Slashdot Mirror
Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue. In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for.
Is this really true? If you use P2P to share original works of art (nothing is stopping you from doing it) - for instance a personal flickr - or to share legitimate files like Linux distros, why would you really care about someone fighting the RIAA regarding copyright issues? This doesn't really seem like a P2P issue, but rather a copyright infringement issue.
There was another case last year in which an individual fought back against the RIAA. That case quietly went away, and there was no mention of a settlement. Please MAKE SOME NOISE about this case! Let the public see the tangled web of lies the recording industry has cast, and make sure that records of this case remain open for reference by all of the future victims they will undoubtably harrass and intimidate in their efforts to regain lost revenue from their failing business practices.
In an age when the common people are routinely intimidated and threatened by corporations whom they cannot possibly afford to face in a court of law, one can't help but believe that justice is dead.
It only takes a few, aye, and only starts there.
If any of these cases against the RIAA are successful... I think we'll see many more people standing up to them.
Once you can prove that Goliath can be felled with just a sling, everyone wants to be David.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Good luck I suppose is in order.
While we may all feel that the RIAA has all all the trappings and actions of the Soprano crew, somehow I don't think that particular claim is going to wash with the the courts. On the other hand, it is out of the books of law enforcement in terms of hitting the accused with a large number of charges, most of which get thrown out, but some stick. Enough to make it worthwhile to go to court. This is a civil case, but the idea is the same.
The interesting thing to me is that is a sign of the RIAA cases startng to get out-of-hand from the RIAA's point of view. People are counter-suing, and now with omnibus claims. Rather than backing down against their legal might, some people are starting to fight back and they run the case of making sympathetic figures of those they are going after and making themselves out to be bad guys to the general public. Up to now, all the publicity in the mainstream has gone for the most part, the RIAA's way. This type of thing if it continues can harden the general public against the RIAA making their present tactics counter-productive. And as a by-product, can make it harder to find sympathetic jurors and judges to their cause.
The big fear I would have if I were the RIAA, is that sooner or later unless they change tactics, they could face class action lawsuits.
This is a nice shot across the bow of the RIAA.
Ah but you must remember that this is the United States, and the truth has no bearing on the legal process. Despite that her arguement is all wrong, and has major flaws if he gets a jury trial that means that we will have twelve luddites trying to solve technical support issues between an evil corporate interest and Holly homemaker, all she has to do is wear a revealing house coat and she will win. If th lawsuit was concerned about the truth, or for that matter if any lawsuits were concerned about the truth would the IBM~SCO thing had lasted as long as it did? This is th US, anyone can sue anyone and everyone for any reason just because they feel the inkling to do so, didn't you see that South Park episode? Oh well, I am ranting... Jeffy
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
Hopefully the industry will get bitch-slapped by this. If this lady were to win, then people the RIAA has "successfully sued" might ban together and sue the RIAA. It could potentially get really messy for the RIAA.
The industry basically needs to realize that their products are too expensive, and that the quality is not as good. They need to really get behind the legal download model, such as iTunes rather than making innuendos about "decapiting" it.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
What kills me is, how can they just "create" a bill like this and get it sent off to a collections agency? I mean, can I go to a collections agency and claim all my neighbors owe me $1,000 without actually proving it? You'd think they'd need a judgement from a court first. (And you'd think there'd be a law against fabricating "debt" against people, especially where the situation is disputed).
I mean, if it's that easy, I'm going to go get collection action started against a few hundred people and make some quick cash. Who needs a job.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
If what she claims is true, i.e. that Media Sentry broke into her computer to snoop around, then THEY are guilty of copyright infringement whenever they opened one of her files and had it sent over the network for inspection!
this is the same bullshit they used against web radio and broadcasters.
even if they were broadcasting ORIGINAL music, they still have to pay the RIAA. (or some copyright cartel front group).
no music has fallen back into the public domain in over a century and even if some do (like some of elvis' songs in Europe) they won't allow people in other countries to obtain that music.
a big F U to the aholes in the RIAA/MPAA/Software cartels.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
I called this over two years ago.
6 062
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77984&cid=692
I should be a lawyer.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
What's scary is that someone modded this "Funny".
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
They should have just stuck with crushing the P2P makers, and let the nerds carry on about the importance of placing responsibility where it belongs.
.357, it isn't your fault, it's Smith and Wesson's. They made the weapon, you just used it.
As overrated as your comment is, I will bite:
So they should go after Bram Cohen, the creator of bittorrent, because "everyone knows there is no legitimate use for bittorrent", right? Or go after eDonkey creator Jed McCaleb. After all, it's not the users responsibility, its the creator. Just like if you shoot me with a
Of course, there are more than a few legitimate uses for P2P software. This is like going after Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates, because they created and contributed to the operating systems that allow computer crimes to happen in the first place.
I mean, if there was no operating systems, there would be no computer crime, right? Just like if no author made P2P software, no one would illegally share files. (um, I am being sarcastic if you haven't caught up yet...)
They can go after the people who are infringing their copyrights, but they are currently breaking more laws than the users by intentionally breaking and entering into their computers (and perfectly innocent people's computers) and using extortion against people who think may have infringed, without providing any proof.
If you people learn one thing today, make it this: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIME. Spying on people and extorsion, however, IS a crime.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid
I'm not sure whether or not you mean to imply that illegal file sharing=artists not getting paid, but this does open the door to an interesting conversation I had recently with the former president of a prominent record company (retired about a year and a half ago). He told me several interesting things:
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models. The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
To sum up, I'm not sure where you were going with your comment, and I'm also unsure as to why you think it's "biased" to claim the record companies' actions amount to legalized extortion, especially when it appears they may have been going after people with very little, if any, evidence of actual infringement. But I'll leave elaboration on those points to you.
Kythe
iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.
And look at what the record companies are trying to do... control the retail price and threaten this new business model by pulling out.
You've voluntarily opted to give up all credibility with this comment. Typical preaching from the top of the mountain bunk.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Are you even employed in an industry which has an employee agreement? If not then you've instantly lost all credibility in this thread.
Even 9-to-5 jobs require an employee agreement and, unless you're financially wealthy enough to be able to afford to turn them down, there's nothing you can do but accept an unfair agreement.
I'm not a bleeding heart for the artists. I do recognize that the media industry, as a general rule, is fleecing the artists blind and deserve none of the protections warranted by a responsible member of society.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Your whole post is no more than a "straw man" style argument in which you misrepresent Slashdot's supposed editorial stands on the various issues presented so that you can more easily attack them. Well, I 'll just make a few points and then leave you to continue your trolling in peace...
d =13592078
"Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy."
The point was that suing and in any way bothering ISPs with these RIAA lawsuits was a bogus approach because ISPs should have "common carrier" status. Just as people can carry out illegal activities on phone lines while the phone companies are held to be legally without liability, so too should it be the case for ISPs who are mere carriers for the information being sent and retrieved by their customers.
No one advocated bogus lawsuits against individuals. No one suggested abuse of process (because this is more a scare campaign than anything else, let's face it). No one supported the RIAA going after people without even the ability to state a valid claim. In this case (the one under discussion) they weren't able to state an actual damage, just the potential of one - and even that might have been based on erroneous information.
Seriously, get your shit together first before coming here to talk utter nonsense.
BTW, you know who cares about Music Piracy? Maybe the RIAA and no one else. Why should our government be wasting resources for the benefit of so few? Why even discuss it? If someone infringes your rights and you can claim a damage - Great! Sue them in court. Leave everyone else alone. The courts are not there for the exclusive use of the RIAA and all of their thousands of bullshit lawsuits.
"This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits."
Um...okay. May I ask if you even know what RICO stands for? It's an acronym for: "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." The history of RICO law in the U.S. follows closely with government attempts to squash the activities of organized criminal organizations (i.e. the Mafia, gangs, etc). So yeah, if it happens to be the case that you can hit an organization with a RICO lawsuit chances are at least even money that they are on the same legal footing as mobsters or your "Average organized crime syndicate." And you have a problem with that why? If it's proven out in court, the RIAA will be seen to have been using the courts to pursue an illegal agenda that was abusive of court processes and infringing upon the rights of individuals to boot. I can't condone that.
It seems to me that whomever modded your comment as insightful is as ignorant as you are. Your comments are barely coherent and you appear to be poorly informed.
FWIW, I guess it's kinda cool how I predicted this RICO move a couple of weeks back: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162628&ci
Checkmate.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Ok, here is your new business model: SELL MP3S OVER THE INTERNET!!!!!
There are quite literally millions of people who would buy them. iTunes would have a serious run for its money (at the same pricepoint)for remaining the top site in internet music.
The record companies could do this and they would earn BILLIONS of dollars.
There are millions of people out there who will buy the music. There are millions of file sharers who will actually start buying the music.
All the RIAA needs to be is reasonable, but they're not. All they have to do is make it so easy and reasonably affordable (read same price as iTunes or less) and they can sit back and real in billions of dollars. And there are quite likely millions of people sitting on the sidlines right now, like me, who aren't downloading anything, but also aren't buying CDs.
But they won't do that.....
"Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release."
Apparently you haven't done your research either. Touring was, until recently, a way for artists to raise money that was entirely their own (which then, paradoxically, often went to pay off their debts to the record companies). Clear Channel Communications has been working with at least one of the record companies to change this practice--so the artist is getting screwed three times and not just twice (one:royalties,two:debts for publishing,three:having the ability to pay off those debts compromised). This discussion doesn't even begin to cover the rest of what is wrong with the industry--payola for example. SO yes, the problem is the RIAA and the record companies--the artists likely lost money in the publishing deal, and are not going to make any royalties at all until the record company has "recouped its losses," something which could take the rest of the artists' natural lives to happen.
In case it wasn't clear already, most artists make their money performing--they do not make money selling CDs.
(If you are at all familiar with the history of the recording industry, then you likely already knew all of this. The Carter Family was a perfect example of this misinterpretation of the public as to how the artist get paid. They didn't get rich, there were no royalties at the time--only one time payments.)
Hardly.
The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:
P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.
Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.
Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).
Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.
You are completely correct... however we get the shaft no matter what we do...
When we don't buy because they are too expensive, and sales inevitably slump, we get blamed for pirating. If we buy their CD's yet don't buy all the crap they shovel out, we get blamed for not buying enough. And of course, they say piracy is at the root. (Their numbers at the RIAA website are very different from their "poor-me" press releases most of the time.) We use iTunes and buy online... they want to raise prices. It is as if the RIAA is never happy.
It's a lose-lose situation. The RIAA will find a way to demonize their base.
That doesn't mean I defend infringement. It just means that not buying to the RIAA _is_ "piracy."
If even the MPAA can realize that crappy movies == fewer ticket sales.... why can't the RIAA stop blaming "pirates" every time their sales dip? They would rather invent a buzzword du-jour to exclaim how they are being robbed of their very shirts by that "evil" internet.
Bah. It's enough to turn your stomach sometimes.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."
Victim does not imply innocence. If the RIAA sued her, then she is their victim, regardless of whether the RIAA's suit was valid or not.
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
The RIAA was convicted of price-fixing. Racketeering and corruption are fairly valid adjectives in that context.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
RICO was originally set up to attack organized crime. That's where the parallel to organized crime comes in. Not that the RIAA is putting out hits and charging protection money, but that the laws set up to catch organized crime is catching them too.
The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks.
Except that it has a history of getting the wrong people with it's scatter-shot lawsuits. If this person turns out to be one of those people, then no, the RIAA is not doing what it is legally entitled to.
No, slashdot isn't POV neutral, but when was the last time you saw a neutral mainstream news report? At least their editorializing is in some sense justifiable.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If I directly gave the artist the same amount of money he would have made from the sale, had I bought the CD, would that make piracy okay, since I wouldn't be hurting the artist?
That would be fine, if the artist actually wants it that way. But if you like the artist and say you respect them, why not do business with them in a way that they personally have asked you to? No artists wants to have to deal with what amounts to thousands or millions of transactions directly with them. That's exactly why they get in business with a company that deals with that for them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When you said "Barring government protection, all companies ultimately serve the consumer" you forgot, the RIAA HAS government protection!! It seems almost every day I hear about yet another moronic law with no purpose except to screw the artists AND consumers out of more money, being promoted by politicians who are so obviously really just RIAA employees (or whatever other rich conglomerate decides to buy them off).
It's easy enough to say "just don't sign the contract" or to say that other people would gladly take their job (ie sign the contract in their place) but what you are really saying is "just struggle with your dream for another decade or two till you are to old and tired to get anywhere". In most industries, you have decent alternatives: if your a talented employee, and you dont like the terms in a contract, you at least have some chance of finding another employer with better conditions. In the music industry, the RIAA/ **AA is the Only one . The RIAA neither serves the consumer or the artist, only themselves.
As an artist (I have been playing music for over 10 years) , If I had a decent fair chance of getting radio play/other exposure by going it alone, and therefore a decent alternative to signing up, I would agree, and say let the RIAA put whatever they want in their contracts. But the fact is, with almost every radiostation owned by the same bullshit company, rampant Payola, and the price fixing, pressure to sell the approved products etc that happens in music stores, there is no decent alternative.
Of course I guess if I was a soulless bastard who had a government sponsored Monopoly on a multibillion dollar industry, I wouldnt want to let it go either.
watch "the money masters" on google video
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.
Ok, your original point was that we are hurting the artists.
The response was that the artists aren't really being hurt because they don't make money off the cd sales (which are impacted by piracy) anyway.
Your response is that whether the artists are being hurt or not is between them and the labels
You have failed to prove that the artists are being hurt. Your original point is still successfully contested.
On your second point, the well being of our artists is important to us the consumer. We care about it, and if we think they are getting a raw deal then we are not going to want to support that deal. The mentality of 'screw the guys who screw the artists' is a valid one and I think piracy is a way of doing this.
As an aside I was in a band a few years ago, and we lost money on cd's and made money on gigs. I would be happy to think people are pirating my music, I even saw a few mp3s turn up on a file sharing program a while ago and got a big kick out of it.
Here's another hypotheses:
Each song has a natural audience that would be willing and financially able to purchase that song.
For a musician like Brittney Spears that "natural" audience numbers in the millions.
For a musician like Tom Waites that "natural" audience numbers in the thousands.
The financial success of that song therefor depends upon the number of individuals from that pool of consumers who: 1. hear the song and 2. are able to find the song in a place where it can be purchased.
Piracy of songs increases the percentage of the target population who hear the song while inspiring the RIAA to increase the places where songs can be purchased (does anyone think the iTunes wouldn't have been sued into oblivion if it weren't for piracy).
Okay, I'm done with the armchair economics for today. Where the hell is Steven Levitt when you need him?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.