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.
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?
No, please do cheer. You can't get a victory unless someone fights back, and it has to be someone getting victimized by the RIAA to have real currency. We've gone years now without someone stepping up to the plate, so I would consider this to be a huge step. We've needed this for a long time.
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~*