digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

RIAA file-sharing case ending with squabble over check for attorneys' fees

arstechnica.com — The RIAA and a file-sharing defendant continue to fight over attorneys' fees —even after the RIAA cut a check for $68,685.23. Now, defendant Debbie Foster wants direct deposit—with interest.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nightwing2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Sadly enough - I doubt the RIAA did the cheque thing intentionally to delay. I think it's another case of "never ascribe to malice what can best be explained by incompetence."

    I do find it interesting that if the award was specfically for attorney fees, it was not directedin the judgement to go to the attorneys directly. I know when I do something like buying a house, the lawyer makes sure everything goes to the right person - he doesn't say "here's your cash, now go pay your own attorney fees, real estate agent fees, and property taxes accrued..."
    • mikefitz2, on 10/10/2007, -42/+3***** debbie, she illegially downloaded music and is now trying to pass her debt to society off to someone else? ***** deadbeat bitch needs to get a second job if she can't make her payment to socity
      • mikefitz2, on 10/10/2007, -34/+2YEA? DIGG ME DOWN, IM RIGHT AND YOU HIPPIE ASSHOLES KNOW IT!!!!
        • Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8'Hippie assholes'. That's new.
        • webheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10You're a dumb ass. If you'd read one word of this or any other article about this, you'd know that she didn't download anything. RTFA moron.
      • yuriabc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0serferf
      • DarkPenguin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6*****.
      • blorc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wow, I could use a hummer as good as the one mikefitz just gave the RIAA. Did it take a lot of practice to get that good, or are you just a natural "fellatist?"
      • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I guess you don't believe in the judicial system then because she had her day in court and she won her case.
        • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The only thing this case showed was the RIAA wasn't interested in spending the money to prove she's guilty.
      • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How sad , you chose not to follow the case or take time to read the court filed pdf settlement documents either ! It would appear your rose colored glasses are now black opaque , suggest you pick up a blind man's cane , before you leave the office !
    • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In this case, I think it's malice. As the article itself makes clear, usually the payment instructions are followed. The RIAA folk chose not to follow those instructions. This is just a final FU.
    • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2After reading the court settlement documents pdf , they deliberately went out of their way , at every opportunity , to annoy the winner of the case !
  • bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27I say give it to her, after all if the situation were reversed the RIAA would be demanding the same damn thing. If enough of this occurs maybe, just maybe they will rethink their copyright enforcement strategies. Of course that would require that they removed their heads out of each others asses first.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9Steve Jobs will give you a $100 iTunes card.
  • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Jailbushnow, there must also be a conspiracy that is keeping you from posting your rants in article comments to which the rants are applicable.
  • Cowfrommars, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4This is just silly. I wish cases like these would stop, but I guess I'm being too hopeful.
  • 46reasons, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Boo. *****. Hoo.
  • acidbathfan, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3all the money will go towards paying her attorneys monthly iphone bill :)
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14this just looks like the RIAA being sore losers they know that attorney's fees are usually paid via wire transfer directly to said attorney not via a check that is made payable to the winner. this reeks of them just saying well you won but we'll still screw you over. good on the judge for telling them to cut another check for the interest. I'd say that if they cut the check on the 13th she should go to the attorney and explain the situation if he's any sort of a reasonable person he'll say alright you have been awarded those moneys and they have not been paid in the traditional manner and give her X number of days to get the payment to him (ie 5 or 7 or whatever the hold is). like the attorney knows he'll get paid so I say why keep charging her interest every day even after the payment has been awarded. damn RIAA play by the established rules even though there is no law saying that fees be paid via wire transfer why rock the boat and pull this crap
  • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8***** the RIAA i say give it to her, for all the hell they put her through.....
  • najdorf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Great job fighting back all the way, we need more people like her.
  • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5She should sue for damages, and the ***** hassle of bothering her at all.

    ***** the RIAA. Sell us the music, we will buy it. Now ***** off. Seriously.
    • Durrok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't play with fire. I'm sure for the most part she is just happy to be done with the whole ordeal.
  • vegascoop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3While I agree with "***** the RIAA" if you read the article it looks like Debbie Foster's attorney was being greedy. The RIAA followed the court's order. The fact that the RIAA mailed Debbie Foster a check rather than transferring it to Foster's attorneys trust account --- who gives a rat's ass. The check cleared right? It was for the amount of the court's order right? Quit your bitching.
    • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wrong , think again , in reality they reduced the standard fully qualified legal fees to that which one pays for unqualified para legal rate , further all out of court hearing conference costs were totally ignored as well !
  • blacklilyninja, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3suck them dry debbie suck them dry

    oh did i say that?
  • jimsowden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hopefully this will have a twofold effect. It will I think stop the RIAA from filing frivelous lawsuits as scaretactics if the precident has been set that they can fully loose, and also in any future cases serve as a legal precident to rule in defendent's favors. I also hope this applies to the MPAA, as they are very similar in this respect.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1About time she is awarded. Lets hope this sends a message to all others caught in the RIAA's crosshairs...FIGHT BACK. And hope that this also sends a message to the RIAA...
  • Eihcet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, I guess this was always a case of principle and not about the money... still... at ~5% and ~$70K awarded it's ~$350/month of interest. That seems to me like a small amount to be squabbling over? Well, I guess back to principle.
  • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Question: Does cutting the check in her name instead of sending money to attorneys directly cause her to incur income tax liability for the payment?
    There are actually a lot of cases out there where someone wins a multi-million judgement, gets taxed for the full amount, then after paying lawyer fees is actually in negative territory with the IRS.
  • Gimli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm happy to see someone stick it to the RIAA and it's about time they get a bit of their own medicine.
  • brahamt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Boy, it's pretty clear that the RIAA and their lawyers are a bunch of ...punks (so wanted to say worse).
  • Cyberdactyl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Look, the RIAA has evolved to nothing more than the music industries' knuckle-busting shake-down goons. . . pure and simple.

    They obviously are way out of touch with the current music culture. They were given their marching orders a few years back and have little idea how to approach the piracy issue. The RIAA's MO will continue till someone gets a judgment against the RIAA with a crippling punitive award that forces them to re-think their stragegy..
  • tmcdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the check is in the mail
  • semiotix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This sounds to me like a ***** match between two groups of lawyers who actually started hating each other as much as their clients did. It happens sometimes; it's just as likely that they'd have like totally linked to each other's MySpace pages after all was said and done.

    And I doubt the plaintiff's lawyer really has to twist her arm to get her to agree to litigate the RIAA just a *little* more. I also doubt her lawyers really care about the extra 1% of fees incurred after the judgment... this is just recreational. What keeps most people from filing nuisance or ticky-tack motions or lawsuits is the legal bills, but when lawyers turn off the clock (or, worse, when they're representing themselves) it sucks to be the other guy.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.