Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Accused of Extortion & Conspiracy
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."
You know, its about time this happened - I've been wandering how the RIAA's actions up to this point were any different from Mafia tactics. Pay us "protection money" or we'll sue. Good on 'em.
Cemil.
I wonder if this is referring to the people who get your ip address off of their file sharing programs?
I do think that this should at least make the RIAA use legal and more robust techniques to win cases.
dont cheer yet, filing counterclaims is not the same as winning the case agaisnt the RIAA- if and when the RIAA loses THEN you can cheer.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Most of the victims just roll over because they can't afford to pay a lawyer. The RIAA doesn't go after people who can defend themselves. On the other hand, if this case and a couple of others are won in court then the RIAA won't be able to use its cheap tactics any more.
Their supposed expert (actually he is an expert, just not on what he is testifying to) and their investigators only sound good until they are properly challenged. In other words they're only good enough to fool most of the victims and maybe a credulous judge.
I don't really get it.
The RIAA waves a piece of paper and says "Look, at 11:28 on March 23rd 2007 Zaphod was making 'Stairway to Heaven' available for downloading on the Bittorrent network".
Zaphod: "Err, no, I wasn't."
RIAA: "Yes you did, we have a piece of paper!"
Zaphod: "Give me ten seconds and I can show you a piece of paper saying anything you like."
RIAA: "We have database logs and screenshots!"
Zaphod: "Give me five minutes with a computer and I'll show you database logs and screenshots of anything you like."
RIAA: "We have bizarrely detailed logs from your ISP showing that we downloaded a file from your computer at 11:29 on March 23rd 2007!."
Zaphod: "Yes, it was a picture of me buggering your mother."
RIAA: "..."
Really, I don't understand why the *AA's 'evidence' in these matters is relevant, let alone compelling. Do they have some sort of infallible tool for proving exactly what files Zaphod had on his computer?
There are way too many ties between the people who write the law and the people who make money knowing the law. Politicans aren't about to put lawyers out of work by making the legal system intelligible to the common citizen.
Having non-lawyers write laws will result in really poorly-written laws with plenty of loopholes. The law is like every other specialized field; it develops its own language for a reason.
So because the odds of me getting struck by a stray bullet while you fire at targets in your back yard, is so low im more likely to get killed in a freak zebra crossing, it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a poplulated area?
Just because its rare, doesn't make it right. Murder, as it turns out, is pretty damn rare. Does that make murder right? If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
You compared an event the probabilistically won't happen to an event that has happened.
Stop it, they don't apply to each other.
"...it should be legal to fire at targets in your back yard in a populated area?"
if the odds are that low to hit ANYBODY, then there would be nothing wrong with firing a gun in your backyard. Of course you would be paying for any property damage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sadly, I know that you have been reading (and have posted in) the last few dozen stories and are just being an asshole, but I'll try to recap some of the main points here. Ray can (and has) done it many times and better than I can. He's also a lawyer, whereas IANAL. Be that as it may...
> How in the hell is legally protecting your rights by suing infringers who are distributing your copyrighted materials, and offering them a settlement to avoid court cases, an example of "Mafia tactics" or "protection money?"
They abuse court processes by:
* Doing things ex parte whenever possible, making sure that the other side never has a chance to be heard in court.
* Improper joinder of unrelated cases, for which they have been sanctioned in Texas. In spite of having been enjoined by the court, they have routinely ignored that ruling and simply avoided litigating in Texas.
* Unfair settlements. Although they have acknowledged in the press that they "occasionally" find innocent defendants, they pursue even their weakest cases in court until it's obvious they're going to lose. Then they try to get a dismissal without prejudice to avoid having to pay your legal fees. This means that you can either: a) Pay a ~$3,500 settlement or b) Pay a lawyer even more than that to represent you in court. If you're innocent, you end up paying no matter what. Yes, after a long and hard court battle, Debbie Foster *finally* won reasonable attorney's fees, but she's pretty much the only one so far. Usually, they cut & run and you're just out of luck and out of money.
In short, they do precious little to make sure that the people they sue are guilty, they torment anyone they sue in court (even going after your family if you prove to be innocent), and they twist every court rule they can get away with (hint: getting sanctioned & ignoring court orders is NOT something a reputable lawyer does).
So no, I'm not going to condone this "Won't someone please think of the poor RIAA!" crap when the RIAA come preaching this hypocritical holier than thou bit with respect to copyright law, only to turn around and ignore any laws or court orders that stand in their way.
Now please crawl back under whatever bridge you came out from under.
IH speaks! "Can't stop what Napster started."
a merica/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245 235.php
Ya, a copyright infringement website defends copyright infringement. Who'd've thought. also, this lesson has been learned before.
Besides, I AM an artist. If I were signed with a label/distribution company/other organ, I would make >10 per unit sold. I much prefer that people burn or download my album, then buy me a beer. I get more out of it that way.
Also, 15,010 angry nerds can't be wrong. http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
[/rebuttal] Okay, fair point, the RIAA are just doing their job. We'll disregard for the moment it's a job that doesn't need to be done. In this case, the only thing the RIAA are guilty of is boundless enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the low-income single mothers on the receiving end of the lawsuits don't see it that way.
Okay, I've lost the thread of my argument, so I'm just going to say what I originally intended to say.
Clearchannel.
Money talks. Independent labels can't afford to get music on the radio in America, because they don't have the resource to buy the airtime or lobby the execs. The internet is their only hope. The RIAA, as far as I can work out, is accidentally crushing independent artists while they're going after the roaches. So, sure. Blame the RIAA-haters for depriving artists who already have record labels, have a valid form of income. I'll keep blaming the RIAA for keeping the little guy down with its' clumsy antics.
THUD~*
I am all for seeing a criminal trial against the RIAA, but as others have stated its a bit of a "pipe dream" to actually get it.
my main concern is the RIAA/MPAA getting new laws passed that would be similar to a criminal version of the DMCA. Here in the US it seems you can buy -almost- any law you want, even if it will get overturned by a court later and tore down by organizations like the EFF. It will still be in effect long enough to do quite a bit of damage.
see: Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement May 15, 2007 - stuff like this, even a lot lesser version of it is what bothers me.
s/©//g
As a Canadian I am always amazed at the abuse of Justice by litigants in the US. It would seem that if you have deep pockets you can defeat justice in the US (OJ). I have long thought that the US Justice system is hugely flawed and the RIAA and their various suits have reinforced my belief.
This article is a breath of fresh air. It is about time that the small guy takes it to the man.
The RIAA is a justice bully that is using the flawed system to protect their supposed turf, and has picked on the wrong person yet again.
The US Supreme court needs to step in and finally smack those bastards to their knees. The RIAA is not protecting the artists or the consumers -- they are a bloated association with ulterior motives that protect nothing other than their own interests and need to be given a severe reality check.
As a Canadian with different rights -- I will watch in amusement -- the US electorate needs to make this an issue, for fear of having the rest of the US Justice system undermined. The RIAA is way too big for its own britches. I hope they get cut down to the level they should be at (which is merely an association that represents the artists that make the money for the industry). Even the artists that they supposedly represent complain about them.
So what is wrong with this picture? Come on you Americans -- lobby your congress person on behalf of the artists -- the RIAA is a bully. We don't allow bullying in our schools or our workplaces. Why allow it in your marketplace?