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."
"falsely accused"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Stating the Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Real life imitating slashdot.org (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how many times has this been pointed out that someone should roll up a RICO class action suit against RIAA?
Great that it is finally coming to life :) Real life imitating slashdot :)
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:While yer RICO'ing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Could I suggest a RICO against the Federal Reserve?
Bloomberg [bloomberg.com] tried suing the FED under the FOIA to disclose who it gave $2 trillion to. They claim they don't have to disclose under the FOIA because they technically aren't part of the government.
Fun with IP addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago, I had a cable modem. In the beginning, all customers had static IPs. I had several lengthy outages that ultimately led to ditching cable in favor of slower but more reliable DSL. One of the more interesting problems occurred when someone else decided (or was mistakenly assigned) to use my static IP address. Obviously, I had service trouble (as I suspect the other person did as well). The ISP's solution was to assign a NEW address to ME.
The interesting part is this: On some networks, it is possible to assume a static address that you did NOT receive via DHCP and it just might work. It may or may not be subject to somebody else's DHCP lease. Even if it is, the other person's computer may be off. In my case, it all happened by accident. Maybe it's not always an accident.
Between the static address, DHCP leases, ISP bumbling on the management of either one, combined with both intentional and unintentional user mistakes about configuration, there is more than a reasonable doubt about the identity of ANYONE based on simply an IP address. And of course a MAC address can be easily faked.
A friend of mine received an RIAA nastygram sent by his cable ISP. Fortunately, this guy kept logs of his DHCP address assignments and quickly proved the ISPs records to be false. It seems the address used for the downloading was assigned to my friend AFTER the alleged downloads took place. The cable clowns never bothered to compare the date/time of the alleged activity with their logs; they just launched a nastygram to whoever had the current address. Morons.
And then.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fun with IP addresses (Score:3, Interesting)
People in low places claim that there are ways to find and make use of other folks' IP addresses, and IIRC part of it was much as you say -- "wrong lease" and "live but not presently in use". That was some years ago but I doubt it's changed much.
[R][MP]IAAA are terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.
These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.
They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.
They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.
Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.
Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.
Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?
These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.
It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.
Re:Vigilante action is not the answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one more point that I think is very important.....
In case I have not been clear. This is not about a situation where there is a dispute of fact and law where the parties are attempting to settle their differences, ethically, within the court system. I wish that were the case.
It is about when very powerful and unethical parties game the system in a way that is injurious to people who do not have the power to fight back. That is not justice, and the power of the people has to be applied.
Solution to political problems often the following steps:
(1) Soap Box.
(2) Ballot Box
(3) Jury Box
(4) Ammo Box
In that order.
Step #1 doesn't work because most people don't understand the problem yet.
Step #2 doesn't work because they own both the democrats and the republicans.
Step #3 doesn't work for two reasons: step #1 and that they have the unimaginable resources against virtually helpless victims.
I'm only calling for a step "3.5" where we make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the behavior needs to be stopped. Not violence, but certainly not polite business as usual.
Re:I'm not so sure about that (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh sure, I agree completely. But there is an assumption in your post that sort of makes my point:
Compare to the $3k settlements. That's sustainable. They can keep doing that as long as they want, because the settlements pay for the settlement center operation, and most people can work out a payment plan for that kind of money.
This is a business model.
A business model based on litigation threats and fear. That's why RICO applies, IMHO. This is a racket. Someone does you wrong? Fine. Take them to court. Sue them.
But if you're re-tooling that process to turn it into a sustainable revenue stream, clearly something is wrong. The fact that they offer you a settlement amount up front demonstrates that. They're not interested in actually suing anybody. They do it just often enough to provide an example of "what could happen to you". Just like how the mob doesn't break the kneecaps of every single person who owes them money. Just anyone with enough balls to complain, which keeps the rest in line.
Granted, in the RIAA's case it's not a baseball bat and your kneecaps. It's a bunch of high-priced lawyers that you're never ever going to have enough money and resources to beat in court. That versus your entire financial future. In a way the mob is the better deal - your kneecaps will heal eventually.
This is without a doubt a protection racket. [wikipedia.org] The exact sort of thing RICO was meant to protect people from. I can't wait to see how this pans out.
Re:"falsely accused"? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. You are a consulting practice not an investigative company.
3. It is not at all obvious why you are anonymous, since your claims are self-laudatory.
In any event, of course the term 'instructions and parameters' could be interpreted in different ways. However, if you'd read the declaration of the RIAA's Bradley Buckles you'd know that in this case it has to be interpreted in the bad way, not the good way. In the innocent way, there would have been nothing to conceal. E.g. if RIAA lawyers said "we would like you go on the internet and catch people who are downloading or distributing our copyrighted song files" -- which would have been perfectly innocent "instructions and parameters" -- there would have been no need for the secrecy that Mr. Buckles was seeking to invoke. But they didn't say that, they said something like "this is how we want you to do it", which is why they needed to keep it secret.