Slashdot Log In
Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:35 PM
from the stuff-to-read-if-you're-insane dept.
from the stuff-to-read-if-you're-insane dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Recommended reading for all interested in the RIAA's litigation war against p2p file sharing is the amended class action complaint just filed in Oregon in Andersen v. Atlantic. This landmark 109-page document (pdf) tells both the general story of the RIAA's campaign against ordinary folks, and the specific story of its harassment of Tanya Andersen, and even of her young daughter. The complaint includes federal and state RICO claims, as well as other legal theories, and alleges that "The world's four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music." The point has been made by one commentator that the RIAA won't be able to weasel its out of this one by simply withdrawing it; this one, they will have to answer for. If the relief requested in the complaint is granted, the RIAA's entire campaign will be shut down for good."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
This could backfire (Score:3)
If they lose, this will 'shut them down', but if they win, we are screwed.
Re:This could backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me you said something else in another language that just looks like that phrase in English.
Sigh.
Gets ready for it to get worse.
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Are their new laws making it a criminal offense to even think about IP violations? Do we have federal IP cops going door to door to inspect everyone's computer that has internet access? Do we have them stopping people on the street to look at MP3 players? Do we have mandatory 'restricted access clients' installed on our PCs that have a internet connection to monitor our traffic PRE-encrypted and our files?
Yes, it CAN get worse. ( and will if we don't get this thing derailed in time )
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few things need to happen:
Firstly, the RIAA must be bitch-slapped. Hard. We need to show them what we do to groups who abuse the court system. No matter how much cause they have to be angry, we need to show them tough justice.
Secondly, all those pirates must also be bitch-slapped. Their contribution to this mess must not go unnoticed and unpunished. We need to make copyright infringement a criminal matter, and institute heavy p
Re:This could backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
No..., If they win.. everything will as it is right now... It can not get worse than this.
As a general rule that is almost infallible, there is nothing on God's Green Earth that "can't get worse." Maybe the sun exploding and wiping out the planet....that might qualify. Anything short of that, though.....Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would assume that there's a difference between "can get worse" and "likely will get worse."
You see, the fact that this case is now going forward IS progress. it's taken this long just to get the courts to notice that these evil rat bastards have been exploiting every loophole to keep their campaign going.
They have been using delay tactics for a very long time, trying to make it so inconvenient to continue the fight that we give up. It's nice to see that that is not going to work.
And you can say that if they win, it's over and we lose, but that's not true. This case will likely force people to take notice, and it's very likely that even if the RIAA were to win, they would likely be shut up and shut down by people higher than them, without any laws being passed and without any real paperwork trail.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW: if any of this happens (White house debacle) in a real company, did you know that they automatically lose any lawsuit that has a grounded basis in those documents?
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that their tactic was:
1)"illegally enter the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there". That was MediaSentry's job.
2) Fill "thousands" of anonymous lawsuits, only to subpoena the ISP, and then "discover" the IPs that they already illegaly found. The lawsuit is then discarded, having served it's purpose.
3) Profit, by settling out of court, harrassing and such.
I thought I was pretty well informed on those things, and yet it's the first time I hear about that. It sheds a very new light on the fact that they often couldn't give the proofs. (What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the assumption that the RIAA's attorneys care about that. I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement. Suing innocent people just makes the RIAA's lawsuit mill appear even more intimidating.
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:4, Informative)
It's been demonstrated that the recovering of "damages" is their primary goal. They set up a fscking Settlement Support Center [p2pnet.net] as a for-profit corporation to streamline their extortion. If they're just trying to scare people, why do they need a new corporation (which has it's own army of lawyers) to process the payments?
Scaring people is just a happy side-effect. The "settlements" are revenue-generating.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Informative)
For example, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth recently pointed out [blogspot.com] that
(a) MediaSentry has no license to conduct investigations in Michigan (b) MediaSentry needs a license to conduct investigations in Michigan (c) MediaSentry appears to have been conducting investigations in Michigan and (d) the penalty for conducting investigations without a license in Michigan includes up to 4 years in prison.
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This could backfire (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the Napster case was settled shortly thereafter.
Parent
You didn't answer the "Bubba" part :-) (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to say that I loved (though I thought it might be just a "bit" over the top) the description of Media Sentry's business. "Defendant MediaSentry is in the business of conducting illegal, flawed and personally invasive private investigations of private citizens in many states throughout the United State ..."
Congratulations to the team that put this together. A wonderful document that I'm sure will keep the judge's interest!!
Now I'm wondering what the settlement might entail, and there doesn't
Well, well, well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, well, well... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, since I live in NZ, they're not our overlords yet, but we do have the RIANZ down here, who are cut from the same cloth.
In fact, here it's illegal to make any copies of music at all. Hence, until the iTMS arrived, it was a pretty good bet that almost all music on any digital devices was illegally uploaded. Law changes are proposed, and the RIANZ wants to keep the law the same, but they give their word they won't chase the little guy, but want the law to remain the same just in case.
Parent
Re:Well, well, well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, since I live in NZ, they're not our overlords yet, but we do have the RIANZ down here, who are cut from the same cloth.
In fact, here it's illegal to make any copies of music at all. Hence, until the iTMS arrived, it was a pretty good bet that almost all music on any digital devices was illegally uploaded. Law changes are proposed, and the RIANZ wants to keep the law the same, but they give their word they won't chase the little guy, but want the law to remain the same just in case.
Yup. And judging from the comments that came back from the select committee that reviewed the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill [parliament.nz] last year (I made a submission; hope you did too), there's a huge amount of resistance to changing that. The Bill, if it is ever passed, does include (at the moment) a limited exception for format-shifting audio recordings for personal use, but only audio recordings; even that has met a lot of resistance.
I guess all those videos I've got on my iPod are going to remain forever illegal, then. Politicians seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that it is just dumb to keep somehing illegal when not only is everyone doing it, but everyone is morally right to do it.
For reference, the Green Party is the only party to have opposed the DMCA-like DRM circumvention measures in the bill.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That only hold true if the goal of the politician is to serve the people. If the goal of the politician is to have power over the people or to serve someone who wants to have power over the people, then having the majority of the people open to prosecution at your leisure is a very useful tool. Most parking and speeding tickets
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the last pages of the PDF. There is a request for a public trial. I hope they post the dates and place. I would make the trip to sit in on it and as you suggest, wave goodbye. More important, I want to shake her hand.
unprofessional (Score:5, Interesting)
In June 2003, the RIAA publicly announced that it would begin a campaign that
would involve thousands of threats and sham lawsuits against individuals.
It goes on and on like this... plaintiff repeatedly referring to them as sham lawsuits, and in many cases, as above, suggesting that even the defendant acknowledged them as such.
Now don't get me wrong, I think all the lawyers representing RIAA and all principals of the record companies should be in jail (or worse). But this suit reads as inredibly amateurish to me, and if I were the judge I would get pretty irritated by being repeatedly told what to think, rather than the facts of the case.
keep reading, it gets better. (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest you keep reading, the best parts have references. Yes, there are about six or seven pages of introductory opinion but by the time you get to page 7 you start to get into the meat of it. They quote three disgusted Federal judges who use terms like, "gamesmenship", "speculation" and "hammer" to describe the suits. By the time you finish, terms like "sham", "illegal" and "outrageous" sound accurate.
Parent
Re:unprofessional (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:unprofessional (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
"killing dolphins" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's 'way past time we came up with an expression to represent the current situation. Perhaps, "Killing Weasels".
The phrase itself could be something like, "When you're shooting rats near the henhouse, it's inevitable that you're going to hit an occasional weasel." This would cover the RIAA thugs the record companies have hired, as well as the scumbags who actually run the Big Four.
Re:"killing dolphins" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
This sounds great on the face of it ... (Score:2)
Already Slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)
Technicality, but still... (Score:4, Informative)
That would be an oligopoly, not a monopoly. "Monopoly" means "one seller". We have four fish to fry here.
Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be difficult to enforce judgment against the "Big 4" directly. If I understand it correctly, the RIAA operates as a separate entity from them, and unless it is shown that the corporate veil can be pierced [wikipedia.org]. This is typically difficult, though I imagine there is a smoking gun somewhere in the RIAA-Big 4 correspondence that shows that the RIAA is a front.
Class actions are much more difficult to get a judgment on than regular actions. In general (and in essence), for a Judge to feel comfortable ruling on the class, they must be convinced that the issues particular to individuals in the class are not more difficult to figure out than that of the issues in common. The standard typically ranges from "a class action is the best way to resolve the common issues" to "a class action is the best way to resolve the dispute". The latter is significantly more difficult to prove - the Court must be satisfied that the issues specific to each individual do not outweigh the overall issues the members of the putative class have in common (and there is no way cheaper-than-individual-litigation to resolve these individual issues). That's a mouthful, but class actions inherently balance the rights of many people who do not have legal counsel against a defendant with a substantial interest.
The court will also want a very clear and well defined class of people. Because the judgment of the court may preclude people from bringing future actions against the RIAA, there is typically a requirement of notice to the members of the class. This notice typically includes instructions on how to opt out of the class proceeding so that you can bring your own action (for mandatory opt-in jurisdictions; some are optional opt-out). If you fail to opt out within a specified time period, you may be bound to the judgment. In this case, the class is pretty trivial - people who have been wrongly sued.
That leads to an interesting point: Will the members of the class are people who have been wrongly sued, or those who have been wrongly sued and where the RIAA has already lost.
This action is a minefield for nuanced issues, like the above and others. I wish counsel the best. You can rest assured that if the Big 4 defendants perceive any exposure, they are dumping their excess resources into a legal defence.
Re:'big 4' and RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
Music is an activity, but the problem is more important than entertainment. If people are not allowed to make and share verbatim copies of electronic media, there can be no public libraries. DRM is not an answer to your problem either. The only way to enforce your way of doing things is so deeply unAmerican that no one is going to accept it. We can not allow third party control of our computers because our computers are also our press. What you are left with is reinterpreting the copyright establishment clause of the constitution in a way that still encourages publication. The simple, American solution is 180 degrees of where you are. If someone else makes money with your work, you can demand your fair share. Everything else should be allowed. A simple system like that will be good for everyone.
Parent
Re:Simple Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
We currently have two majors oligopolies in this country. The members of the RIAA and the MPAA are what form these. The (please pardon this term) mafiaa are controlling and setting prices in such a way that is detrimental to the circulation of media.
It should also be mentioned that very few artists will suffer in the slightest from a situation in which music is freely distributable . I suspect that many artists would benefit from it. Especially the lesser known artists. Has anyone forgotten about concerts? These people are performers. What do performers do best besides, well, perform? I will admit that there are some artists who create in such a manner as to disallow for performances. These would be the only ones I can think of that would be damaged at all by this. Although, these ones could still find jobs in other areas. For instance, making music for various companies that require music for a particular reason. Or perhaps allow the music to be freely downloadable from an ad-based site? Even so, it would help more artists than it would hurt, in the end.
Then again, who am I to know these things? It's everyone else that has to see the world like this. So, someone give me a damn good argument. : )
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We will never be able to completely equalized the value of any ART (Music, paintings, photos, dance, etc) to the originators. As long as money is involved there will be greed. The Artists as a CLASS are horribly undervalued for what they do. And no Armani wearing Suit is really going to ever sound credible talking about how much the artists are not getting paid when famous musicians are surfing couches because they didn't see anything out of the record that got them a Grammy. Big Record compa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have this long post in my head, planned out, talking about "what is a record label?". It's really just a bank, where they loan you money, then dictate how you spend it, and want an insane interest rate. How really, you should pay a recording studio with cash/loaned money if you want to make an album, then just distribute digitally, etc. But, rather than that, I think I'll quote a post I saw. This is from a forum on a torrent tracker that deals in underground punk rock and where posting an album that e
Re:Simple Mind (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole POINT of copyrights and patents was a simple trade-we give you a SMALL set amount of time to profit,and in return we the people got a richer public domain and plenty for artists to use as a basis for new works.But now it is so broken that even a 2 second sample of a twenty year old song can get you sued,and the industry expects their great grandchildren to be able to profit from the artists of decades long past. And today's generation is not nearly as stupid as the lawmakers believe-they grew up in the age of technology and can see the hypocrisy and greed of those in power.
Do they REALLY believe that the average kid is going to care about copying a song put out by a bunch that buys politicians and screws the artists every chance they get? My oldest nephew is about as goody goody as they come,but when I asked him about the movie and record companies recently he had a quick answer-"Greedy disgusting pigs".They might as well give it up.Unjust laws will only be tolerated as long as you can get the public to buy into them.Hell even my 67 yr old mom who wouldn't know P2P if it bit her on the butt thinks it is disgusting the way so many companies are screwing folks on music and movies.The recent news story about how the RIAA went and talked to that little girl in her school without her moms consent really had her and grandma steamed.And the kids of my nephews generation by an overwhelming majority see this mess for what it is-another greedy bunch of corporations buying our laws so they can screw the little guy some more.Are they going to lock an entire generation up? But as always my 02c on the subject,YMMV.
Parent
Re:Simple Mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, I rather agree with your idea as to how copyright was originally implemented. It's difficult to profit off of something that is reproducible. At least, it used to be. Copyright law exists to allow artists and creators an amount of time to profit off of their work. This is strange, though. Few researchers continue profiting off of their work throughout their lifetimes. One could argue that researching is an art, though. I might be biased in this regard; but, it seems unfair for one party to be able to continuously profit off of work that they've done once while another party must continue working through their life in order to continue profiting. Don't get me wrong. I understand the idea of investing and profiting off of an investment. Though, one could hardly consider producing art to be an investment. Art is not something that is to be managed. It is something to be distributed. Therein lies the key difference.
An example that might stretch too far for most involves feudal Japan. The Japanese used to view the merchant class as the lowest class in their caste system. The reason being because they profited off of the work of others while doing very little work themselves. This can extend to today's modern band. Certainly, writing songs is difficult. So is learning to play them well. That's not what this is getting at, though. The act of recording an album and profiting off of it for hundreds of thousands of dollars is what I think is wrong. I can't say that I'm capable of respecting any band for profiting off of that. I will, on the other hand, respect them for doing concerts and selling merchandise. They're being paid for tangible products and providing a service. Though, when one purchases an album, they're only purchasing the physical medium coupled with the right to listen to the songs on the album. They've never actually purchased the music.
Parent
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't mind lawyers getting rich. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)