digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

RIAA's final tab for Capitol vs. Foster: $68,685.23

arstechnica.com — The book is closed on one of the most closely-followed file-sharing cases, as a judge tallies up the ledger for Debbie Foster's legal bills.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Akaji, on 10/11/2007, -1/+43This makes me very happy. I certainly hope more judges out there will rule the same way (dismissed w/prejudice) - it'd be hard for the RIAA to use -- err... sue -- anyone without money to hire a lawyer. ("use" was a typo, but after thinking about it, it's appropriate)
    • aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The judge is the key. You may get a judge who simply caves to whatever big businesses want, and then you're screwed. Yes, you have appeals, but how many of us have $100K or greater to fight this in court?
      • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Cheaper to break the kneecaps of the RIAA's lawyer.
    • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2A loser pays legal system would alleviate a great deal of the strain placed on it by frivilous lawsuits. If the RIAA knew they would have to cough up legal fees for themselves and the plaintiff every time, they wouldn't pull this *****. But since there is no guarantee that if you win, the judge will force the RIAA to pay your legal fees, settling at about 70c per song is the best option right now.
      • MikeCerm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2A "loser pays" legal system is exactly what we have, because any defendant is allowed to counter-sue to cover their legal fees. If you're not guilty of what you're being sued for, it also may be true that the suit was baseless (as was the case here), and you'll win your counter-suit.
  • ReinisFMF, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36I don't really understand why someone decides to add those 23 cents.
    • greeneyes137, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2it was probablly $1.99 per something * x to get xxxxx.23
      • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It probably has something to do with the tax.
    • capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4five minutes of my life wasted trying to think of something witty. All I could come up with is old ladies liking pennies and dimes -- just digg me down and get it over with. I'll be over in the dark corner, crying tears of shame to pirated violin music, in case you want to throw stuff and point at me.
    • hockey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Sales tax
    • logost, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Money is money.

      *Mumbles something about a snow flake into an avalanche*
  • noodlez, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16woah, wait, does that mean that foster has to cover the difference between the bill submitted and the sum awarded? $35k or something like that? that kind of sucks, if so.
    • MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Na, the 100K was simply a speculative number that the attorney hoped to get from the RIAA. Rarely do judges actually award these speculative numbers.
    • fantasticjon, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2shoulda went to law school.
      • lillepalle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You can start with grammar school.
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3he's hoping to work in the ghetto where he can axe the judge for a dis-mis because his peep he be representin' is too fly to be illin' on the charges... or something to that affect.
  • civperc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Good to see more of these cases (not enough, but still, more) are being taken seriously without bias.
  • joeinheat, on 10/11/2007, -24/+2here is the best way to download files. It is a FREE proxy server hides your IP and uses there bandwidth offshore

    http://www.Zervix.com

    you can aslo use it to surf without interuption or history at work school etc even on computers that block gambling sites myspace etc
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4......And it also rhymes with a part of the Female anatomy!
  • cosmicdreams, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1I really want to dig this one, but marked it as inaccurate for not the cost of the RIAA's own attorneys for the prosecution of the case.
  • kygeographer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Hopefully this will start some sort of precedent. Since the RIAA got owned in court, hopefully future losses in court will start to seriously hurt them financially, and they'll stop being so sue-happy.

    One can hope, one can hope.
    • akeating, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3...Where did they get "owned in court" ? This is a pittance to them, they won't even have it effect their bottom line; they'll just sue some more people to make up for the losses.
    • raada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It is good that you can sue anyone for anything. But the way RIAA has sued thousands of people is just abusing the system. They should be penalized for doing so.
      Good to see that Justice has finally started to be served against RIAA.
  • Twinked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24Just a drop of water in a huge sea. This does give precedence for those who are willing to stand up and fight the music industries mafia style "knee breakers".

    I'd give this story 2 Diggs if I thought it would help put an end to RIAA's gestapo type tactics.
  • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -4/+39Reminds me of a song - "Take The Money and Run" by Steve Miller. Hey, I bet I can find that on Limewire....

    ... yep, there it is....

    ***** the RIAA.
    • returnofajedi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Ah, thank you. I was waiting for that obligatory line.

      :)
    • dbz253, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ew. who uses limewire?
  • insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think it sucks that these people basically went in the hole when it comes to settlement money, but they can keep this up even if the operation is a money pit.
  • secretwhistle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29And the real winner of this case... the lawyers!
    • Kyrgizion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Lawyers cannot really lose. They get paid whether they win or lose a case. Of course they get more when they win, but even if they lose I bet they'll still earn a LOT more than you or me could've made working the same amount of time.
      • aB0z, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2My wife's dad runs a law firm in Iowa, and I know that he doesn't get paid if he doesn't win a case. I don't know if there's a law about that or if it depends on the agreement with the client, but in general I don't think they get paid if they lose.
        The RIAA lawyers are probably on retainer, so they probably get paid either way.
        • Systembomber, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yeah, its called no win no fee or something.
      • MikeCerm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Lawyers are free to negotiate with their clients for whatever payment is fair to both parties. It could be just be % of the judgment, costs + %, or just a fixed amount (usually reserved for simple things like speeding tickets). It depends on the type of case, the likely outcome, and how confident each party is. If the lawyer is going to waive costs, the % is going to be higher if the judgment is favorable, but the client owes nothing if the case is lost.
    • crweaks23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wonder where you thought of that comment... OH! I know!

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/0119241
  • Snakedal337, on 10/11/2007, -0/+54I love where it says she had an option to settle. Ha. I can just imagine how that discussion went

    "Well we gave her the option to pay us $750 a songs per play, so all she had to do was pay $598,000.49 and we wouldn't have to be here right now your honor!"

    At which time the judge went "THIS IS SPARTA!" and kicked the lawyer into a well.
  • davidjunit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+37"He also rejected the RIAA's argument that Foster was not entitled to fees incurred after "some point when she allegedly 'could have avoided [fees] altogether but chose not to do so,'" reiterating that she was fully entitled to fight the RIAA's charges and as a result, eligible for an award of attorneys' fees."

    That just really pisses me off. The RIAA basically said, "Judge, she could've avoided any attorney fees if she had just paid us in the first place so why should we have to pay the fees that she chose to incur by fighting us?"

    That there is picking a fight and then turning around and saying you had nothing to do with it. What a bunch of *****. They should get kicked in the throat.
    • TheUngod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sometimes it just gets so ridiculous I wonder if the Lawyers are doing ***** like this to just drag out their court time and fatten their checks. More time in court means more money after all. Aside from that, I really don't understand how someone could be so amazingly stupid as to try to pull that crap.
  • mikesty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"Foster's attorney, Marilyn Barringer-Thompson, submitted a bill for $105,680.75. After taking into account the amount of time spent on the case, how the time was billed, and costs of expert witnesses, Judge West decided that $68,685.23 was adequate to compensate Barringer-Thompson and her legal staff for the time spent litigating the case."

    So is the lady $40,000ish in the hole, or does this mean that Judge West is essentially making her attorney charge that much.
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3that's up to the legal staff... the judge said they are only getting the $68k from the RIAA, but they can always hand Foster a bill for more...
      • raada, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1They probably did it Pro Bono or whatever it is called, so the woman doesn't have to pay anything but the lawyer will get part of whatever the judgement will be.
    • akeating, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Probably they sent a bill that was higher than they really wanted, knowing it would get trimmed down.
  • astrotrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Now the RIAA will have to go sue more fans for their $68k loss... the fargin iceholes
  • UNL1M1T3D, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Dugg for the simple fact they didn't spell ordered wrong.
  • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Couldn't the RIAA just given her about 90 downloaded songs and called it even? Given their blackmail pricing scheme that seems about fair.
    • raada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Because a downloaded song has no value... Copy someone's work should never be illegal. Making profit from someone else's work should be.
      One of the most popular books in the world has been copied and recopied. If the bible had been copy protected by RIAA it would not exist today.

      I think a better judgment would be that RIAA could download 90 of the woman's newly self-recorded songs and they would call it even. That would have saved the courts system and tax payers a lot of money and time.
      • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, but I think you missed the sarcasm there. Given the *percieved value to digital recording losses* determined by the RIAA it seemed to be an equitable settlement bu their very method of accounting.

        "One of the most popular books in the world has been copied and recopied. If the bible had been copy protected by RIAA it would not exist today."

        Now that's an intriguing argument. Imagine no religious works being copied under RIAA standards. You'd probably have to lump cave paintings, the Mayan calendar and a whole lot of other historical works in there as well. Very good argument!
  • Chubakkaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11***** the RIAA.
  • hockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The saddest part about all this is that if she lost and had to pay then that 68K would be enough to virtually financially ruin her and any other average joe but it's not even a drop in the bucket for the RIAA yet they continue to try and ruin peoples lives financially over a few songs.

    I'm against piracy on principle but what the RIAA is doing is insane.
    • hockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2aww shucks. Bury me for my ignorance. . .
    • raada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3They should start doing per-income-based penalties. If RIAA would sue for 3 months salary from the woman, the penalty for losing the company should pay the profit they make during 3 months. That will reduce their fake-sueing left and right.
  • willx99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8For those of you saying this didnt make any difference, Id guess it actually makes a huge difference. The amount itself is pretty significant, sure it seems like alot but to Capital its nothing. What matters is that up to now the RIAA has been suing anyone it can and any cases it sees the people will actually fight it dismisses without prejudice. With ths case there is now a precedent for not agreeing to their terms and actually winning in court. This hurts the RIAA's tactics as they have to pick their battles much more carefully. I would guess it would also make lawyers more likely to come to the aid of those that previously could not afford decent representation in the hopes of having a perrcent of another huge settlement like this.

    I see trouble on the horizon for the RIAA :)
  • Darkhowling91, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Buried for duplicate.
  • wtf00, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1now this what I call cool news... people vs corp/Government and people prevail gives smile in my face.
  • sbgskl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Let's keep on stealing music everybody!
  • ren1999, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The RIAA needs to realize that going after the little people who don't even know anything about piracy, will only cost them legal fees and a negative reputation.

    Those people who are pirating their copyright material are only giving the industry free advertising. People see the free crappy version and go out and see the film in the theater or buy the DVD.

    What the industry needs to do to increase sales now is to lower movie ticket prices.
  • keepinithamsta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How does the same article end up in the top 10 two times? Buried.
  •  

    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.