Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Class Action Suit Against RIAA Can Proceed

Posted by Zonk on from the nothing-but-net dept.

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."

11 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. oohhh yeeesss... but... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was waiting for this to happen, and finally, it did. Now, my mind races forward, to the end of the suit, maybe decades ahead: up to how much money can the RIAA be held accountable for? What I mean is, how much money can they be fined till they are bankrupt? Can (or should) the RIAA member companies actually pay the fine - in which case we're talking much larger sums?

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:oohhh yeeesss... but... by Gat0r30y · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can (or should) the RIAA member companies actually pay the fine - in which case we're talking much larger sums?
      This is a great question. Will the member companies use the RIAA like an umbrella company saying that the liability is the RIAA's or will they take responsibility for filing these frivolous suits?
      More to the point, these suits are filed as Record Label vs. some poor joe not as RIAA vs. right? This case is Atlantic vs. Anderson, is Atlantic responsible for the damages? It would certainly seem to me that the RIAA cant claim all the liability when Atlantic's name is on the suit. Any Lawyers out there who know whether the RIAA can be used as an umbrella to protect the label from liability in this kind of litigation?
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:oohhh yeeesss... but... by Doc+Daneeka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IANAL, but if the RIAA were to claim liability for the damages to minimize the losses taken by Atlantic, wouldn't that make all member organizations culpable?

      The way I see it is Atlantic and the RIAA have two choices:
      1) Atlantic takes full responsibility for being a part of an organization that brings spurious claims to court and is the only business to be responsible for damages.
      2) The RIAA attempts to intercede, or Atlantic tries to shift blame towards the RIAA, and forces all members of the RIAA to be culpable due to collusion.

      Just one last note, the RIAA cannot bring the cases against the alleged copy-right violators because they do not have standing to sue as they are not directly harmed financially by the "infringement". If they did have standing to sue in place of their member businesses then that would make the argument for collusion, price fixing, and monopolization essentially set in stone.

  2. Forget the end result by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is going to be the best litigation show on slashdot since the Sco vs. Novell chronicles.

    --
    Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
  3. Re:It'll never do any good! by RingDev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Depending on the scope of the penalty, it may make more individual labels re-evaluate the risk-to-reward ratio that being a member of the RIAA represents.

    IOW, this could be yet another nail in the coffin of the RIAA. The bright side is that it could lead to a wider variety of marketing schemes, competition, and better prices for the consumer. The dark side is that it will likely just turn into a series of buyouts until we wind up dealing with the 'Ma Bell' of the recording labels that owns everything that used to be other major labels. But that's capitalism for ya, surf on.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  4. Is it too much to hope for criminal charges? by iamacat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Contacting children for legal or financial matters without consent and presence of a legal guardian should carry mandatory jail time for those responsible, at least if their age was apparent at the time of the transaction. It's easy to see how an 8 year old can be persuades to give out parents' credit card numbers, incriminate themselves needlessly, give false testimony in exchange for promise of a shiny new gadget and otherwise be exploited by a malicious adult. This is a far more serious matter than copyright infringement which only results in a financial loss of trivial amounts of money.

    1. Re:Is it too much to hope for criminal charges? by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does. If the child complains she was "solicited" then the FBI swoops in before you can say "my as..."
      I expect the mother to ask her child testify in court and the 8 yr old stating a male voice called her under false pretenses and "solicited" her. She does not even need to understand the meaning; Just say the voice called her about "soliciting" something...

      And then leave it to child molester lawyers and public prosecutors....

      Before the RIAA lawyers can board a plane to Brazil... they would be enjoying the soothing attentions of bubba in a max-security hold up cell..

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  5. I wonder by Dancindan84 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The RIAA uses a ridiculous method of determining damages per violation. They value damages at $750/song. If the defendants use similar inflation, the RIAA could be accountable for a lot. Anyone know how many people they've accused? And how many songs? I hope the courts don't store damages in a 32-bit float.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  6. Re:/. readers are excluded then by milsoRgen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ah, so you're "innocent until proven guilty if you've got an extra $500,000 lying around"

    Actually in most areas, if not all, you merely have to pay a percentage of the bail amount set by the judge. I believe 10% is the going rate.
    I'm from Oregon where they don't have bail bondsmen and you simply pay your percent to the jail itself. So I'm not sure how the rest of the country operates.
    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
  7. I think the only fair solution... by pyrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...is to have the RIAA compensate this individual for the full copyright-violation value of every last song they alleged that she infringed on. The law should have no mercy, just as they've argued Jammie should have none, and they must pay around $10,000 per song for every song they alleged that Tanya downloaded and shared. Maybe even treble damages, in that their investigation and prosecution was allegedly malicious. After all, if they refused to listen to reason and harassed this woman and her daughter for months, and screwed-up their lives and forced the woman to risk what few assets she has to pay for lawyers, it's only right that the judgment stings the RIAA and the record companies that collaborated with them just as they were trying to sting the woman they victimized. There should be no lawsuits of the nature of what the RIAA pursues without substantial risk should they lose because they failed to do their due diligence in building an airtight case.

  8. Isn't this everyone? by mopower70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't you, simply by virtue of the fact of being in possession of RIAA "controlled materials" constantly under threat of falling under one of their malicious and frivolous lawsuits? It's bad enough that I've started looking for their stamp on any music I buy and refusing to purchase anything with their seal of approval - solely based on the fear of becoming a victim of one of their lawsuits.

    I'll take my check in a large please.