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."

Who could join?

[downix]

Would this be just by people they hve harassed, or against any potential target? This leaves the door very open to wild interpretation untill we get clarification.

how do I get in.....

[Roskolnikov]

How do I get in this class? do I purchase music? do I pose as someone downloading music? can I turn myself into the riaa in the hopes that they can include me in the pay out?

These folks chasing after a 10 year old is one thing, but I seem to recall they went after a dead man as well, can't wait to see how this plays out.

Re:About time someone did this

[HoosierPeschke]

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

Re:About time someone did this

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Technically, I never paid the artist anything. I paid the vendor (Best Buy, Amazon, etc). The money trail eventually leads back to the label (BMG, EMI, etc) who then pays the artists. If the artists aren't getting paid I'd check out the people who sign the checks (BMG, EMI, etc). If you didn't get your paycheck, would you go after your customers or your employer?

Can Artists Get Back Their Copyrights?

[davide marney]

IANAL, but if RIAA's practices are found to be illegal, can the artists sue to regain their rights?

If I have some intellectual property, sell the copyrights to someone else, and that person then uses those rights to break the law, do I have any way of rectifying that? Or, at the very least, can I sue for damages against the copyright holder?

Re:I disagree.

[TristanGrimaux]

I have points to mod you up, because your comment is certainly not flamebait... but then I could not reply to you and I think it is important to tell you how wrong you are.

First of all, RIAA does not care about IP, they care about distribution rights. They do not care about the artists as their contracts are always shady and a scam. The problem with RIAA is that their business model does not fit in this new era and they are trying to criminalize everyone of us.

But not content with that, they are suing common people to spread fear. They think everyone in the Internet is a burglar and that they have the right to do ANYTHING to stop us from stealing them. So as the old Sony rootkit did, they can mess with your computer and erase any file in it without a court order as they tried to with the patriotic act of GWB. Their acts of hate escalates so high they are trying to force us to use special devices or DRM so we loose the right to hear a purchased song after a while, or after a number of times we have heard it. Or to restrict us to listen a song we have paid for, only on one device.

Law is made in the interest of society. Society makes the law, not the RIAA. And the RIAA will face the people and this is going to hurt. Oh Yeah!

Re:Overhyped

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well, this is just my opinion, and I may be in the minority in thinking so... But if the only way to enforce a particular law is for a commercial group to sue indiscriminately yet selectively, and that numerous law-abiding citizens become harassed, fearful, or otherwise disrupted through such activity, then the law is a bad law, and attempts at enforcement should cease.

Well let me put your mind at rest.

1. There are plenty of other ways to enforce copyright law.

2. Ganging up, as they are doing, as a "commercial group", is copyright misuse, and some of their conduct is actionable as a violation of antitrust law.

3. Normal copyright lawyers don't sue, they send cease and desist letters. And then they sue if they cannot get a cease and desist agreement, or if the defendant is a bad actor, but they don't routinely sue everyone who may have infringed a copyright and was not willing to pay thousands of dollars in extortion -- er, settlement -- money.

4. No normal lawyer would ever sign off on a case as poorly and as illegally investigated as the RIAA cases.

I.e., it's not the law that's bad, it's the RIAA law-breakers that are bad.

every time you buy music..

[Anonymous Coward]

...you are "approached" by the RIAA. Under RICO, they should be nailed for industry collusion and price fixing. See any real differences in music pricing from the major labels and members of the RIAA? See any attempts to stifle your fair use? Are they still engaging in bribery and payola, even though the were first busted for it decades ago? Are you aware that if you even own a computer and access the internet with it they might target you, using questionalble tactics? And so on, there's a big list. And you, as joe civvie, can now use RICO, it isn't just for DAs anymore. If you are a music consumer, or an internet user, and read the news and think you might be affected by what these people are doing, then you might want to think about it and possibly join the case.

Me, I just boycott all those assholes until such a time as the actual "artists" stop using them as a front piece. It's up to the musicians now from my perspective. Stop signing with those labels, stop the massive price gouging of consumers, else no money from me, fullstop. The music industry in general went years ago from me dumping serious folding cash a year into their wallets to zero money, because they are collectively lamers. I don't support the mafia *or* the MAFIAA. I'll go to some friends house and listen to live music on some old beat up guitar before I spend another penny with anyone on those labels represented by the RIAA, either prerecorded or live concert.

Re:About time someone did this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray, Ray, Ray, you really should have learned by now. Don't leave important information in the article; no one makes it that far. If it's important, put it in the comments; that's all anyone here reads. Think of us as cheap barristers; we may listen to what you say, but we almost certainly won't read the brief before offering our expert opinions on it...

:)

Actually, you happen to be wrong about that. That's one of the amazing things about /. The first time I ever came here, I was astonished to find this web site community where people were engaged in various threads which were basically debates about the Patti Santangelo case. People were supporting their arguments with citations from various parts of the transcript, and from legal documents that had been filed. I was astonished.

I think it was this post [slashdot.org]. See, e.g. this comment [slashdot.org], this comment [slashdot.org], this one [slashdot.org], this one [slashdot.org], and this one [slashdot.org], if you want to get the flavor.

Some more examples here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org].