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."
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Peace sells, but who's buying?
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.
Extortion? No, not the RIAA, they'd never do that!
Sarcasm aside, who didn't see this coming?
My sig can beat up your sig.
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.
If you look at Section 72 paragraph 14, subsection 8 sentence 2 (3f33.v2.7) of the Florida code (version 23.4.2a) you will clearly see that it is superceded by Federal code 4323F.2b4#*R, page 492 subsection B, paragraph 12, sentences 3-7.
Inconceivable.
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.
Subject says it all.
Irony: that has ironness.
...welcome our counterclaim filing peers!
when I think "FUCK YEAH, STICK IT TO THEM". Man I should have fits like that a little more often, it's liberating.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
That's because AFAIK he/she is a lawyer and has been involved in one of these RIAA cases (to what extent I'm unsure). Just look at the prior article submissions! Here and here being obvious examples.
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?
the RIAArdvark came across a Black Widow... who ate it for lunch. Gulp!
I think these charges, should they have merit might just stop the RIAA in its tracks. At the very least, experts would be far less willing to work on their behalf for fear of a damaged reputation and/or potential jail time. I know that in PA, acting as Private Detective without any kind of bond and licensure is a FELONY. I can't imagine doing so in Florida wouldn't be a crime either. We shall see about the outcome. My guess is that these charges will be whittled down and not much will become of this. I would really like to see this fought to the bitter end.
é
(my gift to you)
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?
Just for fun I decided to test this theory when someone like you said this to me four years ago. I videotaped some fratboys playing drunk soccer, and then copied and pasted the clip repeatedly until I had an hour and a half long video. I then called the video "Shaolin Soccer.avi", put it in a Gnutella share directory on my computer that I connected to the university network (there were no other files in the share directory) and within three days the university had forwarded me a letter from the MPAA stating that I was sharing the movie "Shaolin Soccer." I had a good laugh with the residential networking guys about it. Together we told the MPAA to go fuck off. I haven't been struck by lightning yet.
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
The ferrousness of the situation?
You've got to admit it sounds great to the ears
Um that's why people share files. Most of the RIAA music doesn't sound good for the ears, and we're sick of paying for a whole CD to get the one good track on it that they never release as a single!
I drink to make other people interesting!
If its right, it would become more common and suddenly, its wrong! Where does such logic lead?
To the War on Drugs.
A cruise ship? A really big hotel?
... ...Spoons-R-Us? ...no?
A spoon manufacturer?
...that there is still news in this world that is good news for the small people.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
i hope he doesn't lose the text file he keeps it in.
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~*
Someone a couple of RIAA articles back was asking when they'd get bitten back, its good to see the comunity banding together in OSS fashion for a very quick time to market with such a response! ;)
Seriously though, it would be good to see the RIAA taken to the wall with this. To see them loose 10 or 20 times the amount they've gained from every ligitation they've performed would seem like justice to me, and perhaps it would make them think about whether all the litigation and drm technology is worth it..
More then likely it result in two things (should they loose), 1) deciding a set of laws they can use to prosecute people without exposing themselve. 2) buying more govt types to change the law to help 1) (are govt types an off-the-shelf item in the USA or something? the way they seem purchasable certainly makes them sound very commodity-based)
I say, why doesnt Grocklaw cover the RIAA cases ? Or even better ! Have an RIAA version of Grocklaw ! I mean, it worked against SCO , Im sure it would work against the RIAA !
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
> Wow really? For the first time, I feel slightly proud to be in Texas.
:-)
It's a big state. Not everyone in it can be a jerk
Anyhow, ironically, the court was mad at them because they were defrauding the state of the proper filing fees by trying to get a "30 cases for the price of 1" type deal. I don't know the actual number of unrelated cases slapped together, but that at least gives you the idea.
I wonder if any lawyers challenging the John Doe cases have used that argument? Of course, the whole point of using the quickly dropped John Doe cases is to get discovery without anyone having a chance to respond, so damn few of them *have* been challenged in any meaningful way...
I doubt that it is accidental, at least not completely. But otherwise your point stands.
"The defendent...has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion." +1
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?
RIAA: "All your MP3 are belong to us" User: "ORLY" RIAA" "YA RLY" USER: "NO WAI"
Just so you know, the submitter's name is Ray Beckerman. He is a New York lawyer who has represented his share of RIAA victims and he has posted many articles updating us on the progress of these cases, including the one where he asked us to respond to the RIAA's "expert" witness who had basically admitted in a deposition to having essentially no scientific basis for his findings.
:(
Because his clients are generally not wealthy and cannot afford thousands of dollars on experts and legal fees, he's turned to those of us in the technical community who are sick of the RIAA's bullying legal tactics, and I believe he found an Ask Slashdot helpful for once, in spite of the trolls (surely that must be a first...).
If you want to know about the cases he's involved in, he posts about those (and others) over on his blog. Or just talk to him when he shows up on Slashdot. He's a nice guy, he reads (and responds to) pretty much all replies to his posts, save maybe the trolls. And if he seems a bit curt at times, it's because the RIAA is also watching him. That's right, they've taken note of his blog and possibly other things and tried to twist the things he says and does to use against him in court. I can't see how it's even relevant (it probably isn't), but the RIAA lawyers aren't known for playing nice (or even by the rules, if you look at all the stuff they try and pull ex parte; one Texas judge got mad at them for trying to "defraud" the state of filing fees).
In other words, he's a good lawyer, and one of our few allies in the fight against the RIAA. Very, very few people can afford to represent themselves in court, even if they're innocent, and the RIAA is taking every advantage of that fact
I, for one, intend to do pretty much anything in my power to help him out.
I, as well, was introduced to this phrase by a college buddy who grew up in Walla Walla. Then again, if Aussies are using it, and with the state penitentiary in close proximity, it could just be prison slang.
Thing of beauty. One of the few legal documents I can actually read.
It appears few stones have been left unturned in the counter complaint. It clearly alleges that the RIAA have been using scare tactics to maintain their control on music distribution. The interesting thing is that they have to now prove they didn't. Given that they the big RIAA members have been convicted of collusion in the past, I can't help but see this one becoming a really big nasty mess for them.
Given the U.S. Justice system runs slower than treacle, don't expect the RIAA to be pulled through the coals for a while.
Go into any law practice and ask for a show of hands about how many of them hate their state assemblies. You'd be surprised.
Lawmakers get all red-pen happy when issues pop up because whiny constituents demand that SOMEONE do SOMETHING to keep little Timmy from hearing "shit" on TV, or possibly, after specifically looking up how to accomplish it, have an encounter with a prostitute in a video game. It's not fair to blame legislatures, though, because they are acting in direct response to the public. They want them to write laws. People want callous, superficial, entertaining campaigns. People don't want to deal with real issues, and certainly don't want to take responsibility for themselves. A democracy reflects the people in it; the United States is getting exactly what it wants. But that's a subject for another thread.
Lawyers hate the absurdity of many laws as written, and hell, even many lawmakers get annoyed at the process. Writing rules by committee is like doing anything else by committee: if there was a creative vision, a coherent drive, or a sense of logic in the beginning, it's gone by the end. This is an inevitable consequence of letting too many people express too many opinions. Dictatorships have the cleanest, clearest laws. They have other downsides.
Ironicly, our NFL team here in Tampa Bay is the Buccaneers...
http://www.buccaneers.com/
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
E.g., in Capitol v. Foster, at a time when the defendant's attorneys fees totalled $55,000, and the judge was preparing to calculate how much of that was "reasonable", the RIAA served a raft of motions and other dilatory requests. The result of this boatload of litigation activity:
-in 2 1/2 months the RIAA's exposure leaped from $55k to $114k
-the judge issued a new decision attacking the RIAA lawyers' motives, veracity, and intellectual integrity, and
-the judge ordered the RIAA to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which will no doubt be described in detail in the judge's order.
I'm estimating the RIAA paid $100,000 for those "additional services".
You tell me if that was money well spent.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful