Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees 198

Posted by kdawson from the just-in-case dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few days ago it was reported that, in view of the RIAA's one-month delay in paying the $68,685.00 attorneys fee award in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion for entry of judgment so that she could go ahead with judgment enforcement proceedings. In response to that motion the RIAA submitted a statement that it had no objection to entry of judgment, and intimated that it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment, and that it would ultimately file an appeal. After seeing that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has filed a motion for the Court to require the RIAA to post $210,000 in security to cover the past and future attorneys' fees and costs that are expected to be incurred."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees More

Foster Demands RIAA Post $210K Security For Fees

Comments Filter:

  • New train of thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:19AM (#20249001) Journal
    So you can not pay the judgment as long as you might possibly decide to appeal the case?

    God, I'd love to see somebody use that tactic against the RIAA. Something tells me it wouldn't work so well the other way around.

    • Within a reasonable amount of time probably (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:31AM (#20249175)
      I mean it isn't like you are going to draft an appeal the very next day, so it shouldn't surprise you that courts will let you hold off paying for a bit if you are going to file. However if she gets the judge to force them to put up a security, that means they can only use it as a delay tactic for so long, because the court will be able to decide it has gone on too long and award her money without them having any say in the matter.

      Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal).

      • Given that they are fairly stupid in these matters it wouldn't surprise me if they really do try and appeal it, mostly as a delay tactic. It also wouldn't surprise me if the net result is the judgement is upheld, and she gets more money (for the fees incurred during the appeal).
        Not only wouldn't it surprise me, it seems that that outcome is inevitable. The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. I wouldn't be surprised if the cross-appeal Ms. Foster files wound up increasing the amount of the old award, and no doubt there will be another $100k or so in attorneys fees and disbursements on the appeal.
        • The thing is, that's chump change to the RIAA. It's probably easily worth it to them to risk the $$ for the slightest chance they will prevail in appeals court.

          • Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably (Score:4, Interesting)

            by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:45AM (#20250123) Homepage Journal

            The thing is, that's chump change to the RIAA. It's probably easily worth it to them to risk the $$ for the slightest chance they will prevail in appeals court.

            mmmm... now multiply it by the number of court cases they have outstanding. And the number they intend to bring in the future.

            A precedent like could get expensive very quickly, even by recording industry standards.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Weezul ( 52464 )
              It's more the "inspiration" for other lawyers taking people's cases on contingency which they must fear, not any "precedent". At the end of the day, the RIAA must pay it's own lawyers since it's victims have little money & can possibly declare bankrupsy. If suddenly victims don't pay their own lawyers, the RIAA starts seeing higer costs and fewer profitable victims.

              • It's more the "inspiration" for other lawyers taking people's cases on contingency which they must fear, not any "precedent".

                Why the quotes? Do you think I've used the word "precedent" inappropriately?

                (not disagreeing with you - just confused)

        • Re:Within a reasonable amount of time probably (Score:4, Informative)

          by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:37PM (#20250871)

          The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award.
          Forgive me, but I found the Judge's analysis of the appropriate attorney's fees to be awarded to be extremely well-reasoned and thorough. Obviously, Ms. Foster's attorneys are likely to disagree, but the Judge's opinion speaks for itself: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= capitol_foster_070716OrderAwardAttysFees [ilrweb.com].

          I suggest most people taking the time to read the 16 page order will be convinced that, regardless of whether the Judge reached the precisely "correct" dollar amount, he certainly gave it due consideration.

          One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.

          Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me not to include these costs. Basically, the Judge went through each bill and evaluated its reasonableness. Exactly my managing partner does to me each month and more importantly, exactly what the law requires in copyright cases.

          • One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.

            Absolutely.

            Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perf

            • Re:I understand your 1st point, but not your 2nd (Score:5, Informative)

              by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:03PM (#20251981)

              Why shouldn't the paralegal's fees be included? Who should pay for that work to be done? If you're saying it's too expensive, I have no knowledge with which to disagree. But if you're saying it shouldn't be included at all, I'd have to disagree. Someone has to pay for the paralegal's work - why should it be Ms. Foster or the firm?
              Happy to clarify. First, $80 per hour is a high billing rate for most paralegals. But it depends on the type of work involved. Highly technical and skilled paralegals, working in a complicated area of law they are skilled in, can easily command this type of rate. But as the Judge's opinion clarifies, this was not a person with any particular specialized knowledge of copyright. Thus he found the hourly rate was too high. Second, the Judge goes through and discusses the specific tasks performed by the paralegal. He finds that many of the tasks were no not "legal" in nature and thus could not be reasonably billed at legal rates. For example, on more than one evening I have stood at the copier preparing documents for a meeting. I can't (ethically) bill the client for my non-legal time (especially when it was just because my lazy ass didn't feel like getting get the docs prepared in time for the secretarial pool to take care of it). Essentially, I am for that period of time a secretary and should bill like one.

              In short: It is perfectly normal and accepted to bill for paralegal time. But in this particular case, the Judge made a rather detailed finding that these specific bills were excessive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Gonrada ( 1099035 )
      Sweet! New way to get out of speeding tickets... or not.

      What you can see me telling a judge that I didnt pay it because I was thinking about appealing it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shystershep ( 643874 ) *
      I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order [ilrweb.com] was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.

      • Re:New train of thought (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:40AM (#20249323) Homepage Journal

        I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order [ilrweb.com] was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.
        Issue isn't time to appeal. It's time to avoid paying the judgment. Appeal doesn't stay obligation to pay the judgment. For that you have to post security.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Half a dent ( 952274 )
      "God, I'd love to see somebody use that tactic against the RIAA. Something tells me it wouldn't work so well the other way around."

      I don't know about that, surely if they get away with this they have set a legal precedent that could be used from the other side too? In weaseling out of paying here they might find cases where they win result in no payment of fines either.

      All depends on the judge in the end.

    • Re:New train of thought (Score:4, Informative)

      by kilgortrout ( 674919 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:03PM (#20250369)
      This is all standard stuff. Enforcement of judgments are not automatically stayed during the pendency of an appeal. If you want enforcement stayed, you have to post a bond called either an "appeal bond" or a "supersedas bond". The amount of the bond varies from one jurisdiction to another but it's usually set by court rule as the amount of the judgment plus interest and costs. The trial judge entering the judgment has discretion to vary this amount in some jurisdictions. Here, the judgment holder apparently wants the trial court to require more than usual amount.

      No appeal has been filed yet because no judgment has been entered. In response to the motion for entry of judgment, the RIAA stated it did not object but that it would be filing an appeal upon entry of judgment which prompted the other party's motion for the large appeal bond.

    • This is S.O.P. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:51PM (#20251089)

      So you can not pay the judgment as long as you might possibly decide to appeal the case?

      IANAL, but I hire them a lot to defend schools. Yes, this is pretty much SOP. Leaving aside that the RIAA are bottom feeding slime suckers, what they are doing is pretty standard. Winning side is awarded costs. Loser does not pay while deciding whether or not to appeal. One standard gambit is to trade a waiver of costs for no appeal. It is also standard for the winner, Foster, to demand and get an escrow of costs during appeal, as he is doing here. Appeals can be tricky, because you can generally only appeal on the law, not on the facts that have been decided at trial. This kind of thing tends to drag out a long time.

  • So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers... (Score:5, Funny)

    by djasbestos ( 1035410 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:21AM (#20249039)
    ...how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize.

    • So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers......how does it feel to be the most-liked lawyers in the world? Now all you have to do is kick Jack Thompson's ass and you're surely starting the lawyer hall of fame or get the Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize.
      Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Saib0t ( 204692 )

        Well I don't know about the rest of it, and I can't speak for Mr. Rogers, but that "Nobel Sticking-It-To-The-Man prize" would be nice.

        I don't know about the Nobel something, but at the very least you're making it apparent that not all lawyers are scum (and that's quite an accomplishment)... May seem strange to you, but I've yet to meet one likable lawyer. I'm curious about something though. Did Mrs Foster have to pay the money already (what she owes you) or are you waiting for the collection of the R

        • Did Mrs Foster have to pay the money already (what she owes you) or are you waiting for the collection of the RIAA money?

          I'm guessing that Ray can't really answer this question. So, here's my experience with my likable lawyer. When I was getting divorced I had filled and drained my retainer three times, when it came to my court date I had about $50 left on account. My lawyer assured me, though that he would not leave me high and dry, the case was essentially won and I had a good track record for paying him. I assume that Ray doesn't intend to leave this lady high and dry simply because that check hasn't come in yet. It seem

          • Let me clarify.
            1. I don't represent Ms. Foster; her lawyer is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson of Oklahoma City.
            2. If I were her lawyer I probably could not answer the question anyway, since it is confidential information the RIAA would just love to have.
            3. As a general proposition, it would be legally irrelevant how much of the bill was paid and how much unpaid.
            4. If I had to guess, my guess would be that Ms. Foster is a poor hardworking person without much dough and she has probably paid only a very small portion of the bill.
            • FWIW
              When I was facing litigation from Farmers and/or Zürich Financial for my gripe site, the two lawyers who were going to handle the case for me gave me a no win/no pay provision. That was awfully generous of them, but they could have also fronted me the retainer and forgiven any unpaid money had we lost*. As it turned out Farmers blew (an estimated) $750K litigating a case in Washington with another gripe site owner and all but lost the case (it was settled out of court, but the website is still up

              • ...but they could have also fronted me the retainer and forgiven any unpaid money had we lost

                I don't understand why you feel this way. It seems you're asking for a discount and credit for a case that your lawyers were working on. Why do you think your lawyers should have worked for free with or without a loss? I'm sure they had bills to pay among other things while they were working on your case. Of course if they were spending a lot of time on your case I could see how it would get expensive quickly, but, if you can find a way to keep pace, you really aren't out of anything in the long run. It'

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by InvalidError ( 771317 )
                  When lawyers pick up cases with no-win-no-pay clauses, they usually also aim for a larger share of any settlement or other gains when they win. It is a double/triple/etc.-or-nothing proposition lawyers usually offer for cases they have high confidence in - a lawyer may have a normal rate of $150/h but in no-win-no-pay, they will usually want to collect over $500/h up to the sum of any gained amounts.

                  It may look like charity to some people but it is simply lawyers gambling to maximize their gains while also

    • Re:So Mr. Beckerman and Mr. Rogers... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DoctorPepper ( 92269 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:42AM (#20249343)
      My apologies to all, but when I think of "Lawyer", even "good" ones, I keep remembering this quote from Rustler's Rhapsody:

      Rex O'Herlihan: "You're not a good guy at all!"
      Bob Barber: "I'm a lawyer, you idiot!"

  • Not the least bit surprising ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crackerjack911 ( 49510 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:22AM (#20249065)
    With the RIAA, even if you win, you lose. Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property, but they laugh in the face of the American judicial system by throwing a fit when they have to pay out a relatively small amount of money to someone for a frivolous law suit.

    • Re:Not the least bit surprising ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <<wgrother> <at> <optonline.net>> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:59AM (#20249551) Journal

      Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished.

      • Re:Not the least bit surprising ... (Score:4, Funny)

        by markov_chain ( 202465 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:25AM (#20249869)

        Of course, by going the appeal route, they stand to have to pay out more money. And if their appeal is denied, there will then be a storm on the horizon for them, for this case has become very high profile now and if word gets out to the general populace that they are vulnerable, the wolves will surely show up at the door. So what seems like a pittance now will grow with each new case they lose and try to appeal. It will only take two or three more cases like this I think before the tide begins to turn against them. I made a joke yesterday about them having to borrow money from SCO, but given the scope of what they are trying to do and the number of people they are trying to do it to, they could find themselves in deeper than they wished
        Well spoken.

        *waits for his Interesting* :^)

    • Not only do they fail to pay their content creators reasonable amounts of money for their intellectual property...

      What you're missing is that it is those content creators who agreed to be paid the amounts they are. If enough of them don't like their current arrangement and up-and-comers want nothing to do with the RIAA, then why don't you start up ARIA (Alternate Recording Industry Association) and offer them a better deal? As a bonus, you can be a nice guy in court too!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by croddy ( 659025 )
        You make the fundamental assumption that the RIAA labels don't employ deception in persuading artists to accept those terms. That assumption is not correct. Major record labels just about run on deception.
  • or rather, live by the conbination financial/legal power play, die by the combination financial/legal power play

    bleed the RIAA dry folks. given the opportunity, they'd do the same to you

  • When in a hole (Score:4, Interesting)

    by changling bob ( 1075587 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:23AM (#20249071)
    keep digging?

    Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the best for its lawyers, which suggests where the real balance of power lies.

    • Re:When in a hole (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:34AM (#20249233) Homepage Journal

      When in a hole...keep digging?
      Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the best for its lawyers, which suggests where the real balance of power lies.
      I wonder when the record companies' shareholders are going to come to that realization. They seem a little slow.

      • Re:When in a hole (Score:5, Informative)

        by Eivind Eklund ( 5161 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:16AM (#20249765) Journal
        Capitol records is owned by EMI. EMI is - or was - publicly traded. The last news is this: Terra Firma seals takeover of EMI [independent.co.uk] (for 2.4 billion pounds).

        Terra Firma is a private equity firm; they specialize in buying out companies, restructuring them and fixing management issues, and taking profit from the restructuring.

        So, the NEW owners haven't yet had time to do much. Whether they will change or not remains to be seen - they've only had a couple of weeks on their hands...

        Eivind.

        • What would the odds be for Terra Firma considering the music industry to be running around with its head up its ass and behaving in a suicidal and completely retared way? And do they fix "management issues" with a shotgun? (Oh, oops, that was the mafiaa, my mistake)

          It's probably a pipe dream, but it would be amazing if they could actually restructure a record label to make it more fit for the digital age. People like music, and I'm sure you could make a hefty money machine from a record label. And yes, I me

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by iminplaya ( 723125 )
        I wonder when the record companies' shareholders are going to come to that realization. They seem a little slow.

        Are many of them divesting yet? A more secure investment might be something like...household products. However if the share prices and dividends(do they still do that?) are holding up, I would think that they have nothing to react to. May I assume that the record companies have a fairly diverse portfolio also? Don't some of them have big investments in heavy industry, such as ship building? Or shi

    • Re:When in a hole (Score:5, Insightful)

      by radarjd ( 931774 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:36AM (#20249263)

      Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case.

      While it's certainly an issue on slashdot, I would say the average person on the street doesn't know (or likely care) because there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity. From talking to the people at the RIAA, they don't seem to care about the perception. My perception of their perception is that they believe the people who are against them don't understand the problem.

      And, as a side note, the "RIAA" is essentially a group of lawyers. There's no issue about where the power lies because they were created to lobby and to sue.

      • Re:When in a hole (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:49AM (#20249423) Homepage Journal

        Surely it would be better for the RIAA to just pay up and stop all the publicity about the case.
        While it's certainly an issue on slashdot, I would say the average person on the street doesn't know (or likely care) because there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity.
        That hasn't been my impression; it seems to me that almost everybody I've met knows about Big Music's lawsuits against single moms, kids, grandparents, and dead people.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by radarjd ( 931774 )

          That hasn't been my impression; it seems to me that almost everybody I've met knows about Big Music's lawsuits against single moms, kids, grandparents, and dead people.

          That hasn't been my experience, but even so, settling this particular case isn't going to stop that general awareness. My assertion was primarily that most people are unaware of this particular case.

          • Well, it doesn't particularly matter about the details of this particular case. When all the news people hear is about how greedy, unethical, and litigious the RIAA is, it gives a fairly general impression of their business practices. RIAA is going to sue their customers right out of business, just like SCO.

            The only difference is that RIAA has some legal standing here, while SCO didn't even have that.

            The fact that the RIAA is suing their customers strongly suggests that not only is their business model de

      • they believe the people who are against them don't understand the problem.
        At this point, I don't think anyone understands the RIAA.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hxnwix ( 652290 )

        there's not a huge amount of mainstream publicity
        The RIAA makes maximal publicity about these cases, but can they really draw attention away from one of them when it goes sour? Does the recording industry own the media?

        IMHO, each case that goes our direction draws more attention than any of the many cases that break for the RIAA.

      • From talking to the people at the RIAA, they don't seem to care about the perception.

        I think, as a whole, the RIAA doesn't care what people think of them. Their customers are the major record labels, and if the RIAA can act as the "muscle", then we won't associate these antics with the labels them. Face it; if the headline read "Warner Brothers Sues 80-year-old Grandma Without a Computer for Piracy", people would think negatively of the label and be less likely to buy their product.

    • Really it is a small news story at best and the tv news are run by media companies so they have no interest in making a big deal out of it.
      Shows like the Daily Show should be making a field day of this. But they are in the entertainment business so they have no motivation to go up against their own.

      The RIAA really have NOTHING to loose and everything to gain. If they loose the 70,000 big deal. But if they win they show that even if you win your case you loose so it is better to pay up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lazyl ( 619939 )
      Losing isn't necessarily bad publicity for them. It still scares some people away from downloading if there's a chance you could be sued and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in laywers fees to defend yourself without any gurantee of getting it all paid back even if you win.

  • So how is it.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:27AM (#20249139)
    How come they don't enforce judgments against large corporations in the US?

    Surely the fact that the RIAA has to pay is not at question as a court of law has already determined they should, so forcing them to pay is not a matter for needing another judgement, just enforcement.

    why should the defendant have to appeal for another judgement after the RIAA didn't pay, and why do the RIAA now have an opportunity to back out of an already decided case?

    • Re:So how is it.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <william.chuangNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:57AM (#20249527) Homepage
      RIAA will eventually pay if the judgment holds up on appeal. This enforcement of judgment business is typical and doesn't mean a huge corporation is being favored. The RIAA is claiming that it is planning to appeal and will not pay until after it has exhausted its appeals. In response, the defendant (or the Good Guy) wants RIAA to post a bond not only for the amount of the judgment but also for the expected costs of a failed appeal. They'll probably get interest and stuff, too, if the judgment is affirmed on appeal. This is both pretty standard procedure, except RIAA forgot to inform the Court of its intentions.

  • This is starting to look like SCO writ large...
    • SCO vs. IBM looked pretty big with its multi-billion dollar claims. This is peanuts in comparison.

      Of course the RIAA's tactics are just as slimy as those of SCO, but so far the RIAA stuff has a lot less publicity. This may change if they do something really stupid and get thrown in jail for contempt of court (which would be news by itself), but I guess a lot more has to happen before that. US courts seem rather tolerant to abuse of the court system.

  • I think I've changed my mind (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tyler.willard ( 944724 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:41AM (#20249327)
    As a matter of principle I pay for music. I've spent thousands of dollars over the years and that was OK with me. This was mostly to support the artists, but also because I make my money in a similar fashion.

    Now I think I should stop. I like the convenience of iTunes, so this might be difficult. But an organization like the RIAA is wholly without merit and needs to opposed; even though for me it means changing my principles.

    What about the artist's cut? I could take the easy way out and figure that it was small anyway and they were mostly getting screwed, but I think that's a facile argument. I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bentcd ( 690786 )

      I'll simply adopt the viewpoint that you get involved with cretins like the RIAA at your own risk and by so doing I'll have no qualms stealing from you.
      A definite case of "if you team up with the devil, expect to become collateral damage" :-)

    • Re:I think I've changed my mind (Score:5, Funny)

      by M. Baranczak ( 726671 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:04AM (#20249621)
      My advice: download the music from p2p, and if you like it, just send the musicians fifteen bucks worth of drugs. Cut out the middlemen, so to speak.

      • Re:I think I've changed my mind (Score:5, Funny)

        by JDevers ( 83155 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:53AM (#20250225)
        Yea, but that can get so complicated...you never know what type of drugs people want. The only surefire solution is to only listen to electronica and send the artists ecstasy. Of course most of those guys aren't on a label anyway. You could always listen to country and send them gallons of cheap whiskey and beer, but the shipping will eat you alive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pegr ( 46683 )
        My advice: download the music from p2p, and if you like it, just send the musicians fifteen bucks worth of drugs. Cut out the middlemen, so to speak.
         
        Two, actually!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by apt142 ( 574425 )

      What about the artist's cut?

      This has been my qualm for years. The RIAA is so entangled in the artist they "support" that listening to music in any legal way means that some money has been funneled to them. The only ways that I can think of that let you listen to the artist's music without giving money to the RIAA is through concerts and pirating. And I may be wrong with the concerts.

      With pirating however, you don't get to support the artists financially. If that aspect could be incorporated someh

    • How about (Score:3, Informative)

      by pedestrian crossing ( 802349 )
      If you like music, hate the RIAA, and want to support the artists, instead of going "pirate", go here [emusic.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nice rationalization, but it doesn't speak well for strength of character.

      Being principled when it's easy means little. Being princpled when it takes sacrifice is the only measure of ethics. If you've come to the point that you can't support the RIAA in good conscience, good for you; now accept that there's a cost to your princples and walk away from RIAA-owned music.

      Reshaping your principles to make it painless to avoid supporting the RIAA would leave you ethically no better than they are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CODiNE ( 27417 )
      So next I suppose you'll stop paying your taxes right? Considering how badly the government misuses our money and very little is actually used for what you'd prefer. They should spend all that military money on education right? I understand how you feel, but that doesn't make your argument valid. When the foxes are running the hen house you shouldn't burn it down. Now if you dug a hole out of the back of it and snuck out all the chickens maybe you'd have a better argument. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 )
      The problem with the "I don't like the RIAA therefore I'll stop buying music entirely" argument is that it assumes that all music is "RIAA music." Check out eMusic or Amie Street for a lot of great music from artists not affiliated with the RIAA. Since March, I've bought all of my music from Amie Street and I'm loving the artists that I've found. A lot of them deserve their own multi-platinum record deals... except that would lock them into the RIAA's anti-artist contracts. So I hope that they do what i

  • boycott time...... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:42AM (#20249337) Homepage Journal
    ...don't think about it, just do it.
  • ... the judge declare Capitol in contempt of court for not complying with his order, and get seriously slapped upside the head.

  • Law School 101 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @10:58AM (#20249537)
    Enough with the outrage people. Welcome to Law School 101. For your first class in civil procedure, we will discuss entry of judgment. Here are the basic steps common to almost all legal proceedings (simplified):

    1. Sue someone.

    2. Have a trial / reach settlement.

    3. Reach a verdict.

    4. Judge enters judgment. Note: This is not a "final" judgment. Judgment only becomes final after the period for appeal has ended.

    5. Losing party has right to appeal or it may simply pay.

    6. Appeal is processed and after all appellate rights have been "exhausted", FINAL judgment is entered.

    7. Winning party seeks formal entry of judgment in a separate proceeding (usually called "enrolling" the judgment, although that term varies by jurisdiction).

    7. ???

    8. Collect judgment.

    9. Profit.

    In short, I know RIAA are a bunch of scum-sucking *ahem* lawyers, but this whole case is premised on a serious misunderstanding of how the legal system works. Any one of us could go through the same process and draw out any case to the same degree. Most reasonable parties settleup after the initial entry of judgment, but there is certainly no requirement that a party forego its legal rights just to be "nice."

    In fact, it somewhat makes sense that things work this way. Put aside your dislike for RIAA for a second. Assume that a losing party justifiably feels that it was wronged by the Judge's decision and wishes to appeal. Does it make sense that they should be required to pay the judgment before the decision has been reviewed by a higher court? In order to protect against the danger of default, it is common to request that the losing party be required to post security in an escrow account during the pendancy of the appeal.

    In short: I admire the marketing arm of this particular law firm, but really, nothing to see here.

    • Re:Law School 101 (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:14AM (#20249733) Homepage Journal
      There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous. If anyone has grounds to appeal it would be Ms. Foster, who was awarded only $68,685 even though the attorneys fees and sdisbursements were around $114,000.

      • Re:Law School 101 (Score:4, Informative)

        by sampson7 ( 536545 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:03PM (#20250365)

        There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous.

        First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.

        Second, if Ms. Foster and her attorneys believe that an appeal is her best interest, she has every right to pursue such an appeal.

        Third, you are correct that there is a law against frivolous appeals. If an unbiased court finds that an appeal is truly frivolous (and that's a pretty high burden) the court may again order attorney's fees, sanction the attorneys involved, or even report them to the state bar for disciplinary action.

        Remember, frivolous =/= stupid or dumb or unlikely to succeed. Appealing a judgment in favor of the other side is rarely going to be considered frivolous under the legal standard.

        For the record: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

        (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

        (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

        (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

        (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

        (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

        (c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

        (1) How Initiated.

        (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.

        (B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.

        (2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a pena

  • The request for security might well be reasonable. The RIAA has a valid judgement against it, and no visible assets. They don't own the back-catalogs, they're just enforcement agents.

    The RIAA could easly go bankrupt over the judgement and the labels start another shell RIAA2.

  • Just Pay Them (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:40AM (#20250059) Journal

      Gifts are easy to make. We all pay bills to all kinds of companies every month. Get out your stinkin' checkbook or whatnot and simply send the your favorite artists some money directly.

      Please, skip buying their music from this insane system. Trade, beg, borrow or steal it, but donate to the artists you like. Send them the $10 for the album. Remove the guilt, feed your inner pirate, and get some new tunes. There are actually a lot of great bands out there, and plenty of ways to find them. And they would make much more from this than from wait for royalty checks from the AA

  • It Will Be A Huge News Day... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:00PM (#20250317)
    It will be a huge news day when the RIAA actually coughs up a penny to any defendant. I expect years of delays, appeals, legal wranglings, and outright ignoring court orders before the RIAA cuts a check to anyone, no matter now deserving. And they'll probably try to conceal it with a confidentiality agreement when it happens!

    Why would anyone who won ever agree to such an agreement? The RIAA says, we'll pay you now if you sign the agreement, or we'll wait and see if you die before this overcomes all the tricks our lawyers can play on you first. Would you sign to get the money you're entitled to under such circumstances?

  • Notice how the shares of these companies are not taking massive hits? It's way overvalued. I assume the Market realizes that the current strategy couldn't be worse, and therefore there is vast unrealized profit potential in these companies. The boards should make me CEO of all these media companies. I'd be terrible, but not any worse and MUCH cheaper.

  • Not uncommon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dmpyron ( 1069290 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:40PM (#20250925)
    It is not uncommon for a judge to require a large bond to be placed by the appellant, particularly when the judge does not believe that they will prevail in the appeal. This bond would only be about 3 times the judgment. I've seen cases where it was as much as 5 times. And, or course, the judgment also includes, but has not been listed yet, legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff. So they could quite conceivably be out much more.

    Does anyone have a name/address/phone number of her attorneys? I'd love to send them a check for $100 to help fund her legal fees. Given the number of /. readers who just love the RIAA, $5 a pop would probably cover her through the Supreme Court.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close