Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Debbie Foster Demands Security for RIAA's Payment of Her Attorneys Fees

In view of the RIAA's failure to pay the month-old award of attorneys fees in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion this Monday asking the Court to enter judgment so that she could move forward with judgment collection proceedings.

The RIAA did not oppose the motion, but filed papers saying it did not object to entry of judgment, but intimated that it believed there would be an automatic 10-day stay of enforcement of the judgment, and further indicated that it had 30 days to appeal from the judgment.

In response, Ms. Foster is asking the Judge to require the RIAA to post security for payment of the attorneys fees award, and sufficient to cover all of the ensuing attorneys fees expected to be incurred.

August 14, 2007, Statement of No Objection by RIAA*
August 15, 2007, Reply by Defendant Requesting Security for Attorneys Fees and Costs*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
Techimo Development
Gizmodo
InfoWorld
idg.ge (Swedish)


Digg!



Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs




4 comments:

Macros said...

Is that meant to say 10-days? The filing states an automatic 10-day stay, not the 1-day as in your summary.

Ray Beckerman said...

macros, thanks for catching my error. i corrected it.

AMD FanBoi said...

I believe this demonstrates better than anything else so far the complete Obstructionist tactics employed the the RIAA at every stage of litigation. They will go to the last second they can get away with in order to pressure their opponents.

Can they be severely punished for this?

Ray Beckerman said...

ed, i had to delete your comment, even though i concur wholeheartedly in your sentiments, because it violated a couple of my moderation rules...here's the entire list... yours might have violated rules 2, 9, and 10.... sorry to be a pain but the riaa loves to cite my blog to the judges, so we need to keep the level of discourse on a very dignified plane.... thanks


Comment policy:
1.no comment spam
2.no profanity
3.no RIAA trolls masquerading as something else (if RIAA PR flacks present themselves for who they are, they are welcome to participate)
4.no unsupported accusations
5.no defamation
6.no threats
7.no unsupported anti-lawyer or anti-judge insults (if you know of something specific that a lawyer or judge did, with which you disagree, and you want to comment fairly upon it fine, but I don't want people here denigrating the legal profession with undocumented insults; I think that is a tactic used by RIAA trolls and some other big corporations who are trying to discourage ordinary people from talking to lawyers and learning about their legal rights, or from going to court to fight for their rights, thinking the system is stacked against them; lawyers and judges are the cornerstone of the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of our democracy, and they are the closest thing we have to an equalizer in our society)
8. no misleading pseudo-legal advice
9. comments must be related to topic of the post
10. nothing to detract from the dignity of "Recording Industry vs. The People" as a forum for the discussion of very important issues.