Slashdot Mirror
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."
Remember, the have more money to have better attorneys.
If they lose, this will 'shut them down', but if they win, we are screwed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I for one would like to wave goodbye to our RIAA overlords.
The Mothership
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.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Unless the labels stop funding them, which they already considered doing since the RIAA is starting to lose money rather than earning any.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
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.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
The server saw all the nerds coming and had an emotional breakdown.
It's easy to take the moral high ground and say, "Don't rip off music that doesn't belong to you." But it really isn't that simple because it begs the question of when does the music "belong" to us. Some of the more senior among us may have bought a favorite song as a 45 rpm record, as part of an album, as a cassette (and if we hit the timing wrong, on an 8-track tape) and then as a CD album. Do you really think we should now go out an buy another version so that we can listen to the same song as an MP3? Many of us will do that or will make an MP3 from one of the versions we already own but, as I understand it, RIAA believes that even "ripping" an MP3 from one of the many versions we've already bought is "piracy." And, the RIAA is run for the benefit of the same group of companies that are telling the composers and performers that they're not due any royalties because the company mysteriously failed to make any profit from the 4 or 5 versions that we've already purchased.
I suggest you keep reading, the best parts have references. Yes, there are about six or seven pages of introductory opinion but by the time you get to page 7 you start to get into the meat of it. They quote three disgusted Federal judges who use terms like, "gamesmenship", "speculation" and "hammer" to describe the suits. By the time you finish, terms like "sham", "illegal" and "outrageous" sound accurate.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
That would be an oligopoly, not a monopoly. "Monopoly" means "one seller". We have four fish to fry here.
A-Bomb
Would you consider it moral for someone to tell you "Don't sing other people's music?" or "Don't share other people's music with your friends"? No, the AC is an ass.
No calls now, I'm
No, it's just that the original bill was geared toward organizations of Anonymous Cowards.
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I imagine this will take twice as long to resolve as the SCO litigation, unless the RIAA lawyers weasel out of it. I hope she is well supported, financially. A few comments that may be interesting for someone. :)
It may be difficult to enforce judgment against the "Big 4" directly. If I understand it correctly, the RIAA operates as a separate entity from them, and unless it is shown that the corporate veil can be pierced. This is typically difficult, though I imagine there is a smoking gun somewhere in the RIAA-Big 4 correspondence that shows that the RIAA is a front.
Class actions are much more difficult to get a judgment on than regular actions. In general (and in essence), for a Judge to feel comfortable ruling on the class, they must be convinced that the issues particular to individuals in the class are not more difficult to figure out than that of the issues in common. The standard typically ranges from "a class action is the best way to resolve the common issues" to "a class action is the best way to resolve the dispute". The latter is significantly more difficult to prove - the Court must be satisfied that the issues specific to each individual do not outweigh the overall issues the members of the putative class have in common (and there is no way cheaper-than-individual-litigation to resolve these individual issues). That's a mouthful, but class actions inherently balance the rights of many people who do not have legal counsel against a defendant with a substantial interest.
The court will also want a very clear and well defined class of people. Because the judgment of the court may preclude people from bringing future actions against the RIAA, there is typically a requirement of notice to the members of the class. This notice typically includes instructions on how to opt out of the class proceeding so that you can bring your own action (for mandatory opt-in jurisdictions; some are optional opt-out). If you fail to opt out within a specified time period, you may be bound to the judgment. In this case, the class is pretty trivial - people who have been wrongly sued.
That leads to an interesting point: Will the members of the class are people who have been wrongly sued, or those who have been wrongly sued and where the RIAA has already lost.
This action is a minefield for nuanced issues, like the above and others. I wish counsel the best. You can rest assured that if the Big 4 defendants perceive any exposure, they are dumping their excess resources into a legal defence.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Sorry Ray, you gotta be complete in your answer :-)
Insert
The case is also against the big 4 record companies, and the illegal investigators, and the illegal collectors.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful