Slashdot Mirror
RIAA, Safenet Sued For Malicious Prosecution
DaveAtFraud writes "Tanya Anderson, the single mother from Oregon previously sued by the RIAA — which dropped the case just before losing a summary judgement — is now suing the RIAA and their hired snoop Safenet for malicious prosecution. (Safenet was formerly known as MediaSentry.) Anderson is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. A reader at Groklaw has already picked up that she is seeking to have the RIAA forfeit the copyrights in question as part of the settlement (search the page for '18.6-7')."
Does she seriously expect the courts to award such a devastating judgement against one of the richest IP holding organizations in the country?
What really needs to happen is to get a couple of the hawkish Attourny Generals, like NY's, involved and looking into the RIAA's actions. They, actually, have some power to do something about the RIAA's tactics.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought the RICO act into this. It's what finally stopped DirecTV from suing everyone that bought a Smartcard reader.
Hmmm...I have mod points, but instead of just clicking Troll I'll assume you're serious and respond that way. Read the FA and tell me this isn't about extortion, plain and simple. It is also about deterrence, in the sense of the RIAA trying to deter people from defending themselves against baseless charges. The RIAA have no case whatsoever against this woman. Never did. At this point they're simply protecting their techniques for suing anybody anytime on the flimsiest of evidence. This woman has good lawyers and they recognize that she is not only innocent, she's *so* innocent that her case has good chances for setting precedent. With a good, solid precedent, other lawyers with other clients will have an easier time defending themselves.
Groklaw is irrelevant. The RIAA were dead wrong in this case, and now she wants them to pay for their mistake. She has every right to do so. That's how the legal system works in the US.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Which is why you would never be on the jury, because you have already made up your mind about the outcome.
It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money.
It is, indeed. And threatening people who can't defend themselves unless they pay $4000 sounds to me an awful lot like a moneymaking scheme.
Just because it serves the dual purpose of "deterring" copyright violation doesn't mean it isn't extortion.
Kythe
I am not American, nor a lawyer, but my understanding is that they are doing a couple of things which very much violate the spirit of the law.
First, they file John Doe lawsuits, then use the discovery privileges they attain as a result of having those lawsuits filed to gather more information. As soon as the necessary information is gathered, the drop the original lawsuit (and offer settlement or go to court for a real lawsuit etc). The important thing here is that the John Doe lawsuit is never meant to be anything other than an abuse of process to give them wider investigative powers - definitely a violation of the spirit of the law.
Secondly, you get a knock on the door with a lawsuit from a multimillion (billion?) dollar company with the lawyers to match. Whether you've done something wrong or not, the temptation will be to buy the next couple of years of your life back by forking over 2 or 3 grand - the alternative is to fight for a year or 2 in court at great risk and expense... I think we'd all accept that the US litigation system favours he with the deepest pockets - so right or wrong, you still stand a shot of losing.. they know most folks will not take the risk for a couple of grand - that makes it extortion as plain as the hairs on my arse.
Keep in mind that the way the RIAA and the music corporations are setup the RIAA will not make money. They will be operated at a loss. The music companies are the ones awarded the settlements since the hold the copyrights. Besides lawyers are relatively cheap when they are on salary. Consider that once the lawyers are on the books they might as well be suing people so they can bring in some money. So while you are correct that the RIAA is not "making money" that is not their purpose. They are there to make money for the record labels. They even say so on their site "The RIAA is an organization committed to helping the music business thrive." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
If someone intentionally runs you down with their car are you lucky if they run away when the cops arrive? (for the metaphorically impaired: I'm equating the cops arriving with the impending summary judgments that led the MAFIAA to drop their case). Wouldn't you try to sue them for you medical bills? How is that any different from her suing them for the legal bills they caused her to incur to defend herself against their bogus charges?
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It should also be clear to anyone with a brain that this is what the RIAA means when they say they are going to "educate" the public. I already know a lot of people who won't go near P2P programs because of these tactics.. regardless of the fact that we're in another country and the RIAA don't "service our area". The education program is working.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Hell, old school Mafia protection rackets also serve the purpose of "deterring" people. Deterring them from living their lives in peace without paying money to the Mafia.
"Such a nice shop you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know what I mean?"
And since the RIAA lawsuit's boil down to:
"Such a nice house you've got there. Be a shame if you were to lose it in, say, a lawsuit by a multinational cartel against your family. Now, how about an out of court settlement for a few thousand, and you never talk to anyone about this, capische?"
it's basically the same thing.
So you would have modded it troll/overrated just because you disagree with it and think the RIAA "doesn't have a lot of good karma"? Dont you see anything fundamentally wrong with that? Arent peer moderated discussions supposed to foster intelligent debate, not just modding down anything that the majority disagrees with?
Your statement shows me the sad state of the educational system when they do not teach basic law or (apparently) how to research and read. This woman is one of many that has to deal with the RIAA in this way. She is the first to actually fight back. She was wrongfully accused, and therefore had the right in the US legal system to get compensation for that. As for the RIAA doing something illegal, how is knocking at your door demanding $4000 or you'll be sued and might have to spent two to four times that defending yourself not extortion? Its just like a mobster demanding $1000 for "protection" or you might loose $10000 repairing the damage.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
This got modded to +5 Insightful? I knew it was a problem (see my sig), but seriously, this guy called us moderates "corporo-fascist trolls" for crying out loud. And here's me thinking that trolls were people who deliberately blocked discussion, or expressed their opinions in an inflammatory way (e.g. the parent post), not people who legitimately disagree with the person's viewpoint.
For shame, Slashdot, for shame.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The MAFIAA will attempt to drag this out as long as possible (10-20 years probably) all the while dangling a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars in front of her. It would take a *very* principled person to go through that, even though she is in the right, while forgoing all of that money in the meantime for an uncertain reward (the legal system sometimes delivers surprises after all). It may be impossible for her anyway unless she gets some legal help from the likes of EFF or Groklaw behind her to see the case through to the end. I would like to see the MAFIAAs toes held to the fire as much as anyone, but as the parent has said this is a shady organization that resorts to questionable tactics. I wouldn't put it past them to engage in a campaign of threatening phone calls, scary surveillance people, and assorted harassments (ala the big tobacco lawsuits) to 'convince' her to accept the settlement. If I were her, I would be seeking some dependable bodyguards to fend off the MAFIAA goon squads.
I believe that you will need to get someone from the Department of Justice (either Oregon or Federal) to press charges, you can't turn a civil case into a criminal one. I doubt either of them will, but this does look like it is gift-wrapped for them. If you believe the case should be prosecuted, you should contact the local DoJ offices in Oregon.
-all the cases are based on FastTrack, which technically sophisticated file sharers apparently haven't been using for years
--no technically sophisticated person bent on copyright infringement would be using his own computer, his own internet access account, his own wireless signal, etc.
--any technically sophisticated person engaged in 'copyright piracy' would probably be using dummies, zombies, slaves, whatever... and would not be using his or her own computer.
In other words, the RIAA's campaign is not geared towards catching serious copyright infringers; it is geared towards disrupting people's lives and making a lot of noise and causing a lot of pain. The RIAA itself has termed it a "driftnet" strategy. See ACLU brief in Capitol v. Foster. But if it's a driftnet, it's a pretty strange driftnet.... because the one thing it is NOT designed to catch is the 'copyright pirate' the RIAA professes to be 'angling' for.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful