Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws
Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
It probably won't stick, but Bravo! I'm tired of watching the RIAA offer to settle with people regardless of guilt. By agreeing to settle many people look guilty and add fuel to the RIAA's fires.
Stick it to the Man!
Now if everyone who got sued by the RIAA counter-sued with similar charges, you'd see these lawsuits go away entirely, for two reasons:
1) The RIAA can't stand up to intense public scrutiny, without shooting themselves (and their industry) in the foot.
2) Being sued by over 1,000 people becomes cost prohibitive very quickly, particularly considering it will be in 100's of different courtrooms spread across America.
I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I say good for her.
Someone's suing the RIAA! Good things are going to happen, good things are going to happen.
(Of course, this will end when the RIAA then settles with the woman herself, paying her to shut up.)
In fact, whether the woman wins or loses, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Does anyone else feel this took way too long? I seriously can't believe any of the others haven't had the balls (or money) to stand up to them yet.
"It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree."
I sincerely hope that we get a good judge on this one. A precedence ruling in favor of the alleged file swappers would be a nice help.
Every RIAA executive weenie's nightmare:
headline "RIAA COMPARED TO MOB, TACTICS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Her lawyers should do this pro-bono for all the attention they will get from this case.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
How's that work.....??
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Let them get some huge judgements and watch how fast the laws are amended in the public's favor.
Nothing like a few citizens getting their ass reamed to foster change in government.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Happy Trails
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Why is it that the police will arrest individuals, but corporations seem to need to be sued? If someone sent in a tip to the police that the RIAA were racketeering, nothing would happen, but if the same tip were applied to an individual or gang, there would be an investigation. These days, big businesses seem much more powerful because they can hide behind lawyers and deep pockets.
This seems like the racketeering suit filed against DirecTV, which was tossed out of court. Still, I'm glad that someone is taking a stand. Even if this suits and others like it are not successful, the RIAA may change tactics as they begin to meet resistance.
I liked this part of the article:
"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."
First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.
At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
IANAL, and am just thinking out loud, but couldn't those that have been singled out by the RIAA claim some sort of discrimination? More specifically, there are hundreds of thousands of people the RIAA could pursue for sharing music. What is the chance of convincing a court to force the RIAA to attempt to identify and prosecute every single user of Kazaa that distribute RIAA music?
Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
CRIA named the IPs and nicknames of the Kazaa users it intends to sue.
B B2&file =viewtopic&t=24
details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphp
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room
She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:m
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.ht
Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice
MOST of the time? These people are suing for $150,000 (the maximum copyright penalty) per download as often as they can. Under something like that, I can't afford to even take the RISK I might lose, even if I'm absolutely sure I'm in the clear. And that's for one download. We all know they sue for more than one, and have in the past made incredibly ludicrous claims like multiplying the damages by the speed of one's CD burner.
The US courts consider us CRIMINALS. Unless there's an uprising, that's how it's going to stay.
(If the CRIA sues me, I figure I'll shred my hdd and say I never downloaded noooothing)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
What you are describing is a result of decades of unscrupulous brainwashing by various "information industries".
Let me explain:
The musicians are only entitled to pay for their labour. That, in their case means performances. LIVE performances. You charge at the gate and no issue with "stealing". Why? Simple. Beecause if they are using a recording of a performance they in effect are using someone's elses playback device (fully paid for by the listener) playing data from a media disk (also fully paid for). The performance is done by the machine not the musician. As such the entire industry system is based on a single performance and then a stream of endless payments for not performing it again is totally unrealistic.
Sure you can try and bend and twist laws and technology to stop the obvious results of this insane idea but it will fail sooner or later. Same problem applies to DVDs, Sattellite TV and a myriad of other related "products".
The entire mis-understanding comes from the fact that what you think is "art" is in fact consumer abuse. "Artists" only create art from the need to express themselves and not for money. Sure they need to live on something and so we have concerts, exhibitions, wealthy patrons and government grants. You see none of this copyright-based McMusic industry was around back in the days of Plato, Shakespeare, Mozart, Bethoven, DaVinci and so according to the current set of demagogues these people never produced anything art-like.
You must snap out of this miserable state of being a tool for the "information" industry.
A person that is targeted by the RIAA simply decides not to hire a lawyer, and simply represents his self in court. Not in the expectation he'll win, but rather with the expectation that the RIAA will win. What happens when the dog in fact catches the car? What is the dog going to do with the car? If the person sued here is not in any way wealthy will the RIAA demand blood? I don't think so.
Let the RIAA run into this situation, and they'll end up cutting off their collective nose in spite of their face.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Oh well, there goes my chance to mod any posts in this thread. I had to respond .. (silly me) :-), I can attest to the long hours, weeks, and years of practice, training, writing, recording, for which some financial return is not unwarranted.
I think people should realize that music is not "information" either. It's not a law of physics or mathematics, it's not "data" other than in the sense that it's a digital file, in the context of internet swapping.
Music is Art. If a musician gives away his or her copyrights and publishing, that is his/her perogative, but I don't believe that all artistic works should automatically be treated as public domain, any more than you'd demand that all fiction authors give away their works and novels, or at least allow the public to freely swap them. Taking this scenario to the extreme, only one single copy of any given book would ever have to be purchased, and that would form a pool from which any trade or swap could be conducted by simply copying the work.
Speaking as a musician myself, but one who has made not a dime from publishing or original works (at least not yet
Then, there is the matter of the expenditure on equipment. It's still a little hard to believe that a Gibson Les Paul Standard is well over $2000 these days, to me.
Having said all this, I don't particularly sympathize with the RIAA, because they're not really looking out for the musicians, they're just looking out for themselves. Sure, it costs a lot (millions!) to promote, produce, and distribute musical works but the percentages that the bands get per track are not commensurate with the much larger contribution artists make to the song itself, without which, of course, there would be nothing to promote, produce, or distribute in the first place.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Something I haven't seen anyone else touch on is the fact that even if every man woman and child in the US wins a billion dollar lawsuit aginst the RIAA, it's just an association.
The reason associations are started on behalf of member companies is even if there is a huge backlash, the member companies are completely protected. Much in the way a business you started can be sued into oblivion without having any real affect on you or your family.
If this lady does actualy win, everything the RIAA has in the bank will go for legal fees, she won't get a dime, and the record industry will form some other orginization to take the RIAAs place.
What we need to be doing is suing the labels themselfs for racketeering!
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?
Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.
Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.
Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.
If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.
If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.
Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Yeah just mentioning jury nullification though is a sure way to get kicked off a jury.
Works every time. Little unnerving though when the judge asks me if in all cases I can follow the law as he describes it to me: my answer is "No. I am a strong proponent of jury nullification."
Dismissed immediately, three times in a row... and it happens to be the truth!
If the jury was always expected to follow the law as the judge describes it we wouldn't need juries. Jury nullification is why we're there, IMHO.
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
In principle, I agree with you. But there were some pretty famous cases in the US, prior to the civil rights movement, where white defendants who were clearly guilty of murdering black victims were acquitted of murder by all-white juries. This abuse of the right to acquit is part of what has led to an effort at cracking down on that right.
Still, it is true that a jury can always acquit, even if it believes the defendant factually guilty. There are no legaly sanctioned repercussions for the jurors.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Just a thought...
(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
If I ever get sued, just give me a jury with some college students on it. That's all I ask. And maybe a few baby-boomers who have bouht the same albums over and over again in vinyl, cassette and CD.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Well, since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a judge can dismiss a juror if there is evidence of them advocating jury nullification, letting the judge know up front saves you the time of getting kicked off the jury latter. If the judge agrees with jury nullification, it shouldn't get you dismissed.
1 - Find out how much the RIAA pay their lawyers, call that amount X
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
8 - Laugh