Slashdot Mirror
Class Action Suit Against RIAA Can Proceed
fourohfour writes "Ars Technica is running a story on Tanya Andersen, who was awarded attorney fees in September of last year after the RIAA dropped their case against her. The RIAA subsequently appealed that award, but a US District Court judge yesterday not only upheld the award, but also upheld the dismissal of her counterclaims without prejudice. They may now be heard as part of a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the RIAA. Andersen is seeking class action status for her lawsuit, so that anyone else who has not engaged in illegal file sharing but has been threatened with legal action by the RIAA may join in. This is the case that alleges that the RIAA attempted to contact Andersen's then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without her permission."
...even though the lawyers will take the lion's share of the money awarded in such a lawsuit, I hope that the sum awarded the plaintiffs is large enough to deter the MAFIAA from prosecuting under such dubious "John Doe" discoveries in the future.
Militant Agnostic: "I don't know, and damn it, neither do you!"
It all depends on what is *really* legal vs what they say is illegal. These bastards have so muddied the waters that even judges don't know anymore.
I would hope that the Malicious Procecution judgement would make it easier to procescute under RICO statues, given that the extortion has been proven in a court of law, and that the class action suit would further canonize the scope of their extortions into case law. I'm not a lawyer, but it seemed like the Federal case against Michael Vick made the state's case and open and shut event. This seems like the same kind of thing.
Then they should hammer the media companies on conspiracy charges because they are the ones knowingly financing the RIAAs shenanagins, that have already been proven illegal.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Remember that you are innocent in the eyes of the law until you are proven guilty. Have you been convicted?
He was modded funny rather than insightful, so it can't be used as evidence.
Which is a good thing, since it would be evidence against all of us.
No, I'm not worried.
Seriously.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Actually I think you have it backwards. You are guilty in the eyes of the law until proven innocent. Why else would they arrest someone and hold them in jail awaiting the trial. If you were presumed to be innocent then you would be free to go do as you pleased because everyone believes you to be innocent until proven otherwise. In fact the whole thing is an oxymoron, how can one say that "we presume you to be innocent, yet we must believe that you are guilty otherwise we wouldn't be trying to prove that you were guilty"
Don't get them to agree to settle. Make it go all the way through a jury verdict so that there's no hiding the terms of the settlement.
Yep. Punishment is not identical with suffering. Maybe having your abdomen slashed open would feel like punishment to you, too. But if your surgeon does it so he can reach in and remove your infected appendix before it bursts, is he punishing you? I don't think so. Neither are the authorities punishing you when you are arrested... you are being controlled. Your freedom is briefly removed when you are examined as you pass through an airport security check point... perhaps having to go through that feels like torture? Say yes all you want, but it's not torture. There is no doubt being deprived of your liberty is at best a significant hardship... that is why the power to arrest is so highly limited, and why the penalties for false arrest are serious. But it just is NOT punishment.
As long as a couple of other rights and principles are observed, the position you seem to be advocating is certainly simplistic and to some extent a bit silly.
There is a difference between jail and prison, despite the way these terms are used interchangeably. In general, prison is punishment for convicted criminals.
If you think about it a bit, it seems very difficult to create a system of justice whereby "presumed innocent" criminals can be permitted to roam free during the weeks or months of their trial. Crimes occur. Someone commits them. The chap you found may not actually be guilty. But if your policy is that you cannot apprehend someone until a court conviction, what guarantee do you have that the accused will stick around for the trial? The policy of arrest/jail/bail may have false positives. But a system of never putting someone into jail into convicted seems horribly naive. Either you don't let them know you're "proving them guilty" and just catch them when you've done so (which doesn't provide for a defense) or you let them know they're a suspect and politely request they don't bolt for Mexico and please don't kill anyone else while they're gathering evidence.
Having said that, we must have safeguards for Habeus Corpus and the right to a speedy trial for this to work. Otherwise, we devolve into a system whereby the police (or corrupt leaders) do indeed judge you guilty (or otherwise deserving of punishment/pain) and toss you into jail where you rot. Think "Les Miserables".
This is why the recent diminishments of Habeus Corpus and the fact that several people (US citizens apprehended in the US) have spent YEARS in Guantanamo Bay before any charges were filed are so incredibly troubling.
In principle, your view that we're "guilty until proven innocent" seems quite wrong. In practice, it also seems we're sliding somewhat in that direction.