Granny Sues RIAA Over Unlicensed Investigator

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An elderly, non-file-sharing grandmother from East Texas, who had been sued by the RIAA after being displaced by Hurricane Rita, has sought leave to file counterclaims against the RIAA record companies for using unlicensed investigators. In her counterclaims (PDF) Ms. Crain claims that the record companies 'entered into an agreement with a private investigations company to provide investigative services which led to the production of evidence to be used in court against counterclaim plaintiff, including the identification of an IP address on the basis of which counterclaim defendants filed their suit... [They] were at the time of this agreement aware that the aforementioned private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... [T]hey agreed between themselves and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign... [T]he private investigations company hired by plaintiffs engaged in one or more overt acts of unlawful private investigation... Such actions constitute civil conspiracy under Texas common law.'"

Comments

RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... and the lawyer stampede has begun.

Well, her lawyer knew enough to discover this information and file this anyway...

You'll recall from an earlier article that Tanya Anderson's lawyer (in Oregon) http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= andersen_riaa_070622complaint">found a number of grounds on which to countersue. One of those was using an unlicensed private investigator to get the IP number of alleged private-party infringers.

Texas has a similar requirement for private investigators to be licensed. So THIS granny's attorney is filing a copycat countersuit. This is the second buffalo in the stampede.

I expect we'll shortly see television ads from the law offices of James Sokolove asking whether you have received a settlement request from the RIAA, which is about to be nibbled to death by ducks. B-)

Re:Good, but...

[Courageous]

I'm happy for the RIAA to get anything and everything that's coming to them, but I don't think it will change their litigation-happy behaviour at all.

Depends on the findings. There was a case that came up just recently where the RIAA is being accused of both federal and state RICO charges as well as quite a number of other things. While this is only a civil case, these are criminal charges. If the findings go to the plaintiff on some of the more serious charges, and were the RIAA not to reform itself, the remedies in a follow-on case from any other party could be quite severe indeed.

C//

Re:And yet...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

you don't have to be a techno wiz to fight against the RIAA. just need some money to fight them with. I don't think Ms. Crain has money. What she has is a great Legal Aid lawyer, John Stoneham, from Lone Star Legal Aid.

Re:Good, but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The problem is that the RIAA is just a faceless body representing the big labels, and until people start bitching about Sony, Universal Music, EMI etc, then what does the RIAA care if people hate them? In the context of these lawsuits, "RIAA" is just a synonym for the Big 4 record companies and their affiliated labels. Not every member of the RIAA is involved in this thing. It's just the Big 4 cartel. So if you boycott the major labels you're on track. Anyone who wants to look at any particular article, look up the names of the plaintiffs in that case, and put in a post listing them, will be doing a public service.

But when I say "RIAA" I'm talking about the 4 major record companies and their labels.