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.'"

36 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And yet... by matazar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you don't have to be a techno wiz to fight against the RIAA. just need some money to fight them with.

  2. Every other day by dunezone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems like every other day we either find out that the RIAA used some illegal practice or lost a case against a so called music pirate though they keep dishing out lawsuits. The RIAA train has derailed but it doesn't seem to be slowing any time soon.

    1. Re:Every other day by waferthinmint · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Every other day by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like every other day we either find out that the RIAA used some illegal practice or lost a case against a so called music pirate though they keep dishing out lawsuits. The RIAA train has derailed but it doesn't seem to be slowing any time soon.

      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.

  3. Re:The RIAA is such a broken record.... by jschroering · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, if it is a case of a broken record, are they going to sue themselves for using the backup copy they made? :)

    Jimmy

  4. Re:Lawyers Rock by CorSci81 · · Score: 3, Funny

    courts amongst the layers Layers? Of cake? And do they have creamy filling?
  5. Good, but... by adona1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Good, but... by Courageous · · Score: 3, Informative

      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//

    2. Re:Good, but... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re:And yet... by Himring · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently, you don't have to know anything about technology in order to work as a lawyer for the RIAA....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  7. Re:Hmm by Teifion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, that makes me ... what's the opposite of dying a little inside? Not sure, could be any of the following.
    - Living a little inside
    - Living a little outside
    - Living a lot inside
    - Living a lot outside
    - Dying a little outside
    - Dying a lot outside
    - Dying a lot inside

    It all depends on what you want to reverse...

    I think it's great that people are fighting back against the RIAA. I completely support what the RIAA are meant to stand for (I.E. the anti-piracy thing) but their attitude, methods and motives are terrible.
    --
    My blog - This link wouldn't be interesting even if we set fire to
  8. I guess in Texas... by yotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA et al have learned a valuable lesson here.

    In Texas, old ladies SUE YOU!

  9. Re:you GO, girl! by karnal · · Score: 4, Funny

    heh, don't send airhead PIs to mess with a little old lady who got through a level-5 hurricane. they're out of their league. I don't get it - is that some sort of comparison of strength or something in an RPG? Level-5 hurricane survivor FTW?
    --
    Karnal
  10. Its the little old lady who got a subpoena by modecx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its the little old lady who got a subpoena
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    She got a mean nasty letter after fleeing hurricane Rita
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    It said "Hey, we caught you downloading our garbage,
    so we've hired a bunch of lawyers to sue you to Dodge!"

    And everybody's saying theres nobody meaner
    Than the mean nasty lawyers from the RIAAaaahhhh
    They sue real fast and with no good reason
    They're like "Grandmas should be in open season!"

    Its the little old lady who got a subpoena...

    You can see her on the stand telling the truth now
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    With her four lawyers and her bi-focal glasses now
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    "Them lousy RIAA jerks hired an investigator
    who would be better occupied as my personal masturbator!"

    You can see her on the stand her kickin' RIAA ass now
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    With her four salivating lawyers and her beehive hair now
    Go granny, go granny, go granny go
    She's gonna have an RIAA executive as her waiter
    cause they cant help being evil vindicators

    And everybodys saying theres nobody meaner
    Than the little old lady who got a subpoena
    She counter sues real fast and packs a punch
    They say She's out to eat some asshole's lunch...

    Its the little old lady who got a subpoena

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    1. Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena by Reziac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh man, that's just too perfect... wonder if Weird Al would be interested in doing it? since I suspect Brian Wilson is right out.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  11. Licensing by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Licensing by Fooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that person can be charged with a crime, receiving stolen property. That whole investigating thing has to with if you were paid or not. You are not being paid to find your own stolen property. The RIAA paid another company to investigate for them. The key word is "company". IE a for profit organization. Thats where the whole "unlicensed investigators" thing comes in.

  12. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just for the record, there are grannies that haven't crossed the 30 y.o. barrier in my neighborhood(s),... ....... hey, it wasn't me!

  13. RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Funny

      Should have previewed. Here's the fixed links:

      You'll recall from an earlier article that Tanya Anderson's lawyer (in Oregon) found a number of grounds on which to countersue.

      [...]

      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 [...]

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... by grcumb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two buffaloes don't make a stampede... not quite, no...

      You wouldn't say that if you were standing in front of them. 8^)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    3. Re:RIAA put some grannies in the ambulance ... by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...from the RIAA, which is about to be nibbled to death by ducks.
      Somebody please post this to youtube when it happens!
      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  14. Re:And yet... by click2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't even need to know anything about technology to be a technology expert for the RIAA.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  15. Your analogy is flawed... by Svartalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  16. Civil vs. Criminal by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:Not really by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Lawyers Rock by falsified · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just to let you know, there's no such thing as a male cow. See, we people from Wisconsin aren't so useless!

    --
    HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
  19. Re:There's no reason to hunt them all down by blueforce · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and when were done with that wheel torcher them with speling lesons!!

    Yarr!

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  20. Re:you GO, girl! by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FirstGov.gov is the U.S. Government's official Web portal to all Federal, state and local government Web resources and services.

    The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

    The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is a 1-5 rating based on the hurricane's present intensity. This is used to give an estimate of the potential property damage and flooding expected along the coast from a hurricane landfall. Wind speed is the determining factor in the scale, as storm surge values are highly dependent on the slope of the continental shelf and the shape of the coastline, in the landfall region. Note that all winds are using the U.S. 1-minute average.

    Category One Hurricane:
    Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Also, some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage. Hurricane Lili of 2002 made landfall on the Louisiana coast as a Category One hurricane. Hurricane Gaston of 2004 was a Category One hurricane that made landfall along the central South Carolina coast.

    Category Two Hurricane:
    Winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Storm surge generally 6-8 feet above normal. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings. Considerable damage to shrubbery and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood 2-4 hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotected anchorages break moorings. Hurricane Frances of 2004 made landfall over the southern end of Hutchinson Island, Florida as a Category Two hurricane. Hurricane Isabel of 2003 made landfall near Drum Inlet on the Outer Banks of North Carolina as a Category 2 hurricane.

    Category Three Hurricane:
    Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain continuously lower than 5 ft above mean sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences with several blocks of the shoreline may be required. Hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan of 2004 were Category Three hurricanes when they made landfall in Florida and in Alabama, respectively.

    Category Four Hurricane:
    Winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Storm surge generally 13-18 ft above normal. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failures on small residences. Shrubs, trees, and all signs are blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Extensive damage to doors and windows. Low-lying escape routes may be cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain lower than 10 ft above sea level may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of residential areas as far inland as 6 miles (10 km). Hurricane Charley of 2004 was a Category Four hurricane made landfall in Charlotte County, Florida with winds of 150 mph. Hurricane Dennis (pdf) of 2005 struck the island of Cuba as a Category Four hurricane.
    From NOAA.gov

    Category Five Hurricane:
    Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  21. Re:Its the little old lady who got a subpoena-D/L by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny
    This just makes me want to go out there and D/L the original.

    Oops, WinMX is down.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  22. Re:And yet... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  23. Don't Mess With by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Grannies From Texas. I know, I'm married to one.

    > [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.

    Just so. Also, as noted in the p2p article their actions "amount to extortion". If someone says "If you do/do not do X, then I will/will not do Y", that's extortion. When it's done across state lines, it's a federal offense, and none of the plaintiffs are Texas corporations.

    I'm looking forward to the day someone manages to get charges filed rather than just filing suit, and someone from the MafIAA gets arrested. My money's on a state's attorney general doing it, and Texas is a very likely place for that to happen. In any case, KICK ASS, GRANNY!

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  24. Re:Lawyers Rock by borizz · · Score: 4, Funny

    So stop swallowing it.

    I kid, I kid.

  25. Re:Not really by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful
    your signature is backwards...

    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.
  26. Re:Hell Yeah! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Basically I wonder why there ain't more lawyers jumping that train. It's a tremendous economic sacrifice and risk for any lawyer to take on the defense of any of these cases. You have no understanding of the economics at all. If you did, you'd understand why "there ain't hardly any lawyers jumping on that train". The RIAA will pay its lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars on any given case. How many of the defendants have the means and ability to pay their lawyers that kind of money?
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  27. Re:Not The Problem by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lawrence Lessig goes further. The ultimate problem isn't that the RIAA is bullying people with lawsuits. The lawsuits are enabled by the likes of the RIAA being able to buy the laws they think they want. And that in turn is enabled by our broken political system that can ignore the will and the good of us all in response to slick but wrong (even obviously wrong) PR campaigns or for the sake of a few measly campaign dollars.

    These PR campaigns and dollars come from a bunch of extremely short-sighted legal hustlers with no sense of civic responsibility. Swarm intelligence works when the individuals of the swarm actually think, but many of these special interests are too narrowly focused on getting handouts. The AARP is an example of this. Some years ago the AARP was pushing hard for more expansion to Social Security, Medicare, and so forth. The AARP was pushing for more than even a majority of their own members wanted! Had they got everything they asked for, the US might've gone broke during the dotcom burst. They only saw it as their "duty" to get everything they could for their "clients", and what that might do to the country wasn't even on their radar. That was someone else's problem. And that was only part of the game-- they ask for the moon, and hope when they get "cut" back, they'll be left with about what they really wanted. Sometimes however, they score bigger then they expected, and when that happens do they back off? Give some back? Heck no, take the money and run! And push for even more! It's be nice if our system was robust enough that they could push as hard as they like without fear of breaking anything, but our system doesn't seem to be quite up to that. When the AARP was pushing, Big Pharma was only too happy to help get a fat drug benefit "for seniors". And they got that part, most unfortunately. Now we all get to foot absolutely outrageous bills for drugs. Many other countries took the much more sensible approach of forcing Big Pharma to lower their prices.

    As Lessig said, it is totally against the public interest to have the extreme Intellectual Property laws we have these days, with copyright lasting 95(!!!) years, and our current berserk and broken patent system. Same goes for our crazy health care. Big Pharma is in many ways even more extreme than the RIAA/MPAA. Don't know what Lessig can do about it, but I suppose he's got something in mind.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"