Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Recommended reading for all interested in the RIAA's litigation war against p2p file sharing is the amended class action complaint just filed in Oregon in Andersen v. Atlantic. This landmark 109-page document (pdf) tells both the general story of the RIAA's campaign against ordinary folks, and the specific story of its harassment of Tanya Andersen, and even of her young daughter. The complaint includes federal and state RICO claims, as well as other legal theories, and alleges that "The world's four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music." The point has been made by one commentator that the RIAA won't be able to weasel its out of this one by simply withdrawing it; this one, they will have to answer for. If the relief requested in the complaint is granted, the RIAA's entire campaign will be shut down for good."

Comments

unprofessional

[seanadams.com]

In June 2003, the RIAA publicly announced that it would begin a campaign that
would involve thousands of threats and sham lawsuits against individuals.

It goes on and on like this... plaintiff repeatedly referring to them as sham lawsuits, and in many cases, as above, suggesting that even the defendant acknowledged them as such.

Now don't get me wrong, I think all the lawyers representing RIAA and all principals of the record companies should be in jail (or worse). But this suit reads as inredibly amateurish to me, and if I were the judge I would get pretty irritated by being repeatedly told what to think, rather than the facts of the case.

"killing dolphins"

[aleph42]

You gotta love the style the linked pdf is worderd:

1) "Killing "Dolphins" by Direct Threat and Intimidation" The funniest thing: that's actually the RIAA's own word:

As a senior RIAA spokeswoman explained: "When you fish with a net, you are going to catch a few dolphins". This will make for interesting reading, and has a good potential for quotations; I think we can hope some real prime-time awareness this time.

Re:"killing dolphins"

[hyades1]

It's 'way past time we came up with an expression to represent the current situation. Perhaps, "Killing Weasels".

The phrase itself could be something like, "When you're shooting rats near the henhouse, it's inevitable that you're going to hit an occasional weasel." This would cover the RIAA thugs the record companies have hired, as well as the scumbags who actually run the Big Four.

Re:Finally... but...

[aleph42]

Unless the labels stop funding them, which they already considered doing since the RIAA is starting to lose money rather than earning any.

Re:This could backfire

[aleph42]

They also apparently have an army of unlicensed private investigators.

It seems that their tactic was:

1)"illegally enter the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there". That was MediaSentry's job.

2) Fill "thousands" of anonymous lawsuits, only to subpoena the ISP, and then "discover" the IPs that they already illegaly found. The lawsuit is then discarded, having served it's purpose.

3) Profit, by settling out of court, harrassing and such.

I thought I was pretty well informed on those things, and yet it's the first time I hear about that. It sheds a very new light on the fact that they often couldn't give the proofs. (What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)

Simple Mind

[Mactrope]

Music is an activity, but the problem is more important than entertainment. If people are not allowed to make and share verbatim copies of electronic media, there can be no public libraries. DRM is not an answer to your problem either. The only way to enforce your way of doing things is so deeply unAmerican that no one is going to accept it. We can not allow third party control of our computers because our computers are also our press. What you are left with is reinterpreting the copyright establishment clause of the constitution in a way that still encourages publication. The simple, American solution is 180 degrees of where you are. If someone else makes money with your work, you can demand your fair share. Everything else should be allowed. A simple system like that will be good for everyone.

Re:Simple Mind

[Zencyde]

I second this proposition. Some people would say that I'm crazy for believing that copyright, in its current form, is hurting society. I say that they're crazy for realizing that supply and demand doesn't affect digital media. Supply is infinite. The prices should then be set accordingly, right? Wrong, We're starting to approach an information overload. The amount of media that exists is growing too quickly for the market to adjust accordingly. Why are we still required to pay fifteen dollars for a CD? The actual product is not worth that much. Do I even need to mention the fact that most CDs have a small collection of good songs on them? It's not the consumer that sets the prices when it comes to copyrighted materials, it's the companies.
We currently have two majors oligopolies in this country. The members of the RIAA and the MPAA are what form these. The (please pardon this term) mafiaa are controlling and setting prices in such a way that is detrimental to the circulation of media.
It should also be mentioned that very few artists will suffer in the slightest from a situation in which music is freely distributable . I suspect that many artists would benefit from it. Especially the lesser known artists. Has anyone forgotten about concerts? These people are performers. What do performers do best besides, well, perform? I will admit that there are some artists who create in such a manner as to disallow for performances. These would be the only ones I can think of that would be damaged at all by this. Although, these ones could still find jobs in other areas. For instance, making music for various companies that require music for a particular reason. Or perhaps allow the music to be freely downloadable from an ad-based site? Even so, it would help more artists than it would hurt, in the end.
Then again, who am I to know these things? It's everyone else that has to see the world like this. So, someone give me a damn good argument. : )

Re:Simple Mind

[infonography]

Ok how is this;

We will never be able to completely equalized the value of any ART (Music, paintings, photos, dance, etc) to the originators. As long as money is involved there will be greed. The Artists as a CLASS are horribly undervalued for what they do. And no Armani wearing Suit is really going to ever sound credible talking about how much the artists are not getting paid when famous musicians are surfing couches because they didn't see anything out of the record that got them a Grammy. Big Record companies are like whales, they filter the Krill out of the sea (and fight Giant Squids and Insane Sea Captains).

Take out Music insert artform you got everyone else covered.

Some things you can do;

1. loan out your couch.

2. go to live music/preformances

3. ??????

4. Profit

Re:Simple Mind

[hairyfeet]

This is why the vast majority of music I have in my collection I bought directly from the bands when i saw them live,and when I was playing music I happily placed our mp3s on the P2P.If people like your music there are a 100 different ways to sell them product.We not only sold t-shirts and cds,but headbands,keychains,etc.The few bands that we played with that got signed ended up broken up after getting royally screwed out of their songs.

The whole POINT of copyrights and patents was a simple trade-we give you a SMALL set amount of time to profit,and in return we the people got a richer public domain and plenty for artists to use as a basis for new works.But now it is so broken that even a 2 second sample of a twenty year old song can get you sued,and the industry expects their great grandchildren to be able to profit from the artists of decades long past. And today's generation is not nearly as stupid as the lawmakers believe-they grew up in the age of technology and can see the hypocrisy and greed of those in power.

Do they REALLY believe that the average kid is going to care about copying a song put out by a bunch that buys politicians and screws the artists every chance they get? My oldest nephew is about as goody goody as they come,but when I asked him about the movie and record companies recently he had a quick answer-"Greedy disgusting pigs".They might as well give it up.Unjust laws will only be tolerated as long as you can get the public to buy into them.Hell even my 67 yr old mom who wouldn't know P2P if it bit her on the butt thinks it is disgusting the way so many companies are screwing folks on music and movies.The recent news story about how the RIAA went and talked to that little girl in her school without her moms consent really had her and grandma steamed.And the kids of my nephews generation by an overwhelming majority see this mess for what it is-another greedy bunch of corporations buying our laws so they can screw the little guy some more.Are they going to lock an entire generation up? But as always my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

Re:Simple Mind

[Zencyde]

Your first paragraph speaks quite loudly. I had forgotten about the other products. T-shirts are a good one. Also, I've purchased CDs at concerts just to have the artist sign it. A good example of this was when I was at the Texas Renaissance Festival. There is a band consisting of one member who plays a carillon. The show was free. He played five or six songs, if I recall properly. It was such an amazing experience that I used what remaining cash I had on hand to purchase two of his albums. Of course, I got him to sign both. I've also seen his CDs in the houses of other people. For the record, his band was named Cast In Bronze. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who have good stories about free music that caused them to purchase something that directly supported the artist.

Also, I rather agree with your idea as to how copyright was originally implemented. It's difficult to profit off of something that is reproducible. At least, it used to be. Copyright law exists to allow artists and creators an amount of time to profit off of their work. This is strange, though. Few researchers continue profiting off of their work throughout their lifetimes. One could argue that researching is an art, though. I might be biased in this regard; but, it seems unfair for one party to be able to continuously profit off of work that they've done once while another party must continue working through their life in order to continue profiting. Don't get me wrong. I understand the idea of investing and profiting off of an investment. Though, one could hardly consider producing art to be an investment. Art is not something that is to be managed. It is something to be distributed. Therein lies the key difference.

An example that might stretch too far for most involves feudal Japan. The Japanese used to view the merchant class as the lowest class in their caste system. The reason being because they profited off of the work of others while doing very little work themselves. This can extend to today's modern band. Certainly, writing songs is difficult. So is learning to play them well. That's not what this is getting at, though. The act of recording an album and profiting off of it for hundreds of thousands of dollars is what I think is wrong. I can't say that I'm capable of respecting any band for profiting off of that. I will, on the other hand, respect them for doing concerts and selling merchandise. They're being paid for tangible products and providing a service. Though, when one purchases an album, they're only purchasing the physical medium coupled with the right to listen to the songs on the album. They've never actually purchased the music.

Re:Simple Mind

[zerocool^]

I have this long post in my head, planned out, talking about "what is a record label?". It's really just a bank, where they loan you money, then dictate how you spend it, and want an insane interest rate. How really, you should pay a recording studio with cash/loaned money if you want to make an album, then just distribute digitally, etc. But, rather than that, I think I'll quote a post I saw. This is from a forum on a torrent tracker that deals in underground punk rock and where posting an album that even uses an RIAA distribution channel is grounds for account deletion - for you and the person who invited you. Same thing with posting a "benefit album".

Anyway, in this scenario, the OP is some aging hipster who's complaining that his tiny record label is probably losing money because of piracy.

I don't feel bad at all downloading music. Screw record labels all together. The big ones, the small ones, all of em. Why the hell does a record label even exist anymore? So what if some guy is stupid enough to not notice that and has dumped his own money into a hole instead of investing it somewhere intelligent; people make bad decisions all the time and no one cares unless he has the intention of "having fun with my friends". If I wanted to help the band I'd hand them $10 or let them crash on my floor (yes, I've done both), if I wanted to give to a charity I sure would find a better one than some business school reject running a desperate attempt to be part of a music scene but is too dimwitted to start a band or open a decent venue.

Bands can exist without bank-like support. They can write and record albums, they can play shows, they can produce merch and they can make PROFIT without financial backing from a record contract. (Nor do you need a record label for distro purposes either, so don't argue that angle. The interbutt offers FREE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION, PERIOD.) I know, because I personally do it in my band, and would *NEVER* have it any other way. With $1500 (small price for 3-5 people's *HOBBY*) in recording gear, a few hours messing with a computer and time to hang out with some of my best friends and have fun we learned out to do it all on our own, at the pace we want, and producing exactly what we want. My website with more bandwidth than god could offer is like $8 a month for which we use to distro out our music for free. We don't have to give it away...if we wanted to charge a few bucks for it we could. It's just not the model we personally choose to use.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm voting with my dollars. I go to shows. I buy Tshirts. But I'm sure as hell not going to keep giving record labels the feeling they are needed by buying albums from them.

Re:This could backfire

[guruevi]

Maybe they can hire the white house admins that converted their e-mail systems from Lotus Notes to Exchange and conveniently forgot to migrate the data retention mechanism.

BTW: if any of this happens (White house debacle) in a real company, did you know that they automatically lose any lawsuit that has a grounded basis in those documents?

Re:This could backfire

[CorSci81]

After reading/skimming my way through all 109 pages of that, I have a question for you. I noticed many of the allegations made against the defendants look like laws with criminal punishments. Is there any chance (please say yes) that some of the people involved in this legal travesty could face prison time? Preferably somewhere with multiple large cellmates named "Bubba"?

Re:Well, well, well...

[Petrushka]

Actually, since I live in NZ, they're not our overlords yet, but we do have the RIANZ down here, who are cut from the same cloth.

In fact, here it's illegal to make any copies of music at all. Hence, until the iTMS arrived, it was a pretty good bet that almost all music on any digital devices was illegally uploaded. Law changes are proposed, and the RIANZ wants to keep the law the same, but they give their word they won't chase the little guy, but want the law to remain the same just in case.

Yup. And judging from the comments that came back from the select committee that reviewed the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill last year (I made a submission; hope you did too), there's a huge amount of resistance to changing that. The Bill, if it is ever passed, does include (at the moment) a limited exception for format-shifting audio recordings for personal use, but only audio recordings; even that has met a lot of resistance.

I guess all those videos I've got on my iPod are going to remain forever illegal, then. Politicians seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that it is just dumb to keep somehing illegal when not only is everyone doing it, but everyone is morally right to do it.

For reference, the Green Party is the only party to have opposed the DMCA-like DRM circumvention measures in the bill.

Re:I don't mind lawyers getting rich.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In this case, I think I'll be happy as long as the RIAA gets badly bruised. The only way this could turn out badly is if the class-action lawyers accept a payoff by the RIAA before discovery happens. Well, if there were a quick settlement which included a consent decree against bringing any more of these stupid cases, and the dropping of the cases that are out there.... that would be okay with me. The main thing in my book is to stop this evil thing.

Re:Well, well, well...

[Technician]

I for one would like to wave goodbye to our RIAA overlords.

Read the last pages of the PDF. There is a request for a public trial. I hope they post the dates and place. I would make the trip to sit in on it and as you suggest, wave goodbye. More important, I want to shake her hand.

Re:This could backfire

[CorSci81]

Right, I was aware of the illegality of the MediaSentry investigations. I guess I had my eye on the much jucier RICO charges like racketeering that can carry up to 20 year sentences. Any chances a US Attorney could indict on those grounds even after this litigation is settled?

Re:Simple Solution

[crispin_bollocks]

In many cases, not only do we own legitimately purchased copies on several different media, but the items in question are out of print. The labels are sitting on a treasure trove of musical heritage, and our only access to many artists is through copies ripped by individuals.

Re:This could backfire

[vuffi_raa]

Remember, the have more money to have better attorneys. no, from what I have seen most of their attorneys are pretty big flunkies- even though they have the $ to spend it doen't mean that they get the best personell- the thing is that in this case they will be defending- so upon request the burden of producing the discovery in the trial will be on them, which upon request will open the floodgates to a ton of data on tactics, media sentry, coersion and other things to the public that were not previously under public scrutiny except in requests to produce by the defense, mainly for credibility and chain of custody. When this comes up there is going to be one hell of a fight to retain a ton of data as priviliged and I just hope that the judge is smart enough to strike the requests for it. personally I would love to work on this case for the class, but I don't see it ever happening since my company handles corporate litigation, meaning if we were contracted in this case it would be for the evil side :(

Re:This could backfire

[kwandar]

I have to say that I loved (though I thought it might be just a "bit" over the top) the description of Media Sentry's business. "Defendant MediaSentry is in the business of conducting illegal, flawed and personally invasive private investigations of private citizens in many states throughout the United State ..."

Congratulations to the team that put this together. A wonderful document that I'm sure will keep the judge's interest!!

Now I'm wondering what the settlement might entail, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for middle ground. I think someone has a tiger by the tail :)