Class Action Initiated Against RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Ever since the RIAA's litigation campaign began in 2003, many people have been suggesting a class action against the RIAA. Tanya Andersen, in Oregon, has taken them up on it. The RIAA's case against this disabled single mother, Atlantic v. Andersen, has received attention in the past, for her counterclaims against the RIAA including claims under Oregon's RICO statute, the RIAA's hounding of her young daughter for a face-to-face deposition, the RIAA's eventual dropping of the case 'with prejudice,' and her lawsuit against the RIAA for malicious prosecution, captioned Andersen v. Atlantic. Now she's turned that lawsuit into a class action. The amended complaint seeking class action status (PDF) sues for negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy."

Re:About time someone did this

[AltGrendel]

Unless you were approached by the RIAA, the most you can do is cheer them on [wikipedia.org].

In addition to RIAA ...

[xednieht]

she names a number of other defendants including:
Atlantic Recording Corp.
Priority Records
Capitol Records
UMG Recordings
BMG

And lets not forget that RIAA is just a front organization for a host of others listed here --> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=271437&cid =20249893 [slashdot.org]

The Association has no product per se, the alleged racketeering is therefore being funded by it's members.

I wish her luck as well a success.

Re:About time someone did this

[obsolete1349]

* EMI - New York and London
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment - New York
* Universal Music Group - Santa Monica, CA and New York
* Warner Music Group - New York

List of RIAA member labels [wikipedia.org] for more information.

Let's get those bastards.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What are your estimates of this case's success? I'd rather hear it from the expert than Slashdot's myriad self-described ones.

My guess is that there will be substantial motion practice involving (a) defendants' attempts to dismiss as many of the theories as they can, and (b) certification of a class. If at the end of all of that a class is certified by the Court, the RIAA has a big problem, and will probably have to come to terms with Ms. Andersen and those she represents.

The vast majority of class actions are neither won, nor lost, but settled. In this case, I would imagine that the defendants' shareholders are already starting to wake up to the reality that they have been played for suckers by their lawyers, and the companies will be most eager to settle.

Re:About time someone did this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I agree, but how? NewYorkCountryLawyer, where can we direct our support and/or funds???

Ms. Andersen's attorneys. Their contact information is at the top of the first page of the amended complaint.

Re:Asking for too much

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't think I said 50%. I think I said that less than 50% of the defendants are people who actually did engage in file sharing.

Re:Asking for too much

[knight24k]

Remember folks, many, if not most, of the *IAAs victims are technically guilty. True, the RIAA and friends are coming down on them unnecessarily hard, but it's not like they are truly innocent. It's the innocent ones that, thankfully, get the nice press.

Really? Says who? How do you know the bulk were not just strong armed into an agreement because they weren't quite sure if they were innocent or not? OR even if they knew they were innocent, they just didn't have the finances to defend themselves. This isn't criminal court where they are guaranteed a state defender if they can't afford one. This is civil court and they are SOL if they can't defend themselves.

You are buying into this same *IAA BS that they *only* go after the guilty. Fact is you don't know if the majority are factually or technically guilty and it doesn't matter either way. IF they were in fact guilty, it still does not give the *IAA the permission to engage in predatory and/or illegal practices in prosecuting their case. Just as it doesn't give the government the right to violate laws to obtain a confession or guilty verdict in a criminal case. You don't get a "bye" to violate laws because you were chasing actual people violating the law.

The fact that many or most of the defendants are actually guilty will greatly weaken any class-action suit.

Exactly how many cases have been concluded with a determination of guilt in favor of the *IAA? There may have been some, but I am not aware of any offhand. I do not believe that settlements out of court count in this regard but then again, IANAL. I don't think you can show out of court settlements as proof of anything other than the previous vict...err defendants settled. Depending on the wording of those settlements they may clearly state that without admitting any guilt they accept the settlement, blah, blah, blah. Hardly something the *IAA could use to bolster their case in this regard.

Again, even if the majority are guilty technically or otherwise it doesn't give the *IAA a blank check to violate other laws in pursuing them.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Am I correct in thinking that if she decides to settle without this coming to a conclusion in court, that nothing of any good would come out of this for anyone else that might choose to go on the offensive against the **AA? Can you use the verdict of a class action suit as a precedent for another class action suit, or is that kind of thing only reserved for other types of cases? If she did decide that she had a good chance of winning, and stuck it out to a verdict, and if it was decided in her favor, would that open the door for others to use that as precedence in their own class action suits against the **AA?

Most likely any settlement would involve a consent decree against the RIAA's practices and would include a settlement fund, so yes a lot of good would come from it. The consent decree would probably have a permanent and lasting value.

Re:I disagree.

[PitaBred]

People aren't COMPLETELY retarded. Only mostly. If there's an increase in accidents, people will slow down. And the solution is to put a speed limit NEAR what people are going through the area at. If people are going 50 past a school zone, yeah, that's an issue. But if it's a limited-access highway and everyone is going 75 even though the speed limit is 45? That's just poor design or greed. If you're concerned about safety, set the speed limit there up from 45 to 60 or 65. That way people will have a reasonable top speed they'll want to go, you'll keep people slightly slower overall, and everyone is happy. Commuters get where they're going faster, and ambulances still have very few people to scrape off the retaining walls.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"defendants' attempts to dismiss as many of the theories as they can" No kidding. Sues for "negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy." If I were sitting on this I'd take the above as a signal they don't have a strong case on any specific point, so they're throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the suit hoping that something will stick.

Well you would be taking the wrong signal. All it signals is that lawyers are trained to be careful and include all of their theories.

Re:About Time!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Correct, "piracy" is not right. But the rampant ripping off of the RIAA and other such companies/organizations is more so. I put piracy in quotes as it is not really piracy. Piracy would be downloading songs, burning to disk, and selling for more than the medium cost - for example out of a car trunk. Downloading music to put on your MP3 player for personal use is copyright violation, but is not piracy. Allowing others to download from you for free is copyright violation (unauthorized distribution) but is not piracy.

Thank you for bringing to people's attention the meaning of the term 'copyright piracy'; the RIAA has been deliberately trying to distort the meaning of the term by suggesting that every act of copyright infringement is an act of 'copyright piracy', while in fact the term has a well known meaning among copyright lawyers, which is wholly inapplicable to any of the RIAA's cases against consumers.

I would just like to clarify, however, that simply "Allowing others to download from you for free" would not necessarily be an "unauthorized distribution" under the Copyright Act, the elements of which are spelled out in 17 USC 106(3) [cornell.edu]. To qualify as a Copyright Act "distribution" there must be
(I) dissemination of
(II) actual copies
(III) to the public
(IV) by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
See reply memorandum of law in Warner v. Cassin [ilrweb.com] (pdf), especially pages 3-4, and initial memorandum of law [ilrweb.com] (pdf), especially pages 3-6.

Re:I disagree.

[Maestro4k]

People aren't COMPLETELY retarded. Only mostly. If there's an increase in accidents, people will slow down. And the solution is to put a speed limit NEAR what people are going through the area at.

In fact this is how speed limits are supposed to be determined, it's called the 85th percentile speed, the speed at or below which 85% of traffic moves. There's a good article here [kentcountyroads.net] explaining how it works. One pertinent quote is this one:

Contrary to popular belief, lower speed limits do not necessarily improve safety. The more uniform the speeds of vehicles in a traffic stream, the less chance there is for conflict or crashes. Posting speed limits lower or higher than what the majority of drivers are traveling produces two distinct groups of drivers: 1) those attempting to observe the speed limit and 2) those driving at speeds they feel are reasonable and prudent. These differences can result in increased crashes due to tailgating, improper passing, and reckless driving.

So deliberately posting a speed limit below the 85th percentile speed is not only greedy, it's likely to get more people killed as well. The only benefit is to allow more tickets to be written. Personally I'd prefer to see less people wreck.

Laws on speed limits are modeled after this [ibiblio.org], and should be nearly the same in all states in the US. As someone pointed out on Slashdot before (which is where I learned all this), you can often get out of a speeding ticket by asking if a traffic survey has been done recently on the road in question. (These have to be done every so many years to ensure the speed limit is still at the 85th percentile speed, it can change over time.) If one hasn't been done in the required time the speed limit's not valid as far as enforcement goes, and if the speed posted doesn't agree with the survey you're also likely to have your ticket dismissed. I've never tried this myself (I try not to speed nowadays myself) and it'll probably vary somewhat depending on where you're located and also on the judge you deal with, but speed limits are supposed to make sense so that only the truly dangerous drivers are breaking them. If everyone's speeding then it's definitely not the 85th percentile speed.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[RobBebop]

IANAL... but here's a layman's guess to justify the claims....

• negligence - The RIAA initiated lawsuits without significant evidence
• fraud - Evidence was faked (RIAA probably didn't do this)
• negligent misrepresentation - RIAA attacked an I.P. address instead of a person, then later found out anybody who recently held that I.P. address.
• federal and state RICO - RICO stands for "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations", and the quantity of lawsuits pursued by the RIAA seem to suggest they are a Racket.
• abuse of process - Attempts to rush trials or start trials with the intent to offer a "payment plan" to extort money without following through in court.
• malicious prosecution - They sued children
• intentional infliction of emotional distress - They sued children who belonged to single mother's who absolutely couldn't afford the extortionary settlements
• violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - This seems like a beefed up accusation of the generalized negligance/abuse/malicious accusations above.
• trespass - Did the RIAA have any right viewing the lists of songs on the computers of the citizens that they are accusing?
• invasion of privacy - Did the RIAA have any right to petition the ISP to identify who had an I.P. address at a particular time?
• libel and slander - Any time you say somebody did something negative that they didn't do - it is libel and slander.
• deceptive business practices - I don't know how deceptive the RIAA has been, but any organization that is formed to sue its customers certainly has questionable business practices.
• misuse of copyright law - Have they ever sued for a song that was not copyrighted, or for a file named "Metalica - Enter Sandman.mp3" that actually contained a recording of the sound it makes when I take a piss? That would seem like abuse to me.
• civil conspiracy - I'm not sure what this means... maybe this accusation is a reach too...

===

By the way, THANK YOU NewYorkCountryLawyer for your time and energy to bring these stories to Slashdot and for your pursuit of change within an industry that is so important to us. It is more than music that is at stake... it is culture... and without that then life become one big huge business - and it wouldn't be any fun for anybody.