Slashdot Mirror
RICO Class Action Against RIAA In Missouri
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic Recording v. Raleigh, an RIAA case pending in St. Louis, Missouri, the defendant has asserted detailed counterclaims against the RIAA for federal RICO violations, fraud, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, prima facie tort, trespass, and conspiracy. The claims focus on the RIAA's 'driftnet' tactic of suing innocent people, and of demanding extortionate settlements. The RICO 'predicate acts' alleged in the 42-page pleading (PDF) are extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The proposed class includes all people residing in the US 'who were falsely accused ... of downloading copyrighted sound recordings owned by the counterclaim Defendants and making them available for distribution or mass distribution over a P2P network and who incurred costs and damages including legal fees in defense of such false claims' or 'whose computers used in interstate commerce and/or communication were accessed ... without permission or authority.' This is the second class action of which we are aware against the RIAA and the Big 4 recording companies, the first being the Oregon class action brought by Tanya Andersen, which is presently in the discovery phase."
The issue of RIAA RICO has been discussed at least twice before here and here on Slashdot and Ars wrote an article last year explaining why a RICO suit was unlikely to succeed against the RIAA, scumbags though they may be.
That platitude only applies to criminal law. In civil cases, they just say that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). So to win a suit against the RIAA, you need to prove that it's more likely than not that you didn't pirate any music (e.g., "I don't even own a computer," or "I'm Ted Stevens") along with whatever else the particular law requires.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
There already many cases where this has occurred. Lindor, Anderson, Foster to name a few. However these people that actually persevered in court had to spend years and tens of thousands in legal fees to clear their name. Add to that the documented cases where the RIAA sued people who didn't have computers, dead people, etc. Most people I suspected just paid the fine instead going through the whole ordeal. While it may not be successful, the discovery process may unearth what we have long suspected: The RIAA does not adequately investigates someone before suing them, does not dismiss lawsuits when it appears that they may have erred, and will continue to abuse the legal system in this way.
Well according to this guy their investigative methods are untested, have never been accepted in the scientific community, have never been published, were not subjected to peer review, are completely secret, and ... he invented them himself, out of his own head. And according to this guy the "instructions and parameters" for the investigations were given to the investigators by the lawyers.
So why wouldn't you think the RIAA's investigation is reliable, UnknowingFool?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.
Indeed, and she agrees with that sentiment.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No, because "innocent" and "guilty" don't mean anything in civil cases. Also, you have to treat "prove" as a term of art. "Prove" means something entirely different in a criminal context than in a civil context. "Innocent until proven guilty" actually means, "you are presumed to be 'not guilty' until the state has cleared all the numerous constitutional hurdles we have intentionally placed in its way to make it very hard to 'prove' that an innocent person is guilty, and then proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the charged crime." It means, "Jury, if you're not sure, if you still have some lingering doubts, if you think, 'He probably did it, but I can see how he could reasonably be innocent,' you must acquit the defendant." It means you are entitled to Sixth Amendment guaranteed trial by jury instead of Seventh Amendment trial by jury guaranteed if you happen to be in federal court and the judge feels like it. It means (in most cases) that a jury of twelve of your peers must vote against you unanimously. It means you are protected against self incrimination and you get the Confrontation Clause. It means your adversary is the Sovereign State, so we're going to stack the cards heavily in your favor. It means you get the benefit of the Exclusionary Rule if the state unlawfully searched you or seized things. It means you're starting out WAY ahead of your adversary, and your adversary must make up all that ground and blow way past you to win.
"Proof by a preponderance of the evidence" means everybody starts out on equal footing and the plaintiff wins if he inches a little ahead of the defendant.
So no, they're not remotely the same thing.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I do not believe there is any legal standing for the idea that the account holder is responsible, in any way, for the actions that take place on the connection.
And the United States Supreme Court shares your belief.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful