Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
you don't have to be a techno wiz to fight against the RIAA. just need some money to fight them with.
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. 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? They're not selling the products, they exist solely as a trade group, and if they take all the flak that rightfully belongs to the labels, they'll still do it.
It's the puppeteers, not the puppet, that needs to be demonized.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
No, every other day we hear of some crackpot motion to dismiss or lawsuits under RICO etc. which have approximatly zero chance of success. If slashdot only reported on actual rulings, there'd be a lot less. Like that case that's been up at least half a dozen time where they started suing the mother, found out it was the daughter, went on to sue her and finally dropped the charges against the mother. Reported like a huge win on slashdot, when it did pretty much nothing good for the family. I think they were forced to pay some of the mother's court cost but they probablz took it out of her daughter's hide. Yeah, great win...
The RIAA train has derailed but it doesn't seem to be slowing any time soon.
That just means it's going to be one spectacular train wreck.
Look, I'm all for the RIAA burning in hell. But I really hate the idea of having to use a "licensed" investigator. The following *is not* to be taken for a RIAA analogy:
Let's say your laptop is stolen. Let's say you had a program that reported IP addresses. Someone buys your laptop from the thief for a stupid low price and hooks it up. It reports their IP. You turn the evidence over to a cop who goes to get your laptop.
1. You were not licensed to be an investigator.
2. The program author was also not licensed.
3. The cop obtained evidence from you.
The person who bought stolen property cannot be charged with a crime. All because you didn't have a "license".
Instead, the law requiring a license should be replaced with a "suspects' bill of rights". Anyone can investigate, but if his/her rights are violated, then the evidence becomes poisoned fruit.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
when they're supplying your side.
But of course they're supplying the other side as well, and making a profit from all conflict.
The US is in the crappy state it's in because of lawyers. The fact that that granny's lawyer happens to be fighting an evil cartel of blood-sucking music industry parasites sounds nice, but it's just business as usual for a profession predicated on causing misery so that they can defend against it.
I would be interested in seeing the stats you are describing. Is there a site you can link where they are compiled? You are correct in pointing out the flawed nature of only going by the anecdotal evidence. I just wish you hadn't dumbed down your message with your pissy attitude and tone -- it makes it more likely that your thoughts will get lost in the noise.
YOU yourself can do this sort of thing, legally, even in Texas.
What isn't legit is hiring someone without a proper license to do this professionally
on your behalf. The same thing goes for providing security services of any kind (incl.
cybersecurity...)- YOU can do it for yourself, but if you hire someone, you need to hire
someone with a license or operating the umbrella of one to make it legit if something
goes wrong.
Where your analogy falls apart is that you make the assumption that a consultant doing
the work is analogous to your doing the same work. It's not as far as the civil and
criminal laws are concerned. Since the RIAA or the Labels themselves did not have direct
hire employees doing this work, it's not the same thing as what you present- they hired
a an outside professional (or group thereof) that didn't have a Federal
license for the work being done or a Texas state PI's license. This makes it all subject
to litigation like what's now happening to them.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Let's say your laptop is stolen. Let's say you had a program that reported IP addresses. Someone buys your laptop from the thief for a stupid low price and hooks it up. It reports their IP. You turn the evidence over to a cop who goes to get your laptop.
In addition to the objections others have pointed out, the situations are not analogous. Stealing your laptop is a criminal offense. Despite their propaganda, unlicensed copying of a RIAA member organization's content is a civil matter AND not theft.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Lawyers aren't the real problem, and getting rid of them isn't a solution. The underlying problem is that some people are anti-social jerks who have discovered that they can get their way by bullying others. Under our current system, the jerks hire lawyers to do their bullying for them. If you eliminate the lawyers, the jerks will just find a new set of bullies to do their dirty work.
The real solution is to give ordinary, decent people a way of striking back when the bullies get on their case. Counter-suits, like the one mentioned in this article, are a good way of doing that. If everyone who was wrongly accused by the RIAA decided to launch a nasty counter-suit rather than caving in, the litigation strategy would grind to a halt- or at least focus on the worst, most obvious real offenders rather than people chosen at random.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
You only hear about the people striking back because they're the rare counter-example. You don't hear about the thousands and thousands of people who settle to get the lawyers off their backs.
The RIAA train hasn't derailed. The function of the lawsuits isn't to make money. The goal is to scare people away from file sharing and back into the music store, either bricks and mortar or online. As long as the lawsuits stop the bleeding from file sharing, they only have to break even, or just avoid losing too much money, to serve the real goals of the RIAA.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Two buffaloes don't make a stampede... not quite, no...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The RIAA train hasn't derailed.
Really? Did they take someone to trial and win today?
The function of the lawsuits isn't to make money. The goal is to scare people away from file sharing and back into the music store, either bricks and mortar or online.
They're doing a bang-up job there, too. Tower Records says "Thanks" for the extra traffic.
Actually, apply DeMorgan's Law: not(AB) = notA or notB, not(A + B) = (notA)(notB)
So: not((dying) (a little) (inside)) = (living + a lot + outside).
I don't see why he'd feel "living or a lot or outside" but it must feel... interesting.
Lawyers are like guns. They're not good or evil by themselves, whether they are depends on how you use them. Just because most use them for evil doesn't mean that the lawyers themselves are.
Sure, there are the crooks that jump in joy every time they found a loophole in a law so they can milk some unsuspecting victim and basically collect protection money, due to his victim not understanding the law. They're basically the legal (as in "law world" not as in "allowed") equivalent of malware writers. Using the lack of knowledge on their victim's side for their benefit.
The other ones, the "antivirus lawyers" do exist. They're fewer, as the general drive to become one seems to stem from the urge to get more money rather than actually helping people with their legal needs, but they do exist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, I guess I must be aging too.
When I was "young" (read: under 25), music was my love. Well, besides computers. I have a few hundred CDs. But for almost 10 years now, I didn't buy a single one. Maybe I'm getting old, or maybe I just can't stomach the cover versions of "my" songs, dunno.
Back then, there also wasn't much that competed with CDs for my money. Fashion would've been the only other thing to waste money on, and I've never been the fashion geek. So all my spending money went into music.
Today, a lot more businesses want our kids' money. Cellphones, consoles, trading card games and a few more compete for that money. So kids cut down in spending. And, well, they cut down where it's easiest. You can't copy TCG cards, you can't hack the phone company to lower your cell bill, so...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
should read:
"My right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs your right not to get blown up."
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Ok, I admit, I'm not familiar with the situation in the US. Here, no money exchanges hands (besides the initial payment, which is nominal and usually less than 500 bucks) before the case is settled. Furthermore, we have a rather simple "loser pays all" system, where whoever loses the trial gets to pay for everything. His lawyer, his opponent's lawyer, court cost. The whole bill is footed by the party that doesn't win the trial. In case they reach an agreement, that bill is usually split somewhere (most of the time in the middle), but we're talking trials here that are already won.
So far I thought it's the same in the US?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.