Granny Sues RIAA Over Unlicensed Investigator 206
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.'"
I wonder if she's from Pasadena? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder if she's from Pasadena? (Score:2)
She is either very smart or hired a good? shyster.
Please pay for your copyright violation. (Score:3, Funny)
Signed,
The RIAA
Re:Please pay for your copyright violation. (Score:2)
Lawyers Rock (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers Rock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lawyers Rock (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lawyers Rock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lawyers Rock (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers Rock (Score:4, Funny)
I kid, I kid.
Not really (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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:Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lack of knowledge on their victim's side for their benefit.
The other ones, the "antivirus lawyers" do exist. They're fewer, as the general drive to become one seems to stem from the urge to get more money rather than actually helping people with their legal needs, but they do exist.
Arms Dealers Rock Too (Score:2, Insightful)
But of course they're supplying the other side as well, and making a profit from all conflict.
The US is in the crappy state it's in because of lawyers. The fact that that granny's lawyer happens to be fighting an evil cartel of blood-sucking music industry parasites sounds nice, but it's just business as usual for a profession predicated on causing misery so that they can defend against it.
Re:Arms Dealers Rock Too (Score:2)
That seems dubious to me. If this were Somalia or Russia, there'd be no lawyers involved because granny would have been gunned down on the sidewalk.
The legal system might too often be a tool of oppression against the powerless, but it sure beats the other kind of oppression. You know, the kind with bullets.
-Isaac
Re:Arms Dealers Rock Too (Score:2)
Re:Arms Dealers Rock Too (Score:3, Insightful)
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. And that in turn is a surefire way to make people not care about them.
A legal system that isn't enforced by dictatorship means requires the backing of the people. The legal system in democracies relies on the majority of people wanting to uphold the law. It relies on people understanding and supporting the laws and that the restrictions these laws imply (and yes, not being allowed to club my neighbour for his new stereo is a restriction) are for their benefit (because my neighbour can't either to get my new PC).
If this system gets crooked, because you, the common man, don't get protection from the law but only restrictions (some countries of the former Soviet block come to mind), people stop caring about the laws and start wondering how they can circumvent them with the least chance of getting caught. Not in small scales (hey, there's criminals everywhere), but in everyday life.
Every other day (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Every other day (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Every other day (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Every other day (Score:3, Insightful)
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 too much money, to serve the real goals of the RIAA.
Re:Every other day (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Every other day (Score:2)
Well, they convinced me: I have purchased enough CDs over the years to listen for months without hearing a repeat. Nowadays the only CDs I purchase are from local acts, to help support them. Plus, it's nice to talk to the artist and be appreciated, rather than "another face in the crowd of 50,000" at a stadium as they're whisked away by their security.
What's amusing is that Metallica was Napster's biggest "advertiser" back in the mid-90s.
Perhaps I'm just old, and music isn't as important as other things in life.
Re:Every other day (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lot more businesses want our kids' money. Cellphones, consoles, trading card games and a few more compete for that money. So kids cut down in spending. And, well, they cut down where it's easiest. You can't copy TCG cards, you can't hack the phone company to lower your cell bill, so...
Good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the puppeteers, not the puppet, that needs to be demonized.
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Well that explains a lot.
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 sueing for (some have indicated that it's possible).
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Then they will continue to suck at the teat of the member companies for time immemorial!!!
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)
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//
If only boycotts worked (Score:3, Interesting)
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 Youtube: The sort of people where those that buy SONY guy congregate. Reach out. Let them know why to hate the RIAA, no, call them by their real names Sony, Universal Music, EMI etc. Better yet, list the artists since most kids won't know which artist _belongs_ to which record company. Sure some won't go along with it, but so long as SONY see dropping sales, the message will get across.
To the SONY web watcher reading this: eat me
Re:If only boycotts worked (Score:3)
fwiw.
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
I'm betting that most people reading this thread know exactly which companies are responsible. As I work in a local PC shop, I get a chance to steer lots of people clear of all sorts of Sony products, and tell them who else is going after people {Warner is another good target.} The best thing we all can do is inform everyone around us, non-technical types [especially] included.
Re:Good, but... (Score:2)
Can I ask everybody to stop repeating this without thinking. RIAA means Record Industry Association. It represents the entire industry, and hurts the collective image of labels as a whole, even non-RIAA ones.
If people really decide to boycott labels, they'd go against any label, and probably go for independent artists. Thing is, such boycott conspiracy is almost impossible, since too many people will want to just buy the latest smash single of *some-star-of-the-day* the industry produced.
Re:Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)
But when I say "RIAA" I'm talking about the 4 major record companies and their labels.
you GO, girl! (Score:2)
Re:you GO, girl! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you GO, girl! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml [noaa.gov]
first result on google, dude! it's not like filing a legal counterclaim or anything
Re:you GO, girl! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 continental shelf and the shape of the coastline, in the landfall region. Note that all winds are using the U.S. 1-minute average.
Category One Hurricane:
Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Also, some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage. Hurricane Lili of 2002 made landfall on the Louisiana coast as a Category One hurricane. Hurricane Gaston of 2004 was a Category One hurricane that made landfall along the central South Carolina coast.
Category Two Hurricane:
Winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Storm surge generally 6-8 feet above normal. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings. Considerable damage to shrubbery and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood 2-4 hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotected anchorages break moorings. Hurricane Frances of 2004 made landfall over the southern end of Hutchinson Island, Florida as a Category Two hurricane. Hurricane Isabel of 2003 made landfall near Drum Inlet on the Outer Banks of North Carolina as a Category 2 hurricane.
Category Three Hurricane:
Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain continuously lower than 5 ft above mean sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences with several blocks of the shoreline may be required. Hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan of 2004 were Category Three hurricanes when they made landfall in Florida and in Alabama, respectively.
Category Four Hurricane:
Winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Storm surge generally 13-18 ft above normal. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failures on small residences. Shrubs, trees, and all signs are blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Extensive damage to doors and windows. Low-lying escape routes may be cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain lower than 10 ft above sea level may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of residential areas as far inland as 6 miles (10 km). Hurricane Charley of 2004 was a Category Four hurricane made landfall in Charlotte County, Florida with winds of 150 mph. Hurricane Dennis (pdf) of 2005 struck the island of Cuba as a Category Four hurricane.
From NOAA.gov
Category Five Hurricane:
Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with
I guess in Texas... (Score:5, Funny)
In Texas, old ladies SUE YOU!
Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
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:2)
Re:Licensing (Score:2)
Re:Licensing (Score:2)
Re:Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Licensing (Score:2)
2) Debatable, you could argue it is the same as putting an alarm or GPS on your car. It is a theft deterrant and/or retrieval device.
3) That's what cops do, they get info from the victim to find the criminal and presumably put them behind bars or make them pay.
Your analogy is flawed... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Your analogy is flawed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, meanwhile suits like this one become fodder for the evidence cannon...
I stand corrected on that one part... (Score:2)
Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:2)
PS, how do you like that "absconding" eh? Totally blurs the line between "theft" and "copyright infringement" pretty clever for a PUI - posting under the influence, eh?
Or maybe not, considering how drunks think they are soooo clever when they really aren't.
Damn!
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:2)
>>Stealing your laptop is a criminal offense.
So is copyright infringement. The beginning of every movie tells you so.
No. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, that's why the RIAA is suing everybody...in civil court. Counterfeiting, on the other hand, may be what you're thinking of, which is the manufacture and/or distribution of copyrighted material without authorization. Any copyright infringement suits brought as a result of someone being busted for counterfeiting will be brought...in civil court.
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
Title 17, circular 92, chapter, 506 of the U.S. Code says this: "Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
(The remaining subpart of this paragraph covers criminal offenses in copyright law other than copyright infringement)
So copyright infringement in the US is a criminal offense if its willful AND is either done for profit or if the retail value of all the works are above $1,000. The reason the RIAA sues in civil court is because they a) know that the damages they claim are punitive enough, and the burden of evidence in a civil claim are lower (balance of probabilities vs. reasonable doubt), b) know that they'd have a lot harder time convincing a DA that their evidence would stand up in a criminal trial or be worth the resources to pursue. It's simly a far more cost-effective way of achieving their objectives.
Re:Licensing (Score:2)
In America (Score:2)
Note to Ray (Score:2)
To paraphrase a phrase I once heard, I'd say about you:
He mined the power of Slashdot.
Re:Note to Ray (Score:2)
Re:Note to Ray (Score:3, Funny)
No kidding. These people are scary.
how to retaliate directly (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't Mess With (Score:5, Interesting)
> [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!
Re:Don't Mess With (Score:2)
I have learned this lesson by proxy. Anytime I met someone young gentleman from Texas, he was unfailingly polite. First I was saying, that it must be all the guns everyone is carrying around, but they do that in New Hampshire too and they are some mean sons of witches there. So if its not the guns, it must be the Grannies!
This is not good (Score:2)
The first time I had to go to court in Texas, was when I was in a minor car accident. I got a bill from the other person for $4093.27 in damage to the vehicle. When I showed them the police report that said their was no vehicle damage, I got a bill for $4093.27 for medical bills for a named individual, when I showed them that the named person was not listed on the accident report I got a bill for $4093.27 to cover the medical bill of the driver.
When I went to court I showed the judge the 3 bills, the accident report, and said that I thought the charges were bogus. The judge told the plantiffs attorney that he didn't know the law in this situation, and asked her what he should do. The attorney for the plantiff said that I wasn't allowed to question the bill, that I couldn't review the actual medical bill because it was private information. So he had no choice but to rule in their favor.
My first mistake was thinking that I didn't need a defense lawyer for something that was so obvious. My second mistake was assuming that a Texas judge knew what a clue was, yet alone find it. The judge pulled my drivers license for 2 years for not paying the bill before it got to court. I had no prior record before this. Because the "only" reason that someone loses their license in Texas is a DWI, they filed the suspension on the same paperwork as a DWI. I had to get a notorized letter from the court explaining that I did not have a DWI on my record in order to look for a job for the next 10 years. They would all run background checks and pass me over. I had one headhunter tell me that he couldn't take me because of the DWI conviction or I would have never known why I wasn't getting hired.
The person before me had 4 prior DWIs and was there for his 5th, he got deferred adjudication with 2 months probation, and got to keep his license.
Texas justice is not going to save us from the RIAA. If this was any other place, we might have had a chance.
Re:And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And yet... (Score:2)
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And yet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
No need to single-click in Windows (Score:3, Informative)
In XP, it's under the file/directory window's Tools->Folder-Options... dialog, on the General tab. Select "Single click to open an item (point to select)".
IIRC, this was called "Web View" when first introduced; it was supposed to make the computer interface more consistent with that of a web browser. I'm not sure that many people use it... except me.
For some reason, I tried it out when I was learning 95, and kept it that way. This didn't strike me as being strange until right now, when I consciously thought about it. Although I like web-view in some ways, it's also a nuisance when you're trying to select multiple files, particularly from thumbnails- incorrectly hovering can lead to files being deselected (and so on). Not sure why I didn't change back- habit, I guess.
Re:Grandma's are young now adays... (Score:2)
Re:The RIAA is such a broken record.... (Score:4, Funny)
Jimmy
Re:The RIAA is such a broken record.... (Score:2, Funny)
Nah - it's handled by the automatic deduction off the royalties for breakage.
RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, her lawyer knew enough to discover this information and file this anyway...
You'll recall from an earlier article that Tanya Anderson's lawyer (in Oregon) http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename
Texas has a similar requirement for private investigators to be licensed. So THIS granny's attorney is filing a copycat countersuit. This is the second buffalo in the stampede.
I expect we'll shortly see television ads from the law offices of James Sokolove asking whether you have received a settlement request from the RIAA, which is about to be nibbled to death by ducks. B-)
Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:4, Funny)
You'll recall from an earlier article [slashdot.org] that Tanya Anderson's lawyer (in Oregon) found a number of grounds [ilrweb.com] on which to countersue.
[...]
I expect we'll shortly see television ads from the law offices of James Sokolove [jimsokolove.com] asking whether you have received a settlement request from the RIAA [...]
Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:5, Funny)
You wouldn't say that if you were standing in front of them. 8^)
Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... (Score:2)
Does that mean the attorney can expect a threatening letter from the LIAA (Legal Industry Association of America)?
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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.
Its the little old lady who got a subpoena (Score:5, Funny)
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:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena-D/L (Score:5, Funny)
Oops, WinMX is down.
Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena (Score:2)
Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena (Score:2)
Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There's no reason to hunt them all down (Score:5, Funny)
Yarr!
Re:Kicking butt? (Score:2)
If this were a ball game, I still don't like the score. The number of cases in court verses the number who have rolled over and paid the settlement letter is huge.
The game isn't over yet. Between the boycott on CD's, the bad PR, and the defense getting into shape and warmed up getting stronger, the last quarter of the game will be worth front row seats. It's going to be exciting to watch the goliath fall as David shows others how to win. Not everyone turned and ran when Goliath challanged the little people.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
-Mike
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
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, but all of the settlement just to get out of the hassle.
The way I see it, if there's a get-rich-quick scheme in the legal world, it's defending people against the frivulous RIAA suits.
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
So far I thought it's the same in the US?
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
General rule: each side pays his or her own fees.
Generally lawyer gets paid by the hour.
Lawyer works for "contingent" fee usually only in certain specialized, well-understood areas of the law. E.g., personal injury, tax certiorari, workers compensation, collections.
"Malicious prosecution" cases don't arise until after the earlier case was won by the defendant, which would take years. The malicious prosecution case would then take a number of additional years to play out. Any lawyer who tried to make a living defending cases and doing "malicious prosecution" cases after winning them would be bankrupt very quickly.
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hell Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)