l#Litigation [wikipedia.org] Exxon lost in court and they still have not paid many of those affected after nearly 20 years.

Here is an example what that means in human terms: almost 20% of a group of fisherman involved in the spill have died since it happened. http://www.oiledfishermenvsexxon.com/ [oiledfishe...sexxon.com]

To put this in perspective, Exxon-Mobil had the largest single year profit for a corporation in 2005 $36.13 billion: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/business/30cnd-e xxon.html?ex=1296277200&en=8ec83a7f4025b22b&ei=508 8&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [nytimes.com]

And they have still avoided paying the roughly 5 billion (2.5 billion to start with almost 20 years of interest.)

This is not justice, it's legalized rape.

Re:

[Dhalka226]

If you look at this, though, it looks mostly like a couple sets of judges arguing back and forth.

It looks to me like the story went like this:

Jury/Trial Judge: $5 billion in punitive damages.

Exxon: That's too much!

Appeals Court: It's too much.

Trial Judge: $4 billion in punitive damages.

Exxon: A Supreme Court decision says that's still too much.

Appeals Court: Reevaluate it.

Trial Judge: Fine. $4.5 billion then, bitches! Plus interest!

Exxon: You're dumb. It's too much.

Appeals Co

Re:

[janrinok]

Which sentence? There are two in the quotation.....

Dragging their feet

[earnest murderer]

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?

Re:Dragging their feet

[AKAImBatman]

Is there any penalty for failing to pay?

Other than having assets seized by the Sheriff and auctioned off to settle the debt? No, none.

Do I Hear A Bid For (1) Capitol Bldg?

[cmholm]

Other than having assets seized by the Sheriff and auctioned off to settle the debt? No, none.

Which occasionally leads to an attorney for a major corporation running to the court house steps as said corporation is about to have its home office auctioned off to cover some paltry judgement. Sometimes the suits forget that the legal process does in fact have an end game, and that their team lost.

Re:Do I Hear A Bid For (1) Capitol Bldg?

[Rich0]

I once worked at a major retail store in high school, and one day a guy walked in wearing a hard hat and indicated that if they didn't FAX a copy of a check to the electric company and hand it to him in 15 minutes he'd be cutting the power. You never saw so many managers scramble!

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:Dragging their feet

[Esion Modnar]

Other than having assets seized by the Sheriff

They paid off the Sheriff. (But they did not pay off the Deputy.)

Re:Dragging their feet

[sconeu]

Mod +1 Sad but True

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:

[jmauro]

Much like the Chrystler Building, the Capitol Records company no longer owns the "Capitol Records Building" [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Bucc5062]

"They paid off the Sheriff. (But they did not pay off the Deputy.)"

They paid the Sheriff, but they did not pay the deputy...

better. Matches the rhythm and the spirit of the original

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They paid the Sheriff, but they did not pay the deputy...

Whoa, watch it there... you might just become the RIAA's newest source of income if you get too close to the original.

No problem. It's a fair use.

Re:Dragging their feet

[networkBoy]

only if you're sane.

Blame the pirates

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Wow, all that music piracy* must really be cutting into their profits.

*piracy - producing crap loads of crappy music and selling it at over inflated prices

Compartmentalized?

[Trillan]

I wonder if they've structured themselves that they can simply close whatever small working unit owes the fees.

Re:Compartmentalized?

[Em Adespoton]

They haven't, because this lawsuit was brought by Capitol, not the RIAA. The RIAA only digs up the possible infringements -- the actual lawsuits are made in the name of the allegedly infringed company.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wonder if they've structured themselves that they can simply close whatever small working unit owes the fees.

Absolutely not.

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.

I for one....

[3seas]

...refuse to buy from our music industry overlords.

Re:

[thc69]

It's probably more effective to buy non-RIAA music than to get free non-RIAA music. Somebody else making money really sends a message to the RIAA. Music closer to the mainstream might make the point hit home better.

Of course, the best music for you to consume is the music you like best. Music is kind of like food, though: Once you get used to organic vegan health food (ick!), you can't stomach greasy mass-produced stuff anymore. Well, I still like greasy mass-produced food, but I can't tolerate Metallica or

Re:

[dc29A]

It's easy to find indie country music that I like; loads of it gets played on Sirius Outlaw Country. Metal, OTOH, is a littel more difficult. So...anybody want to recommend some good indie hard rock / metal for someone who like Corrosion Of Conformity, Type O Negative, Black Sabbath, Monster Magnet, Tool, Anthrax, Rammstein, Megadeth, and Faith No More?

If you like Black Sabbath, check out Katatonia. They are a doom metal band, on Peaceville Records, indie. Some other good doom bands you might like could be Candlemass and maybe Wildhoney album by Tiamat. Peaceville has a lot of good doom metal bands which is basically Black Sabbath slowed down even more with more atmospheric effects. Agalloch might be something you might like too, they have very melodic progressive songs, long ones. Brilliant band. Also, check out the solo records of Bruce Dickinson, I am

baffles me

[SEAL]

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.

Re:baffles me

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Surely you overreact. They submitted the email on Sat the 11th and as of the 13th when they filed their request with the courts they had not gotten a reply (probably at 9AM). I'm all for hammering the RIAA, but it would seem reasonable to give them at least a few business days to cough up a check for almost $100k. If the RIAA filed a complaint on the basis of not getting a response to an email over the weekend we'd all be first in line to complain about that.

The order is a month old.

Usually they respond to any email within a couple of hours. If they took 2 days to respond to an email of mine I'd know something is up. A response doesn't have to be "OK here's your check" or "OK we'll get you check on the 18th"... It could also be "Got your email, Marilyn, and client hasn't decided what to do."

Email inquiry?

[faloi]

I hate the RIAA and the assorted *IAA's that seem to want nothing more than to force me to re-buy something I've already bought over and over again, but is an email inquiry really worth anything? There's no real mechanism for guaranteeing delivery of the email, short of a reply from the recipient. If they'd sent a certified letter and heard nothing back, that'd be one thing. 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."

Re:Email inquiry?

[kebes]

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.

Get some perspective

[ookabooka]

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

Re:Get some perspective

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah. The summary seems like a paltry attempt to get some yuks from the audience. It seems pretty childish to me.

Sorry.

Maybe they really do need the money

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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

[mooingyak]

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.

Re:Maybe they really do need the money

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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...

[codegen]

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.

Seize Their Building

[Nom du Keyboard]

Maybe, once they have this order in hand, they can seize the RIAA's main headquarters building. After all, that would create great publicity, which is what all these lawsuits is about.

It's the RIAA's stubborn refusal to pay a single cent in exoneration that puts them at the top of the list of most evil organizations ever!

Re:Seize Their Building

[TheGratefulNet]

It's the RIAA's stubborn refusal to pay a single cent in exoneration that puts them at the top of the list of most evil organizations ever!

no, sorry. not even close. no one dies because of 'music and greed'.

you want to talk evil? talk big pharma co's.

people DIE and its because of drug company profits being placed above ALL else. sickening! makes the 'music guys' seem like a bunch of hippies in comparison.

Apathetic justice system

[jgarra23]

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.

hmm

[British]

* Fat Tony voice *

Excuse me Mr. RIAA, I'm a building safety hobbyist. Just out of curiosity, how fireproof is your building?

Perhaps it's time

[xednieht]

To stop referring to RIAA and start using the names of it's members. RIAA is nothing, and when they fade into the shadows it's members who drive it's current tyranny will walk around as if they were pristine.
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=a boutus_members [riaa.org]
Of particular note is their board of directors http://www.riaa.org/aboutus.php?content_selector=w ho_we_are_board [riaa.org].

Honestly, are their lawyers telling a judge that Sony, Universal, Virgin and the rest are low on cash?

Pathetic to the n-th degree.

Now here's maybe a law to create

[Opportunist]

You can't sue someone else 'til the claims of another case you lost are settled.

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?

Par for the course

[Archtech]

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:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

So what do you want me to do, only post stories when I'm surprised?

There is nothing these people could do that would surprise me, as they have shown themselves to be (a) totally irrational (i.e. outside the bounds of behavior that would tend to serve their best interests and survival) and (b) totally indecent (i.e. unrestrained by the sense of conscience that is instilled in most people who are born of a human mother).

So if I can only write about what surprises me, I will be silent.

As you may have disc

Re:E-mail?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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? Hotmail.

[Nom du Keyboard]

have never had a single instance that I can recall of any email communication going astray.

You obviously don't use Hotmail.

Re:

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I installed a 'spam filter', or should we say 'spam shredder', in my RL mailbox. After that I haven't gotten a single herbal advertisement, etc.

Oh, and I'm loaded now since my cell-phone provider and landlord seems to have forgotten to send me the bills these past few months.

Re:

[Technician]

It's a matter of public record.

I know. Humor is lost when used with lawyers..

Re:E-mail?

[arkanes]

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.

Oh, but there is...

[Eric Damron]

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.

Re:Oh, but there is...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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?

[taustin]

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:

[TheLink]

Get a clue. ALL governments (whether legitimately elected ones or even evil dictatorships) should enforce a strict monopoly on violence - no one else allowed to shoot people except the government. Whether you're the Gov of Switzerland or Saddam, that's how you keep order in a country AND stop others from usurping your authority - if you allow a mob leader to go about bashing others, he might gain power and kick you out next.

The justice system decides who should be punished. The cops/military are to come in

Re:Ay, There's the rub....

[arkanes]

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:Her bill

[Fallen Kell]

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.

Maybe the RIAA should release an album

[Torontoman]

Maybe the RIAA should release an album - If it was a hit and not downloaded too much they could collet enough royalties enough to pay for their court cases.

Re:

[digitig]

The royalties would never get to them; they'd never get past the RI- oh, wait...

Re:Charity-YES

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.