Judge: RIAA Owes Wrongfully-Accused Defendant Over $68K

The RIAA must pay P2P defendant Debbie Foster $68,685.23 for accusing her of sharing copyrighted music over a P2P network. Judge Lee R. West had ordered the RIAA to pay these fees back in April, but didn’t specify a total, which he revealed in an Order (PDF) issued yesterday. Foster had originally sought fees totaling […]

Barringerthomson
The RIAA must pay P2P defendant Debbie Foster $68,685.23 for accusing her of sharing copyrighted music over a P2P network. Judge Lee R. West had ordered the RIAA to pay these fees back in April, but didn't specify a total, which he revealed in an Order (PDF) issued yesterday.

Foster had originally sought fees totaling $114,363.18 but the RIAA objected, claiming that the number of billable hours and the hourly rate were too high, that the case was too simple to cost over a hundred grand to defend, that some of the work was duplicative, and that Foster was "not entitled to fees that could have been avoided had she assisted the plaintiffs or acceded to settlement," among other things.

Here's a short summary from the Order of the judge's rulings in the Order:

1. The reasonable hourly rate for defendant's counsel is $175.

2. A total of 339.02 attorney hours and 28.1 paralegal hours werereasonably and necessarily expended in litigating the defendant's case.

3. The defendant is entitled to reimbursement of her expert witness' fee.

4. Certain of the defendant's requested expenses are excessive and must be reduced to a reasonable rate.

5. Subject to the deductions set forth above, the defendant'sentitlement to an award of attorney's fees is not undermined by herdecision to fully litigate the claims against her.

[Update: The RIAA sent me a statement regarding this Order.]

Besides limiting the fees it owes, it the RIAA succeeded in another,
possibly more crucial aspect of the case: not having to disclose whatit pays its own attorneys to go after music uploaders. Foster'sattorney, Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, wanted that information madeavailable to the public, but the RIAA succeeded in keeping it under seal.

Why wouldn't the RIAA want that information revealed? My guess isthat doing so would lead to yet more bad PR for the organization, asartists unopposed to the sharing of music could start to question where the money for the lawsuits is coming from.

(via recording industry vs. the people; order on irlweb; image from p2pnet)