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."

About time someone did this

[dhanav]

Now is the time for all those who complained about RIAA to join in and take this to a good conclusion.

Re:About time someone did this

[HoosierPeschke]

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

Re:

[Tuoqui]

I just have to say that the RIAA is going to get owned [justgotowned.com] before this is over.

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:About time someone did this

[TheRaven64]

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...

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].

Re:

[walt-sjc]

FYI, you probably don't need to send any funds. They lawyers taking the case probably think they have a good chance of winning a sizable settlement. They are most likely working in exchange for a cut of the take.

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].

Re:

[Opportunist]

There's always the possibility of sending money. Donations. Nobody can keep me from giving my money to whoever I please.

Re:About time someone did this

[Dahamma]

Feel free to throw your money away giving it to class action lawyers. I'm sure they will split their massive commission with you if they win.

Re:

[Atario]

I believe the point here is not to get rich off the RIAA, but to take the bastards down a few notches. Please readjust expectation parameters accordingly.

Re:

[heelrod]

They haven't had a good band ever!

You must be a Jessica Simpson fan

Re:

[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?

Re:About time someone did this

[menkhaura]

And do you think that posting anonymously will keep you anonymous? They know about everything you write, They know about everything you do, They know when you log into the Internet, They read your e-mails, They intercept your phone calls, They trace your travels and your expenses. You might think I'm joking, but I'm not, this is serious. You, sir, are in deep trouble.

Re:

[dynamo]

Every US taxpayer is a terrorist supporter.

Re:About time someone did this

[Billosaur]

Agreed. You get the pitchforks, I'll find the torches... and I think some tar and feathers would be in order to... BTW, where is there HQ again? If we can't find that, their lawyers' offices will do...

Re:

[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:About time someone did this

[Himring]

"I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide." --Gandalf

Re:I disagree.

[mini me]

It is really sad to see society so blatantly breaking the law without any care about the ramifications.

If society as a whole continually and blatantly breaks a law, the law is unjust. The ramifications are not to be taken into consideration, society has already spoken and are willing to accept the consequences of their actions. What is really sad are the people who are trying to hold on to the last grasp of something that society is not willing to accept any longer.

Re:

[shmlco]

When you can obtain something of value immediately, with little to no chance of being caught and punished, then it just means the potential reward dramatically outweighs the potential risk.

It's why people don't steal albums from the store. It's not that it's more ethical or moral not to do so, it's that with guards and cameras and security devices your chances of being caught and thrown in jail are much, much higher. Not worth the risk.

And you can't tell me that plenty of people wouldn't do it if they coul

Re:I disagree.

[PitaBred]

Perhaps it would be more of an indication that the speed limits were set wrong. Either way, if the speed limit is 45 and everyone is going 75, there's a problem there. People don't often go faster than they feel safe going (cf. the imbecile who flies past me on the straightaway and then slows down over 20mph from his previous speed on a gentle curve), and if there's no increase in the number of accidents, the speed limit is quite obviously set wrong. Whether it's a means to generate revenue via tickets, an incompetent traffic engineer, whatever, it's still wrong.

Re:

[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

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: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:

[TristanGrimaux]

The problem with the record industry is they do not understand how to make profit in the Internet (they should read Slashdot ;-). They are lost at sea and they want us to be a hostage to be milked until they figure out a way to get more money.

Re:I disagree.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Wall of text crits you for 9,999 damage.

These same students fail to understand why grammar and strong arithmetic skills are important.

Apparently, so do you.

Erm, what? You're not one of the foolish people who believe that the correct spelling is "grammer" are you?

Re:

[Pojut]

Nope. Just a bored cubicle dweller 8D

Re:

[Volante3192]

I thought you got modded down because you inferred Madonna has talent.

Re:

[wprowe]

I own every recording in my possession.

No you don't, unless you wrote it. You purchased a license from the copyright owner to have a copy in your possession for personal use. The song writer, musician, or record label "owns" the recording.

So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[Spazntwich]

What are your estimates of this case's success?

I'd rather hear it from the expert than Slashdot's myriad self-described ones.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[WPIDalamar]

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[Blue Stone]

>"$10 says the lawyers are the only winners."

As long as the RI.... Record Companies lose, I'm OK with that.

Re:

[NMerriam]

As long as the RI.... Record Companies lose, I'm OK with that.

That's pretty much the point of the class action statutes. Theres no effective way to remedy 20 million people who were all ripped off for 12 cents each by a megacorp, yet doing so would be incredibly profitable for said megacorp. So you simply make such behavior have a huge financial penalty for the megacorp to try and set an example that ripping off lots of people a little at a time is not a wise business decision, because in aggregate the su

Re:So, Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer,

[mcrbids]

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

If you are right, wouldn't that make you a winner too?

Re:

[MajinBlayze]

If only lawyers win, and he wins, HE'S A LAWYER
Watch out!! *hides*

(wow, glad I previewed, I almost called him a LAYER)

Re:

[bidule]

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

So, what's wrong with that? All I want is that Atlantic loses badly, the rest I don't care.

Re:

[Paracelcus]

(IMHO) It ain't about the money, its about really hurting the recording industry and all the greedy no-talent clotheshorses with multi-million dollar contracts who produce increasingly non-musical drivel at inflated prices.

Re:

[Sandbags]

The lawyers may be the only ones to PROFIT from this case, but the fact that a verdict against the RIAA will have ripple effects in hundreds of cases, state and federal laws is something to watch. This case could determine the future of how piracy can be legally tracked, what kind of effort a company is allowed to put in to protect intellectual property, what lines are drawn as far as "harassing prosecution:" is concerned, and more. Even if the RIAA wins the action, on many levels they will also loose, mo

Re:

[scribblej]

They won't be the /only/ winners if anyone takes you up on that bet. You'll be one too.

Remember I was your friend before you got $10 richer.

Re:

[eth1]

$10 says the lawyers are the only winners.

Hmm... So, if only the lawyers win, you win $10, which means that the lawyers AREN'T the only winners, so you shouldn't win your $10. But then the lawyers would be the only winners! Now if only they'd all disappear in a puff of logic...

Re:

[wperry1]

Are you a lawyer? Did I touch a sore spot? ;)

I get that the lawyer is the one putting the effort into winning the case. My point is that the lawyers are the ones that benefit in these cases, not the victims. Class action lawsuits penalize the defendants and reward the lawyers. The general public does see a benefit though in that the threat of class action suits will (hopefully) discourage large entities like corporations from screwing the little guy who would otherwise have little legal chance against th

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: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:

[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: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.

Thank god, at last

[unity100]

Abuse of legal system for personal profiteering shouldnt be allowed. I wish this class action lawsuit to go as big as paypal one and this time teach MAFIAA bastards and their hound dog of a lawyers some lesson.

More, please!

[AltGrendel]

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.

Can you add sheer stupidity and pigheadedness to that?

Oh, and while you're at it, tell them that we plain old don't like them.

Re:

[lilomar]

You forgot attempting to do the same thing with the internet.
Linky. [slashdot.org]

Re:

[HiThere]

*Can* an individual sue for anti-trust violations? Or does that need to be done by a DA or a grand jury?

Not that they aren't guilty of all charges, and of anti-trust also, but I'm not sure that this would strengthen the case.

(Caution: IANAL)

Re:

[AuMatar]

Yes, if they were in a competing business and have monetary damages due to it. Anti-trust is a civil statute as well.

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.

I know how it'll go down

[weak*]

The witness has testified that you are personally responsible for the murder of a New York City police captain in 1947 and with him a man named Virgil Sollozzo. You deny this?

RIAA: Yes, we do.

Re:

[Hijacked Public]

Lets hope that Tanya Anderson doesn't have a brother in Sicily.

Re:

[lilomar]

Brilliant quote, the key thing being that what really stopped McCarthy wasn't the justice system itself, it was the public turning against him.

So...

[Colin Smith]

How can we contribute?

 

Re:

[Shabbs]

That was my first thought too.

Where can I send some money to in order to help them out?

Could this be the final knockout blow?

Re:So...

[Lord Ender]

How can we contribute?

Why would you want to contribute? Class action lawsuits are typically funded entirely by the lawyers themselves. It's the lawyers who get all the money from the settlements, and the defendants they "represent" end up with gift certificates.

Re:

[shark72]

"How can we contribute?"

Just keep pirating music, and keep encouraging your friends to do the same. Hit them in the wallet.

It's not enough to keep saying "their business model is dead." To make that happen you need to keep actively helping to kill it.

Add me

[Edward Ka-Spel]

Yes, I have been illegally downloading music for years, I want to be a part of this class action suit.

Oh, wait... Umm... nevermind.

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.

On the subject of a class action suit

[Haiku 4 U]

Dear RIAA,
Turnabout is fair play, you
rich smokers-of-cocks.

Love, Haiku 4 U
P.S. I look forward to
great music sans you.

CELEBRATE!

[WwWonka]

....after reading this glorious news it may be the first time I have wanted to leave my cubicle and head out into the streets to shout at the top of my overworked underpaid lungs...

"FLAVOR FLAAAAAAV!"

then I will promptly head back inside and continue to use our company's massive internet bandwidth to keep downloading pirated music.

Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA will be sentenced to giving all members of the class $12.67 in music downloads from the Kenny Rogers store (with DRM).

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:

[smellsofbikes]

>The Association has no product per se,

Lawsuits. Lots and lots and lots of lawsuits.

Overhyped

[MajinBlayze]

This seems a bit overhyped to me. Yes, I want the RIAA to go away, I want the RIAA to stop using brutal tactics, however, they do have the legal right to prosecute people illegally distributing their IP.

Please note that this is specifically for those wrongfully accused. The best we can see from this is getting the RIAA to calm down (a good end no doubt).

For those who are wondering, this will not be the death knell for DRM and the RIAA.
-1 flamebait +1 UnfortunatelyTrue

Re:Overhyped

[Opportunist]

They have the right to protect their IP. They do not have the right to harrass people left and right, peppering the population with lawsuits in a "sue them all, let the courts sort them out" way.

This won't be the death for the RIAA, but it might be the end of their tactics of instilling fear and trying to give the impression that everyone's guilty and just they didn't get around to sue them yet.

Re:

[Lord Ender]

They have the right to protect their IP. They do not have the right to harrass people left and right, peppering the population with lawsuits in a "sue them all, let the courts sort them out" way.

If they police aren't enforcing the law, and you think "they do not have the right" to use the courts to enforce the law, how do you think the law should be enforced?

Re:Overhyped

[eric76]

how do you think the law should be enforced?

Perhaps a little research before filing the lawsuit would be useful.

My suggestion for how to make the situation better is to require the plaintiff in any lawsuit to pay the attorney's fees of the defendant.

If the plaintiff wins, then they could recover the fees they paid if the defendant had sufficient assets. If the defendant doesn't have the assets, then why is the plaintiff even suing him?

If the plaintiff requests arbitration and the defendant refuses, then the defendant would pay his own attorney's fees. If the defendant requests arbitration the the plaintiff refuses, then the plaintiff would be barred from recovering any of the attorney's fees from the defendant.

It would force the plaintiff to really do their homework before filing suit and to make a determination ahead of time about whether or not the lawsuit was justified. It would end the RIAA's practice of going after anyone and everyone without any knowledge about whether or not the defendant was the culprit.

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.

Re:

[sircastor]

I think, as you say though, this may be a death knell to the way the RIAA currently operates it's legal talons. If the RIAA gets slapped in court once or twice more for a big enough sum they may realize that they can't bully their way around the legal system so easily. This means that fewer people who are innocent will be accused/ have to deal with the grief and frustration of court against bullies.

As for those who just want to download anything they want when they want, this is going to remain against th

Re:

[phoenixwade]

Ultimately, I believe you are both right and wrong.

Based on what I think I know about corporations, I suspect that following will occur:
1. The suit will be awarded class action status
2. The RIAA will not settle out of court, preferring to drag this out as long as possible, ultimately resulting in a RIAA loss.
3. The result will be a huge dollar sum.
4. The RIAA declare bankruptcy, goes down in flames... and

Re:

[nsayer]

Unless the record companys themselves are included in the class action, I see no real solution.

Given the list of claims (particularly that RICO has been raised) and the nature of the RIAA, it seems to me quite possible that the court might be able to pierce the corporate veil of the RIAA and go after the assets of its owners/members. That would prevent steps 4 and 5 of your end-game.

Re:

[iceperson]

It's a sad day when someone believes that corporations have the right to "prosecute" people and that gets modded as "insightful"...

Overrated

[jgoemat]

They have the right to protect their IP. However, they have the responsibility to make sure they are targeting the right people. They have kept several cases going after getting evidence that they sued the wrong people.

These are a few of my favorite things

[WillAffleckUW]

"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."

Every time they sue a student who had someone jack his wireless connection in the dorms - I'll be there.

Every time they sue a university for students downloading songs t

RIAA - Now is your chance

[johkir]

The RIAA better take a look at amnesty [riaaamnesty.com] now, before it costs them too much!

I just creamed my pants

[danZbar]

"Class Action...RIAA." YES, YES, YES, OH GOD... I will never wash these pants again.

Law of unintended consequences...

[jnaujok]

1. And you thought CDs were expensive before...
2. The only music to be produced will be the kind no one wants to pirate... Think 90's boy bands.
3. ????
4. Profit!

Sorry, that last one just slipped in there.

yes

[circletimessquare]

the witch king of angmar is defeated by a woman

One comment

[billsoxs]

...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

OUCH!

The Big Class Question

[Nom du Keyboard]

The biggest class question as I see it is: How many other people can claim enough similar circumstances to qualify?

Certainly the same shoddy, and likely illegal, MediaSentry investigative methods were used against all defendants. And the Settlement Support Center refused to dismiss anyone from a lawsuit who didn't pay them the extortion tax regardless of the evidence -- or lack of it. And even innocent defendants had large legal bills if they fought. Plus all had their computers, privacy, and reputations besmirched by the RIAA publicity steamroller regardless of the outcome of the suit -- with no apologies offered afterwards.

But is this enough in common to qualify as a class? While I hope so, the legal system doesn't operate with the same kinds of logic I employ in ordinary, everyday life.

Asking for too much

[davidwr]

As much as I want to sock-it-to-'em, I think this lady is asking a wee bit too much, and this will do more harm than good in the long run.

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.

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

A much better solution is to make judges nationwide aware that just because the RIAA/MPAA say someone is violating the law doesn't make it so. Many judges are already waking up to this fact and stopping the mafIAA from taking the "easy road to victory," ending ex-parte motions and other dirty tricks.

If the RIAA think my IP address is stealing, then get a court to order my ISP to order me to contact the court and, after hearing from both sides, let the court decide if the RIAA is entitled to my contact information. Allow my lawyers to subpoena records from the ISP before the RIAA gets my personal information. If the judge denies the RIAA's request, or if they eventually lose at trial, make them pay all my reasonable and actual expenses. If the suit was done with malice, with reckless disregard for the facts, or as a fishing expedition, have the court fine the RIAA for wasting everyone's time.

Re:

[nuzak]

> Remember folks, many, if not most, of the *IAAs victims are technically guilty.

Generously put, I would say maybe half. And guilty of stealing a couple hundred bucks worth of music at most. We'll continue being generous, treble damages, and it still doesn't even come close to the shakedown amount for settling, let along the hundreds of thousands they're suing for, based on numbers they patently made up for the sole purpose of creating as much fear and damage as possible.

I have no sympathy for thieves,

Re:

[jparker]

IANAL, but I don't think the guilt or innocence of the plaintiffs should have any real bearing on the case. The claims in the suit center around the way that the RIAA has gone about suing people: assuming that IPs can be uniquely identifying, faling to do real computer forensic work, etc. Whether they've got the right people or not, it's the method they used that is at issue.

This seems just like the police conducting an illegal search. Even if they find conclusive evidence of guilt, the police still violate

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.

The real problem of the digital age and music...

[bradcb212]

In my opinion, the great threat of the RIAA and the age of digital music is not just downloaders, but also their legal, pay-per-track alternatives...

Why have the record companies fought Apple for higher prices? Why have some companies refuted the potential profits of a deal with iTunes?

It is the a la carte concept of iTunes, allofmp3, kazaa, napster, etc... you name it that's the real issue at hand here...

I think the big motivating factor for downloading music is NOT based on an unwillingness to pay a small fee for the songs you want, it's based on an unwillingness to pay $20 for at most 3 songs that you want...

Since the glory days of the music industry, they've primarily sold albums as it was the most convenient and economical form of distribution. This method suited the consumer well as he didn't have to rush out to the store everytime a new song came out, it suited the musician well as it allowed to him to make a good hour or so of music, then go on tour and wow the crowds, and it suited the industry well because even if only 1 or 2 of the songs on the album became hits, people would still shell out the full price of the album for those songs they wanted.

Fast track to the present, and the internet has tipped the economic balance in favor of the consumer. Although the album system is still convenient in the ways listed above and many not-listed...(for instance "branding"), consumers appear no-longer willing to buy full albums for the most part.

So, I find it funny that /. has reported on many occasions about the "falling profit gaps of the recording industry," and how "legal downloads are not filling this gap," as if there was ever any chance of this happening.. This is a question of economics, not piracy...

People are not rushing out to the cd store anymore. Hell, I haven't stepped foot in one in over a year. People are downloading the SONGS they want, and that's it...or they're waiting for their friends to get it and send it to them. In my opinion though, these people are not thieves, just opportunists, responding to a large imbalance in price between the traditional cd, and the legal or not-so legal per-track alternatives.

Why else has it taken so long for legal download services such as iTunes to come about. How many years after Napster's destruction did it take? Why didn't the RIAA look at the story of napster (after they sued the piss out of it) and build their own legal alternative? Because they know what it means...it means they can no-longer fleece the consumer with the album like they've been doing for a loooong time.

So, although the album will likely remain a convenient unit for musicians and for "branding" purposes, I see the concept of consumers purchasing full albums a fast-fading one.

The album....is dead

Interesting countersuit

[Mr.Fork]

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.

What is interesting that each and every individual amendment will need to be addressed to be thrown out. The legal proceedings will not be able to 'carte-blanche' throw out the case on a single motion, it needs to address 'malicious prosecution' and 'trespass' and every other complaint, similar to someone convicted of multiple felons. It's quite an all-encompassing CAS - RIAA will have a very very hard time trying to survive it because I'm sure she's not willing to settle out of court. She's pretty PO'ed and will want the whole gambit in court. But I'm making that assumption...

Please let this go through...

[Cycline3]

I do not believe in stealing music at all. However, it's clear beyond any doubt that the record companies have failed consumers and hurt the marketplace. They've clearly broken numerous laws. They need regulated and reeled in - and a substantial legal judgment against them would help everyone involved: us, the musicians and the companies. Until they realize the crack-like selling days are over and cds have to cost $5 - then it won't work. I don't want 3 million dollar videos, I want a $5 cd by a real artist that's recorded well. Hollywood delivers the goods on movies, why can't the music industry get their shizz together?

Re:

[AeroIllini]

Hollywood delivers the goods on movies...

Oh, man, I hope that's some super clever satire I missed.

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?

Initial reaction

[Odinson]

For some reason the song "The Final Countdown" popped into my head. The worst part is, now I have to go buy a whole album so I can get it out.

Go for the jugular

[kimvette]

Want to really hit RIAA members hard?

Stop buying their crap. They will either adjust to the market AND acknowledge and provide for Fair Use and also embrace viral marketing, or they will die. It really is that simple. What I _do_ buy, I buy used now, and there are really only a few acts I buy any more. Spend your money elsewhere.

I went from buying a CD or two every other day during the height of Napster to buying _maybe_ one every other year. In the last six years, I've bought maybe two brand-new CDs: David Gilmour's On An Island, and Pink Floyd's Is There Anyone Out There (the wall live album). Oh wait, there was another one: a Tijuana Brass album. I do want to buy Weird Al's latest album, and I want to buy Roger Waters' Ca Ira, but I'll wait until I can find a pristine pre-owned(used) copy. There is lots of other stuff I'd love to buy, but I'm pretty much standing on my principles and giving the RIAA the finger.

Now, instead of listening to hard rock and pop stations, I'm listening to talk (NPR, christian radio, or other talk stations) and sometimes oldies, classical, or classic rock stations (I have almost all the classic rock I want on CDs, and I've ripped most of them to SD cards so I can bring my collection with me when I travel). I avoid exposure to new material the best I can, lest I be tempted to buy it, or be tempted to download it and contribute to viral marketing. Sorry, I'm just not interested in promoting the continued existence of the music cartel as it exists today.

Re:

[lilomar]

I believe the relevant link is this one. [p2pnet.net] The rest are court documents etc.

Re:

[geekoid]

"Downloading is theft!"

SO you commit theft when you came to /.? Because you know your browser downloads the pgae, right?

Or perhaps you really mean Downloading a product whose copyright doesn't allow it is theft?
of course, that's just plain wrong to. That's why there is a different rules and laws for it.

DO you mean "Copying copywrited material without permission is a crime"?
That Can be true, but there are even exceptions to that.

Now do you see why it's different?

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Downloading is theft!"

So how do you justify all the times you've committed theft?

Re: Class Action Initiated Against RIAA

[SL Baur]

Downloading is theft!

But wait. A couple of articles ago, they were saying that not downloading ads was theft. I'm so confused.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Neither. Just plain old troll, nothing noteworthy.

Re:

[nsayer]

Don't class actiion suits essentially make the company immune to any further claims from individuals? Presumably because everyones claims are already represented.

Only for those torts that were committed before the suit. For most corporations, once a suit is filed they either immediately stop engaging in the given behavior (as with erroneous or illegal billing/accounting practices), or the suit is about a product class or series no longer being offered (as in the case of a recalled defective product), or they add that behavior to a list of disclosures for all future customers (caution: this coffee is hot). In this case, the suit is on behalf of people who are not

Re:

[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 nece