×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Short on Funds? Fails to Pay Attorney Fees

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the must-be-because-of-all-those-lost-record-sales dept.

The Courts 341

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Can it be that the RIAA, or the "Big 4" record companies it represents, are short on funds? It turns out that despite the Judge's order, entered a month ago, telling them to pay Debbie Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees, in Capitol v. Foster, they have failed to make payment. Ms. Foster has now had to ask the Court to enter Judgment, so that she can commence 'post judgment collection proceedings'. According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. Perhaps the RIAA should ask their lawyers for a loan?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

341 comments

womg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230433)

1st p0st!!11onehundredelleven

Oh, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230435)

I'm sure they are short on funds. That's like 5 cents to me.

Show Me the Money (4, Insightful)

moehoward (668736) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230451)


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 (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230507)

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.

Re:Show Me the Money (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230643)

I'm not sure they still lose. It believe they cad add to the legal expenses for the cost of collection if the judgment is ordered this way.

Re:Show Me the Money (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230841)

Ignoring a judgement is a pretty dangerous game. A creditor who knows what they're doing can get liens on property, seize bank accounts, etc.

-jcr

Re:Show Me the Money (2, Interesting)

thc69 (98798) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230955)

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

Re:Show Me the Money (3, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230997)

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:Show Me the Money (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230913)

"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:Show Me the Money (5, Funny)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230535)

"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.

Re:Show Me the Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230783)

I'm not sure whether you are trolling or not. You might have a point if you are labeling a thief a thief, but you are way off base if you think illegal downloading is really effecting RIAA member profits. Can you please explain yourself? I'm having to hold back the villagers with their pitchforks and torches and it's starting to hurt my arms.

Re:Show Me the Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20231015)

Calm down, Francis, it was a joke.

RIAA attorney's statement before the bench (4, Insightful)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230597)

"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 (5, Insightful)

dch24 (904899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230659)

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:Show Me the Money (4, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230989)

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? (2, Insightful)

Erik_the_Awful (675368) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230461)

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? (1)

HUADPE (903765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230587)

Yes, but as the summary said, it needs to go into judgment first. There's a process to this.

Re:Contempt of court? (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230667)

'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:Contempt of court? (2, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230827)

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... (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230859)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20231077)

Agreed. Email should never be considered as a form of legal notification. In my personal email anything that purports to be from some company never even gets opened and I refuse to give my email address to any company that I am doing personal business with. Frankly I am of the belief that we need to establish legal precedent or law that states clearly that no email can be legally binding because it is inherently insecure and ripe for fraud. Judge should set this attorney down for this if no registered letter was sent.

That is the problems with our INCs. (5, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230467)

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. (5, Informative)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230493)

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:That is the problems with our INCs. (2, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230553)

Unfortunately, this isn't RIAA v. Foster, it's Capitol v. Foster.

Or, fortunately. The RIAA is just a shell, if the expense ever got too high (and I don't think amounts of money this small would do it), they could just dissolve it. It's much harder to dissolve an ongoing concern like a record label.

Re:That is the problems with our INCs. (2, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231061)

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.

Re:That is the problems with our INCs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230621)

They had hoped it would be Capital v. Foster, and hoped the defendant would fold, but their bet has been called.

Re:That is the problems with our INCs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230525)

IANAL but bankruptcy normally does not protect you from certain kinds of court mandated fines and fees. For an organization or corporate entity the assets would be auctioned off, depending on many factors. factors such as if it's publicly held, which in this case it is not, or what level of bankruptcy protection (in the US there are various "chapters", one of them you liquidate all assets)

You wouldn't steal a car ... (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230469)

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

They'll drag it out for years (3, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230471)

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 (1)

hsoft (742011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230689)

drag it out for years... I wonder which attorney would take up such as cause...

Re:They'll drag it out for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230745)

One on standing retainer, or with a healthy per-hour billable.

In other words, any lawshark the *AA mafioso care to wave a sheaf of tainted Benjamins at.

Re:They'll drag it out for years (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231123)

I'm wondering if there's some penalty statute that might be relevant and useful and would suck even more money out of the RIAA coffers (preferably without having to go back to court for it) ... the more this can come out to be a losing deal for the RIAA cartel (and their lawyers) the better off the world will be.

I'm also wondering if the RIAA and their lawyers are fighting over just who should pay the awarded court costs!

Dragging their feet (3, Insightful)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230473)

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 (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230501)

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? (5, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230625)

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:Dragging their feet (5, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230651)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230665)

I like it! ;)

Re:Dragging their feet (5, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230839)

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:Dragging their feet (2, Insightful)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230871)

"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:Dragging their feet (2, Funny)

MattPat (852615) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230949)

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.

Re:Dragging their feet (2, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230971)

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 (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230711)

I believe the judge could also hold the officer's of the company in contemt of court and throw them in jail until such time as the judgement is paid.

Picture it: record company CEO in county jail...sweeeet.

sure they have the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230477)

they have the money, they just don't want to part with it

Blame the pirates (3, Informative)

WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230497)

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

Re:Blame the pirates (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230613)

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

free crap music. way too expensive for me.

Compartmentalized? (2, Interesting)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230511)

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

Re:Compartmentalized? (3, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230565)

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:Compartmentalized? (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230731)

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.

Re:Compartmentalized? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231183)

No, they can't do this. The part doing the suing must be the part which owns the copyright on the recordings in question - if it's not then it doesn't have standing. At the very least, these copyrights could be seized by the court. It would be a sweet irony if she was granted the copyrights she was accused of stealing in (part) payment.

I for one.... (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230531)

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

Re:I for one.... (1)

EvilMaus (660991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230573)

In that vein of thought, there are plenty of places to pick up Creative Commons music. You (not the parent) don't have to listen to the music that RIAA members are pushing. I'm personally loving JT Bruce's Dreamers' Paradox.

baffles me (5, Insightful)

SEAL (88488) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230567)

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.

Email inquiry? (2, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230591)

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? (5, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230823)

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.

Her bill (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230593)

If they end up having no money, she's going to be stuck with the bill. We may have to help her out.

Re:Her bill (4, Interesting)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231007)

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 (3, Funny)

Torontoman (829262) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231041)

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.

E-mail? (1, Insightful)

N7DR (536428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230617)

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.

Re:E-mail? (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230697)

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? (1)

N7DR (536428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230787)

OK, fair enough. It just seems to me to invite the "it must have got removed by our spam filter" defense.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for all the work you do.

Re:E-mail? (2, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230939)

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:E-mail? (4, Informative)

arkanes (521690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230789)

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.

They must have lost it all in hedge funds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230633)

Far more irritating than the RIAA are central banks propping up the city by releasing more worthless currency to the markets. Forget the RIAA, fractional reserve banking and well compensated stupidity are no substitute for generating wealth. I hope the entire enchilada tanks, all those city bonuses will sure be put in perspective when the recession takes hold.

Get some perspective (3, Insightful)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230641)

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 (1)

TClevenger (252206) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230909)

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

Ay, There's the rub.... (0, Troll)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230677)

Despite the courts awarding this person some money, there's nothing that says the RIAA **has** to pay.

Most likely scenario the individual gets nothing. At all. Sure, she can farm it out to a collections agency, but they'll get nothing. This is the classic problem with most court judgments. The Good Guy may get their day in court, but there's no mechanism to compel the Bad Guy to pay.

OT: I was going to use "Therein lies the rub" as the title, but it looks like that is an abuse of the original phrase.

Re:Ay, There's the rub.... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230751)

Read comments above:

1) Court seizure of assets
2) Individual contempt of court citations

Oh, but there is... (2, Informative)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230795)

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.

And How Much Does That Cost? (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231009)

Your proposition leads to a perpetual legal affair generating fees to a point for which there is no "upside" to the original winner of the case. This, of course is the intention on the RIAA's side who have the lawyers on salary for just this purpose.

Re:And How Much Does That Cost? (5, Informative)

taustin (171655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231099)

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:Oh, but there is... (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231049)

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:Ay, There's the rub.... (1)

MSRedfox (1043112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230801)

Actually the court says they have to pay. And she doesn't have to farm it out to a collections agency, she can most likely get the court have US Marshals collect the money. "In New York City, New York, Marshals are charged with the enforcement of civil judgments. A Marshal is appointed by the Mayor and the office is a private business which pays a percentage of fees it collects to the government. It is supervised by the Department of Investigation. Generally, the office performs the collection of money judgments, evictions, seizure of scofflaw vehicles, replevins, small claims as well as garnishments." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal [wikipedia.org] Marshals also handle collections in other areas too, the New York reference was just the quickest to find.

Nice Try (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230953)

US Marshals collect the money
U.S. Marshals are involved in State judicial affairs? Really?

A quick visit to http://www.usmarshals.gov/ [usmarshals.gov] shows *no* method or process by which a Federal agency can collect funds on behalf of a State judicial matter. Maybe you are thinking of asset forfeiture?

Re:Nice Try (1)

drawfour (791912) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231141)

What state judicial matter? Copyright is a FEDERAL issue, and the claims made against Capitol were counterclaims. Thus, the original case was filed in a Federal District Court, and the counter-claims were filed in the same court. That same court then made the ruling for Foster.

So, again, do US Marshals have jurisdiction over enforcing a US District Court decision?

Re:Ay, There's the rub....Exactly (1)

polygamous coward (1127507) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231109)

she can go to their bussiness office with Marshalls and start loading copiers, desks, chairs, phones, basically anything and everything on to trucks and the marshalls will sell them at auction until the debt is made good.

Re:Ay, There's the rub.... (3, Insightful)

arkanes (521690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230829)

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:Ay, There's the rub.... (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231047)

1. This is the most reasoned reply of the bunch. Kudos to you.

2. Unfortunately all options presented would affect the judge's electability. The course of action you lay out is a low-probability outcome.

Re:Ay, There's the rub.... (2, Funny)

TDyl (862130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230851)

OT: I was going to use "Therein lies the rub" as the title, but it looks like that is an abuse of the original phrase.

Surely in a music related thread it would "Theremin lies the rub"

Re:Ay, There's the rub.... (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231125)

But there is a way to collect...

Once you get the judgment you seize their assets. I had to do this against a company that owed me from a judgment. Boy where they hot when my attorney seized their bank accounts, and the sheriff showed up and seized all of the assets of the company. All of this over a $1,800.00 service invoice.

leech (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230691)

RIAA is a leech on the peckerhead of humanity.

Maybe they really do need the money (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230765)

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 (4, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230883)

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 (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231169)

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?

Reading the actual document... (3, Interesting)

codegen (103601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20230813)

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.

Re:Reading the actual document... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20230987)

Clearly, YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER. But also clearly, you like the smell of your own farts.

Where the money goes... (2, Insightful)

mc2thaH (920212) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231097)

Sounds like they're too busy spending money producing good music. And by good I mean horrible.

ma^8e (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20231103)

a need to play FFel an obligation To fight what has arithmetic,

Charity (2, Funny)

phiz187 (533366) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231127)

Is there somewhere where we can send donations to help out the poor beleaguered RIAA, who can't afford their legal bills? -PHiZ

Delaying the Precedent (1)

biskit (55311) | more than 6 years ago | (#20231175)

What they are trying to do, is delaying the legal precedent that comes out of case - once the money is paid it opens the door wide for other cases for come on in.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...