Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Granny Sues RIAA Over Unlicensed Investigator

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 07:43 PM
from the more-ways-to-hit-them-back dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An elderly, non-file-sharing grandmother from East Texas, who had been sued by the RIAA after being displaced by Hurricane Rita, has sought leave to file counterclaims against the RIAA record companies for using unlicensed investigators. In her counterclaims (PDF) Ms. Crain claims that the record companies 'entered into an agreement with a private investigations company to provide investigative services which led to the production of evidence to be used in court against counterclaim plaintiff, including the identification of an IP address on the basis of which counterclaim defendants filed their suit... [They] were at the time of this agreement aware that the aforementioned private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... [T]hey agreed between themselves and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign... [T]he private investigations company hired by plaintiffs engaged in one or more overt acts of unlawful private investigation... Such actions constitute civil conspiracy under Texas common law.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] RIAA Backs Down On "Unlicensed Investigator" 191 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got the RIAA to drop its monetary claims against her after she filed counterclaims against the record companies for using an investigator, MediaSentry, which is not licensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas. The RIAA elected to drop its claims rather than wait for the Judge to decide the validity of Ms. Crain's charges (PDF) that the plaintiff record companies were 'aware that the... private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign.' Similar questions about MediaSentry's unlicensed investigations were raised recently by the State Attorney General of Oregon in Arista v. Does 1-17"
[+] Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State? 200 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by CorSci81 (1007499) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @07:53PM (#19738253) Journal
    Wrong Pasadena, I know, but... still.
  • Every other day (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dunezone (899268) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:01PM (#19738343) Journal
    It seems like every other day we either find out that the RIAA used some illegal practice or lost a case against a so called music pirate though they keep dishing out lawsuits. The RIAA train has derailed but it doesn't seem to be slowing any time soon.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It seems like every other day we either find out that the RIAA used some illegal practice or lost a case against a so called music pirate though they keep dishing out lawsuits. The RIAA train has derailed but it doesn't seem to be slowing any time soon.

      You only hear about the people striking back because they're the rare counter-example. You don't hear about the thousands and thousands of people who settle to get the lawyers off their backs.

      The RIAA train hasn't derailed. The function of the lawsuits isn't to make money. The goal is to scare people away from file sharing and back into the music store, either bricks and mortar or online. As long as the lawsuits stop the bleeding from file sharing, they only have to break even, or just avoid losing

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The RIAA train hasn't derailed.

        Really? Did they take someone to trial and win today?

        The function of the lawsuits isn't to make money. The goal is to scare people away from file sharing and back into the music store, either bricks and mortar or online.

        They're doing a bang-up job there, too. Tower Records says "Thanks" for the extra traffic.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Well, I guess I must be aging too.

          When I was "young" (read: under 25), music was my love. Well, besides computers. I have a few hundred CDs. But for almost 10 years now, I didn't buy a single one. Maybe I'm getting old, or maybe I just can't stomach the cover versions of "my" songs, dunno.

          Back then, there also wasn't much that competed with CDs for my money. Fashion would've been the only other thing to waste money on, and I've never been the fashion geek. So all my spending money went into music.

          Today, a l
      • I would be interested in seeing the stats you are describing. Is there a site you can link where they are compiled? You are correct in pointing out the flawed nature of only going by the anecdotal evidence. I just wish you hadn't dumbed down your message with your pissy attitude and tone -- it makes it more likely that your thoughts will get lost in the noise.
  • Good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adona1 (1078711) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:07PM (#19738387)
    I'm happy for the RIAA to get anything and everything that's coming to them, but I don't think it will change their litigation-happy behaviour at all. The problem is that the RIAA is just a faceless body representing the big labels, and until people start bitching about Sony, Universal Music, EMI etc, then what does the RIAA care if people hate them? They're not selling the products, they exist solely as a trade group [wikipedia.org], and if they take all the flak that rightfully belongs to the labels, they'll still do it.

    It's the puppeteers, not the puppet, that needs to be demonized.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      They will if the courts start costing them big-time money (more than they do already). OK, so they're getting $3000 settlements. How much are they paying their pack of lawyers per hour? I bet it's a lot, so even the profit from that might be small.

      Start having a bunch of people hitting back. Lawyers in court == more lost money. Start having them losing cases for big money == more lost money. Start having the courts perhaps decide that they lose the rights to press suites in regards to the material they're
    • Re:Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Courageous (228506) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @09:34PM (#19739085)
      I'm happy for the RIAA to get anything and everything that's coming to them, but I don't think it will change their litigation-happy behaviour at all.

      Depends on the findings. There was a case that came up just recently where the RIAA is being accused of both federal and state RICO charges as well as quite a number of other things. While this is only a civil case, these are criminal charges. If the findings go to the plaintiff on some of the more serious charges, and were the RIAA not to reform itself, the remedies in a follow-on case from any other party could be quite severe indeed.

      C//
    • Amen!!!!! Imagine one week if Sony sold absolutely nothing across the whole US. Ouch! They'd freak out, and Howard Stringer's head would be served to shareholders on a platter. Hey, you don't even need to boycott them all. Pick them off one by one. Causes division in the ranks: While one suffers the others shrug.

      In the past consumer boycotts have rarely if ever worked, because most consumers either don't know or don't care, or think what's the use. So form a message and target it. Spread it on Myspace and Y
    • Re:Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Wednesday July 04 2007, @08:21AM (#19742795) Homepage Journal

      The problem is that the RIAA is just a faceless body representing the big labels, and until people start bitching about Sony, Universal Music, EMI etc, then what does the RIAA care if people hate them?
      In the context of these lawsuits, "RIAA" is just a synonym for the Big 4 record companies and their affiliated labels. Not every member of the RIAA is involved in this thing. It's just the Big 4 cartel. So if you boycott the major labels you're on track. Anyone who wants to look at any particular article, look up the names of the plaintiffs in that case, and put in a post listing them, will be doing a public service.

      But when I say "RIAA" I'm talking about the 4 major record companies and their labels.
  • by yotto (590067) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:33PM (#19738591) Homepage
    RIAA et al have learned a valuable lesson here.

    In Texas, old ladies SUE YOU!
  • Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical@g m a i l.com> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:34PM (#19738601) Homepage
    Look, I'm all for the RIAA burning in hell. But I really hate the idea of having to use a "licensed" investigator. The following *is not* to be taken for a RIAA analogy:

    Let's say your laptop is stolen. Let's say you had a program that reported IP addresses. Someone buys your laptop from the thief for a stupid low price and hooks it up. It reports their IP. You turn the evidence over to a cop who goes to get your laptop.

    1. You were not licensed to be an investigator.
    2. The program author was also not licensed.
    3. The cop obtained evidence from you.

    The person who bought stolen property cannot be charged with a crime. All because you didn't have a "license".

    Instead, the law requiring a license should be replaced with a "suspects' bill of rights". Anyone can investigate, but if his/her rights are violated, then the evidence becomes poisoned fruit.
    • Re:Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fooker (656693) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:41PM (#19738665)
      Actually, that person can be charged with a crime, receiving stolen property. That whole investigating thing has to with if you were paid or not. You are not being paid to find your own stolen property. The RIAA paid another company to investigate for them. The key word is "company". IE a for profit organization. Thats where the whole "unlicensed investigators" thing comes in.
    • by Svartalf (2997) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:52PM (#19738741) Homepage
      YOU yourself can do this sort of thing, legally, even in Texas.

      What isn't legit is hiring someone without a proper license to do this professionally
      on your behalf. The same thing goes for providing security services of any kind (incl.
      cybersecurity...)- YOU can do it for yourself, but if you hire someone, you need to hire
      someone with a license or operating the umbrella of one to make it legit if something
      goes wrong.

      Where your analogy falls apart is that you make the assumption that a consultant doing
      the work is analogous to your doing the same work. It's not as far as the civil and
      criminal laws are concerned. Since the RIAA or the Labels themselves did not have direct
      hire employees doing this work, it's not the same thing as what you present- they hired
      a an outside professional (or group thereof) that didn't have a Federal
      license for the work being done or a Texas state PI's license. This makes it all subject
      to litigation like what's now happening to them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        What I'm wondering is at what point this becomes something actionable in the criminal courts? Sucking a few grand out of the RIAA in civil court is all well and good, but their shit isn't going to stop until they get dragged in front of a grand jury and it becomes a fullblown *criminal* investigation.

        Of course, meanwhile suits like this one become fodder for the evidence cannon...

    • Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:54PM (#19738755) Journal
      Let's say your laptop is stolen. Let's say you had a program that reported IP addresses. Someone buys your laptop from the thief for a stupid low price and hooks it up. It reports their IP. You turn the evidence over to a cop who goes to get your laptop.

      In addition to the objections others have pointed out, the situations are not analogous. Stealing your laptop is a criminal offense. Despite their propaganda, unlicensed copying of a RIAA member organization's content is a civil matter AND not theft.
  • Don't Mess With (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Wednesday July 04 2007, @12:34AM (#19740223) Journal
    Grannies From Texas. I know, I'm married to one.

    > [T]he private investigations company hired by plaintiffs engaged in one or more overt acts of unlawful private investigation... Such actions constitute civil conspiracy under Texas common law.

    Just so. Also, as noted in the p2p article their actions "amount to extortion". If someone says "If you do/do not do X, then I will/will not do Y", that's extortion. When it's done across state lines, it's a federal offense, and none of the plaintiffs are Texas corporations.

    I'm looking forward to the day someone manages to get charges filed rather than just filing suit, and someone from the MafIAA gets arrested. My money's on a state's attorney general doing it, and Texas is a very likely place for that to happen. In any case, KICK ASS, GRANNY!

    • by CorSci81 (1007499) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:07PM (#19738381) Journal

      courts amongst the layers
      Layers? Of cake? And do they have creamy filling?
      • Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rgmoore (133276) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @09:02PM (#19738795) Homepage

        Lawyers aren't the real problem, and getting rid of them isn't a solution. The underlying problem is that some people are anti-social jerks who have discovered that they can get their way by bullying others. Under our current system, the jerks hire lawyers to do their bullying for them. If you eliminate the lawyers, the jerks will just find a new set of bullies to do their dirty work.

        The real solution is to give ordinary, decent people a way of striking back when the bullies get on their case. Counter-suits, like the one mentioned in this article, are a good way of doing that. If everyone who was wrongly accused by the RIAA decided to launch a nasty counter-suit rather than caving in, the litigation strategy would grind to a halt- or at least focus on the worst, most obvious real offenders rather than people chosen at random.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The problem isn't the RIAA going around sueing innocent people (well not the big problem), the problem is corporate interests buying never-ending copyright and increasingly stricter punishments for doing anything that might possibly be used to violate said purchased perpetual copyright. The question becomes, what the bejesus can those of us who care (the nerdy minority) do?
          • Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

            by advocate_one (662832) on Wednesday July 04 2007, @06:18AM (#19741901)
            your signature is backwards...

            should read:


            "My right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs your right not to get blown up."

            • Re:Not The Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

              by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@bigfoot.com> on Wednesday July 04 2007, @12:23PM (#19745057) Journal

              Lawrence Lessig goes further. The ultimate problem isn't that the RIAA is bullying people with lawsuits. The lawsuits are enabled by the likes of the RIAA being able to buy the laws they think they want. And that in turn is enabled by our broken political system that can ignore the will and the good of us all in response to slick but wrong (even obviously wrong) PR campaigns or for the sake of a few measly campaign dollars.

              These PR campaigns and dollars come from a bunch of extremely short-sighted legal hustlers with no sense of civic responsibility. Swarm intelligence works when the individuals of the swarm actually think, but many of these special interests are too narrowly focused on getting handouts. The AARP is an example of this. Some years ago the AARP was pushing hard for more expansion to Social Security, Medicare, and so forth. The AARP was pushing for more than even a majority of their own members wanted! Had they got everything they asked for, the US might've gone broke during the dotcom burst. They only saw it as their "duty" to get everything they could for their "clients", and what that might do to the country wasn't even on their radar. That was someone else's problem. And that was only part of the game-- they ask for the moon, and hope when they get "cut" back, they'll be left with about what they really wanted. Sometimes however, they score bigger then they expected, and when that happens do they back off? Give some back? Heck no, take the money and run! And push for even more! It's be nice if our system was robust enough that they could push as hard as they like without fear of breaking anything, but our system doesn't seem to be quite up to that. When the AARP was pushing, Big Pharma was only too happy to help get a fat drug benefit "for seniors". And they got that part, most unfortunately. Now we all get to foot absolutely outrageous bills for drugs. Many other countries took the much more sensible approach of forcing Big Pharma to lower their prices.

              As Lessig said, it is totally against the public interest to have the extreme Intellectual Property laws we have these days, with copyright lasting 95(!!!) years, and our current berserk and broken patent system. Same goes for our crazy health care. Big Pharma is in many ways even more extreme than the RIAA/MPAA. Don't know what Lessig can do about it, but I suppose he's got something in mind.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Lawyers are like guns. They're not good or evil by themselves, whether they are depends on how you use them. Just because most use them for evil doesn't mean that the lawyers themselves are.

        Sure, there are the crooks that jump in joy every time they found a loophole in a law so they can milk some unsuspecting victim and basically collect protection money, due to his victim not understanding the law. They're basically the legal (as in "law world" not as in "allowed") equivalent of malware writers. Using the
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Well, the examples you cite don't lack lawyers, they lack laws. Or rather, they lack people caring about the laws. Because the laws that exist are not for, but against the people.

          And basically, to turn your argument back at you, this can and possibly will happen to the US as well if more and more laws made against instead of for the people enter the legal system. Sooner or later people will not be able anymore to see laws as rules made to protect them. They see them as oppressive tools used against them. An
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Wow, that makes me ... what's the opposite of dying a little inside?

      Not sure, could be any of the following.
      - Living a little inside
      - Living a little outside
      - Living a lot inside
      - Living a lot outside
      - Dying a little outside
      - Dying a lot outside
      - Dying a lot inside

      It all depends on what you want to reverse...

      I think it's great that people are fighting back against the RIAA. I completely support what the RIAA are meant to stand for (I.E. the anti-piracy thing) but their attitude, methods and motives are terrible.

    • by karnal (22275) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:34PM (#19738597)

      heh, don't send airhead PIs to mess with a little old lady who got through a level-5 hurricane. they're out of their league.
      I don't get it - is that some sort of comparison of strength or something in an RPG? Level-5 hurricane survivor FTW?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        FirstGov.gov is the U.S. Government's official Web portal to all Federal, state and local government Web resources and services.

        The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

        The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is a 1-5 rating based on the hurricane's present intensity. This is used to give an estimate of the potential property damage and flooding expected along the coast from a hurricane landfall. Wind speed is the determining factor in the scale, as storm surge values are highly dependent on the slope of the continenta
    • by modecx (130548) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @08:34PM (#19738599)
      Its the little old lady who got a subpoena
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      She got a mean nasty letter after fleeing hurricane Rita
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      It said "Hey, we caught you downloading our garbage,
      so we've hired a bunch of lawyers to sue you to Dodge!"

      And everybody's saying theres nobody meaner
      Than the mean nasty lawyers from the RIAAaaahhhh
      They sue real fast and with no good reason
      They're like "Grandmas should be in open season!"

      Its the little old lady who got a subpoena...

      You can see her on the stand telling the truth now
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      With her four lawyers and her bi-focal glasses now
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      "Them lousy RIAA jerks hired an investigator
      who would be better occupied as my personal masturbator!"

      You can see her on the stand her kickin' RIAA ass now
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      With her four salivating lawyers and her beehive hair now
      Go granny, go granny, go granny go
      She's gonna have an RIAA executive as her waiter
      cause they cant help being evil vindicators

      And everybodys saying theres nobody meaner
      Than the little old lady who got a subpoena
      She counter sues real fast and packs a punch
      They say She's out to eat some asshole's lunch...

      Its the little old lady who got a subpoena
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Basically I wonder why there ain't more lawyers jumping that train. I mean, think of it:

      1. The RIAA peppers the legal apparatus with lawsuits. It's a given that a fair lot of those won't stand a minute in court and pretty much beg for a countersuit.
      2. The RIAA has deep pockets that are ripe for picking. They can pay whatever sum you can convince the judge to grant you.
      3. Most people who got into a mess with the RIAA just want those suckers off their back. I.e. it's easy to get them to sign over not half, bu
      • Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Wednesday July 04 2007, @08:27AM (#19742841) Homepage Journal

        Basically I wonder why there ain't more lawyers jumping that train.
        It's a tremendous economic sacrifice and risk for any lawyer to take on the defense of any of these cases. You have no understanding of the economics at all. If you did, you'd understand why "there ain't hardly any lawyers jumping on that train". The RIAA will pay its lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars on any given case. How many of the defendants have the means and ability to pay their lawyers that kind of money?