Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Backs Down On "Unlicensed Investigator"

Posted by kdawson on from the fight-fairly-now dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got the RIAA to drop its monetary claims against her after she filed counterclaims against the record companies for using an investigator, MediaSentry, which is not licensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas. The RIAA elected to drop its claims rather than wait for the Judge to decide the validity of Ms. Crain's charges (PDF) that the plaintiff record companies were 'aware that the... private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... 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.' Similar questions about MediaSentry's unlicensed investigations were raised recently by the State Attorney General of Oregon in Arista v. Does 1-17"

3 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Is she going to sue MediaSentry? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd love to see the discovery on that one.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  2. They should have dropped the suit entirely by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I am reading this right, IANAL, blah, blah, blah, RIAA is simply dropping monetary damages. They have not dropped the suit. I don't see how this will effect the counter-claims. Hopefully, Grandma will ream their tail ends so bad that their heads will fall through.

    Go Grandma! Go!

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  3. Not only emotion... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Part of this is to show the sheer innaccuracy of the RIAA lawsuits in the first place.

    I'm making a list. To my knowledge, they've sued:

    • Several pre-teen girls, who could not possibly afford either to buy the music legitimately or to pay the settlement.
    • Several grandmothers, who are unlikely to even know what P2P is.
    • At least one dead person.
    • At least one person who has never, in her life, touched a computer.

    There's probably more, but I haven't been paying attention.

    If the facts are so firmly on the defendants' sides as Ray would have us all believe, why is it necessary to resort to such blatantly manipulative appeal to emotion?

    If the facts are so firmly on the defendants' sides, why not appeal to emotion?

    Just understand, pointing out the people involved -- especially when those people are unlikely to be capable of piracy, much less want to -- is not always an appeal to emotion. Sometimes, it's simply an appeal to common sense -- which is why you will occasionally see articles tagged "suddenbreakoutofcommonsense", for when the RIAA/MPAA is losing.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!