RICO Class Action Against RIAA In Missouri 213
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic Recording v. Raleigh, an RIAA case pending in St. Louis, Missouri, the defendant has asserted detailed counterclaims against the RIAA for federal RICO violations, fraud, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, prima facie tort, trespass, and conspiracy. The claims focus on the RIAA's 'driftnet' tactic of suing innocent people, and of demanding extortionate settlements. The RICO 'predicate acts' alleged in the 42-page pleading (PDF) are extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The proposed class includes all people residing in the US 'who were falsely accused ... of downloading copyrighted sound recordings owned by the counterclaim Defendants and making them available for distribution or mass distribution over a P2P network and who incurred costs and damages including legal fees in defense of such false claims' or 'whose computers used in interstate commerce and/or communication were accessed ... without permission or authority.' This is the second class action of which we are aware against the RIAA and the Big 4 recording companies, the first being the Oregon class action brought by Tanya Andersen, which is presently in the discovery phase."
about freaking time! been urging RICO forever. (Score:4, Informative)
these RIAA guys have been acting like burglars on crack for a long time, and now they have to defend themselves.
The Only RICO RIAA Fears is Sauve (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Informative)
That platitude only applies to criminal law. In civil cases, they just say that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). So to win a suit against the RIAA, you need to prove that it's more likely than not that you didn't pirate any music (e.g., "I don't even own a computer," or "I'm Ted Stevens") along with whatever else the particular law requires.
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:4, Informative)
To whoever marked me "Offtopic", perhaps I should have cited something real: Pearson v. Chung, the case of a Washington, D.C. judge, Roy Pearson, who sued a dry cleaning business for $67 million (later lowered to $54 million), has been cited[12] as an example of frivolous litigation. According to Pearson, the dry cleaners allegedly lost his pants (which he brought in for a $10.50 alteration) and refused his demands for a large refund. Pearson believed that a 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign in the window of the shop legally entitled him to a refund for the cost of the pants, estimated at $1,000. The $54 million total also included $2 million in "mental distress" and $15,000 which he estimated to be the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another dry cleaners.
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Informative)
There already many cases where this has occurred. Lindor, Anderson, Foster to name a few. However these people that actually persevered in court had to spend years and tens of thousands in legal fees to clear their name. Add to that the documented cases where the RIAA sued people who didn't have computers, dead people, etc. Most people I suspected just paid the fine instead going through the whole ordeal. While it may not be successful, the discovery process may unearth what we have long suspected: The RIAA does not adequately investigates someone before suing them, does not dismiss lawsuits when it appears that they may have erred, and will continue to abuse the legal system in this way.
Well according to this guy [blogspot.com] their investigative methods are untested, have never been accepted in the scientific community, have never been published, were not subjected to peer review, are completely secret, and ... he invented them himself, out of his own head. And according to this guy [beckermanlegal.com] the "instructions and parameters" for the investigations were given to the investigators by the lawyers.
So why wouldn't you think the RIAA's investigation is reliable, UnknowingFool?
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Informative)
What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.
Indeed, and she [blogspot.com] agrees with that sentiment.
Re:Fun with IP addresses (Score:2, Informative)
I worked for a while as a programmer on an ISP billing and provisioning application. What I found out is this:
Every address you get from an ISP is DHCP'ed. Static IP's aren't static. They're just reserved DHCP addresses. That's why "static" IP's from the cable company require you to tell the ISP your MAC address. They're just setting up a DHCP reservation that gives your MAC address the same IP each time it renews.
With DSL, they can just use caller ID to verify the line, so they don't need your MAC address. But it works basically the same way. A static IP is a reserved address from their DHCP pool. They just verify it against the incoming line ID rather than the customer's premise equipment (CPE) ID.
To get a real static IP, you pretty much have to buy a T1 or better.
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't one who buys the connection responsible for their endpoint?
Not according to these guys [blogspot.com] (MGM v. Grokster).
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Informative)
No, because "innocent" and "guilty" don't mean anything in civil cases. Also, you have to treat "prove" as a term of art. "Prove" means something entirely different in a criminal context than in a civil context. "Innocent until proven guilty" actually means, "you are presumed to be 'not guilty' until the state has cleared all the numerous constitutional hurdles we have intentionally placed in its way to make it very hard to 'prove' that an innocent person is guilty, and then proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the charged crime." It means, "Jury, if you're not sure, if you still have some lingering doubts, if you think, 'He probably did it, but I can see how he could reasonably be innocent,' you must acquit the defendant." It means you are entitled to Sixth Amendment guaranteed trial by jury instead of Seventh Amendment trial by jury guaranteed if you happen to be in federal court and the judge feels like it. It means (in most cases) that a jury of twelve of your peers must vote against you unanimously. It means you are protected against self incrimination and you get the Confrontation Clause. It means your adversary is the Sovereign State, so we're going to stack the cards heavily in your favor. It means you get the benefit of the Exclusionary Rule if the state unlawfully searched you or seized things. It means you're starting out WAY ahead of your adversary, and your adversary must make up all that ground and blow way past you to win.
"Proof by a preponderance of the evidence" means everybody starts out on equal footing and the plaintiff wins if he inches a little ahead of the defendant.
So no, they're not remotely the same thing.
Re:I'm a huge pirate... (Score:1, Informative)
And if you're possibly injured by, oh, anything, make sure you go to City Hospital a few blocks away. Bring a tent and a week's food while you wait in line at the ER if you're not insured, and wait 3 hours for an ambulance to take you elsewhere because even the ambulance people don't like to go there.
They do know how to treat gunshots, though.
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Informative)
I do not believe there is any legal standing for the idea that the account holder is responsible, in any way, for the actions that take place on the connection.
And the United States Supreme Court shares your belief [blogspot.com].
Re:Vigilante action is not the answer (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't work because you're using slashdot as the soapbox, compared to say NYCL to whom slashdot is but part of his soapbox.
I don't really think of it that way. To my mind, a soapbox is a place you go to persuade people to accept your viewpoint. My only 'soapbox' is the court house. It's the place I go to try to persuade judges and jurors.
My blog isn't really for the purpose of persuading anyone; it's set up for the purpose of assisting (a) defendants and (b) defendants' lawyers (including myself) by collecting information on these cases.
I definitely don't visit Slashdot to persuade.
One reason I come here is that I enjoy it. I find this incredibly rich, diverse, funny, intelligent dialogue (is 'multilogue' a word? if so it's really a 'multilogue') to be stimulating, challenging, educating, and, usually, collegial.
Another reason is to get the specialized information I collect (which is immensely important to the world at large, although most of the world is oblivious to it) out to a wider audience of people who actually want to know about it because they do understand its importance.
Another reason I visit Slashdot is to learn about technical stuff. So often I've found the technically-oriented Slashdotters to be immensely helpful in thinking through the computer issues. As you may recall, I even came to Slashdot to get ideas for the RIAA's expert's deposition, and later to ask the tech community to 'vet' his transcript.
It would be crazy for me to come here to persuade. I don't think I've ever persuaded anyone here of anything. My 'persuasiveness' track record on Slashdot is about as good as my track record at home, which is: I never can win an argument in either of those forums. (Although maybe, for that reason, it is a good place for me to hone my skills.)