Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court

Falstaff writes "Exonerated RIAA defendant Tanya Andersen is expected to refile her malicious prosecution lawsuit against the RIAA today. The refiling will mark a significant watershed in the RIAA's fight against P2P users because for the first time, the group's tactics, secret agreements, and fee splitting with MediaSentry are likely to come to light, thanks to discovery. Andersen's attorney says he'll be 'digging into agreements between the RIAA, RIAA member companies, MediaSentry, and the Settlement Support Sentry. Part of that will involve looking at compensation, like how much MediaSentry gets from each settlement. "I'd love to know what kind of bounty MediaSentry got paid to supply erroneous identities to the RIAA," Lybeck says.' The judge has barred further motions to dismiss the complaint, which means the RIAA will have to face the music. 'Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed so far, the RIAA does not have the luxury of walking away from this case if there's a real chance of embarrassing information being released. "Once discovery happens in the cases the RIAA brings, they run," Lybeck says. "This is our case now, and they can't run."'"

6 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. BEATINGS by Missing_dc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Like most of the readers here, I will watch this case closely (enough to actually RTFAs).

    My sincere hope in this is that MediaSentry and the RIAA in general get their asses handed to them. I am all for dragging the top 4 levels of each guilty corporation into the street and publically beating them for their wrong-doings.

    Then releasing the video of the beatings on youtube.

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  2. Money will buy this out by scubamage · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If she doesn't get bought, her attorney will be. If he isn't, the bar will have formal complaints lodged against him and barristers will be bought out and he will lose his license to practice. The judge will be bought. We are talking about people who have no problem spending 30,000$ on a sandwich. I don't think buying out everyone they need to is going to be difficult. I really am praying to god that it doesn't happen, but I'm so damn jaded about this stuff at this point.

  3. Re:Whale Song by LordKaT · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What in the fuck are you droning on about?

  4. Re:Whale Song by Himring · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    god I don't know. Thank you for pointing it out tho....

    btw, do moths have dicks?

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  5. Re:If She Doesn't Settle by Svartalf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No... Malicious prosecution would be filing a suit and not having a basis for it.

    The RIAA's guilty of that one. Even if we fully bankrolled her (I think there might be other issues with that than this...), it'd be legit on those grounds.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  6. Re:What y'all cheering for? by gangien · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ::Being Rant:: First of all, it is not stealing! It is copyright infringement. I'm damn sick of people confusing the two, they are not the same; they are not interchangeable. Stealing is clearly defined, Copyright Infringement is also defined; downloading music over the Internet is in no way stealing, period. It may, arguably, be copyright infringement, depending on the specific circumstances. ::End Rant::

    Many people consider taking something that shouldn't be yours, stealing. So, in that definition, yes it's stealing.