The long-running drama between the RIAA and Debbie Foster is about to come to an end, but not without an additional bit of fighting about the attorneys' fees. After Debbie Foster triumphed in the copyright infringement case brought against her by the record labels, she sought and obtained an award for attorneys' fees. After the RIAA exhausted its appeals—and after some further prodding from Foster—it finally cut Foster a check for $68,685.23 on August 30.

Case closed, right? Wrong. Foster subsequently filed a motion to amend the attorneys' fees award citing two major factors: the amount of the payment and the way in which it was paid. Although the RIAA paid in full up to the time that the amount of the award was finalized, it neglected to include fees incurred by Foster's attorney pertaining to a hearing on July 5. It also neglected to include the interest that had accrued since the date of the award.

Foster's attorney Marilyn Barringer-Thomson was also displeased that the plaintiffs overnighted her a single check payable to Debbie Foster instead of electronically transferring the funds to the accounts of those in line for payments. As a result, the plaintiff would not have immediate access to the funds due to the bank's policy of placing a hold on checks. Copyright attorney Ray Beckerman commented that it is "highly unusual for a judgment debtor's attorneys not to follow the judgment creditor's attorney's payment instructions."

The RIAA countered by filing a motion to deem the judgment satisfied. Their argument was simple: we cut the check in the proper amount, and it's now in Foster's possession, so let's call it a day. An RIAA spokesperson told Ars that Foster's filing "misstates the facts and misconstrues the judgment in this case," saying that they made payment in "strict compliance" with the order.

"As a professional courtesy, we were willing to pay the fees to counsel's trust account via wire transfer. When we asked defendant's counsel to confirm that doing so would be in satisfaction of the judgment—which it clearly is—she refused and insisted we pay her money above the amount set forth in the judgment," the RIAA spokeswoman told Ars. "Because counsel met our professional courtesy with a lack of cooperation and an unreasonable insistence that we pay her sums beyond what were ordered, we chose to avoid any dispute and made payment in strict compliance with the Court's judgment."

In an order issued earlier today, Judge Lee R. West pointed out that it's not the fault of the plaintiffs that the bank places a hold on checks and said that there is no authority barring the payment of attorneys' fees by check. Judge West denied Foster's motion to amend the judgment but instructed the RIAA to calculate post-judgment interest and cut Foster another check on or before September 13. Once that has occurred, he'll rule on the RIAA's motion to deem the attorneys' fees judgment satisfied.

Given how the whole case played out, there's little surprise that it is ending with this level of acrimony. At the end of the day, Foster has been cleared of copyright infringement, while the RIAA is left paying the legal bills for both parties.