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."

Comments

I'm a huge pirate...

[jornak]

Here RIAA RIAA RIAA. Come and get me and my 200+ gigabytes of stolen music.

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to click the little box to post anonymously...

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[mweather]

Why would he need to be anonymous? Haven't you heard? IPs don't identify people.

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[philspear]

Do you live in St. Louis? I'm not with the RIAA*, I am a fellow youngster living in St. Louis who would like to recieve some illegal stolen music from today's popular artists, then maybe go and drink an alchoholic beverage with you. I have videogames that we can play as well. We can "hang out." I want to emphasize that I am not with the RIAA*.

(* RIAA here does not refer to Recording Industry Association of America)

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you change your name to your IP address like I did.. say hello to Mr FA.CE.FE.ED Jones.

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[ZarathustraDK]

Now the RIAA can feel how it's like to be hunted by an ambiguous four-letter abbreviation which can't be reasoned with.

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[dontmakemethink]

Do you live in St. Louis? I'm not with the RIAA*, I am a fellow youngster living in St. Louis who would like to recieve some illegal stolen music from today's popular artists, then maybe go and drink an alchoholic beverage with you. I have videogames that we can play as well. We can "hang out." I want to emphasize that I am not with the RIAA*.

(* RIAA here does not refer to Recording Industry Association of America)

I'm in St. Louis, and would love to meet. There's a nice dark alley on Pine between N 11th and N 12th, we could meet there. I assure you that I do not have a gun*.

(* the word 'gun' does not refer to any type of firearm)

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[Chris Burke]

I assure you that I do not have a gun*.

(* the word 'gun' does not refer to any type of firearm)

I'd be more worried if you wanted to meet me in a dark alley, and you were assuring me that you did have a gun, with the same caveat.

Re:I'm a huge pirate...

[jebrew]

Yeah, I've been getting a lot of flack since I changed mine to DE.AD.C0.ED

"falsely accused"?

[Otter Popinski]

How do you demonstrate that you've been falsely accused? Does that mean you've defended yourself in court against the RIAA and been successful? If so, isn't that a very small class?

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Ngarrang]

In the USA, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Thus, you can claim you are falsely accused up to the point where a judge banks the gavel and declares you guilty.

At least, that is what my elementary school teacher taught me back in the 70's.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[matazar]

Exactly, these people were targeted by the RIAA who has no proof of infringment and abuses the system.
Whether or not they are actually guilty, the RIAA should be providing proof, which they are incapable of.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[zappepcs]

I'd say that NYCL has enough information there (see my sig) to show that everyone who has been accused was accused under false pretense, without evidence, or accused for what someone else had actually done. While there certainly has been file sharing, and accordingly some loss of revenue to the recording industry. Neither the amount of the loss nor the act of copyright infringement via distribution has been proven. Both are exaggerated by the RIAA legal team. The only thing they have to show is that their assignees accessed other people's computers and downloaded copyrighted works. If you ask me, that's not cricket!

The RIAA continues to show the style and grace of a skydiver with a ripped chute and no backup plan.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing, though. The RIAA does have some information. They're not suing people at random--they're suing people that they believe have done something wrong. Their methods are almost certainly unsound, and their theory of what constitutes infringement is questionable. Their evidence for infringement is generally weak. And their attempts to strong-arm people into settlements is also unsettling.

However, whether this constitutes criminal behavior is also questionable. The RIAA can claim that they have a reasonable belief that they've sued are the right people. They can argue a reasonable belief that they will prevail in court. And they can claim their settlement offers are reasonable within the standards the law currently provides. The RIAA may be wrong about all these things (and probably are), but that doesn't necessarily mean what they're doing is illegal.

Not everyone who brings a lawsuit and loses is a criminal.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[mweather]

With enough money at my disposal, I can reasonably believe I'll win any lawsuit I care to file, regardless of merit.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Wandering Wombat]

I used FDR of raping me years after he died, and won. Thank you, Powerball Lottery!

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Zordak]

In the USA, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

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.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Aphoxema]

Copying music isn't something that really leaves fingerprints and you certainly can't get caught with the blood on the knife.

In many cases an IP can identify a household (assuming they don't have someone exploiting their WiFi), but it can NEVER identify the individual, it's impossible to get proof for that without 'breaking' into someone's computer and finding relevant material, and even that's difficult to prove hasn't been forged because it'll always be the same 1s and 0s.

This is also a civil case, unblemished authorities aren't here to collect blood samples and take pictures of the murder scene, there's no trustworthy neutral party like there normally is (or is expected to be) in a murder/theft/whatever investigation. It's Citizen VS Citizen, and the RIAA has yet to prove that it has any legal right to conduct the investigations it has.

What's worse is they're targeting colleges and dial up users, and even some DSL and cable users' IPs change often. You have to get another entity involved in these situations, so it becomes Citizen VS Innocent Mediator when the RIAA tries to get service providers involved, something that hasn't really happened much historically in anything.

It is absolutely vital people distinguish the RIAA separately from qualified agencies. The RIAA is another you and me, not an organization we voted for or was appointed into existence by those we voted for.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Dogtanian]

I used FDR of raping me years after he died, and won.

FDR raped you years after he'd died...?!

OMG ZOMBIESECKS!!!!!1111111

Re:"falsely accused"?

[mcgrew]

Yes, but the point was that the RIAA is accusing you of criminal copyright infringement. If you accuse me of being a thief, you'ld damned well better have a court record saying I was found guilty of stealing or I'll slap a slander suit on your ass so fast it'll make your head spin.

And unlike stealing or copyright infringement, slander IS a civil suit.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Wandering Wombat]

That's what "Twilight" is about, isn't it?

To whoever marked me "Offtopic", perhaps I should have cited something real: Pearson v. Chung, the case of a Washington, D.C. judge, Roy Pearson, who sued a dry cleaning business for $67 million (later lowered to $54 million), has been cited[12] as an example of frivolous litigation. According to Pearson, the dry cleaners allegedly lost his pants (which he brought in for a $10.50 alteration) and refused his demands for a large refund. Pearson believed that a 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign in the window of the shop legally entitled him to a refund for the cost of the pants, estimated at $1,000. The $54 million total also included $2 million in "mental distress" and $15,000 which he estimated to be the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another dry cleaners.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Marful]

Here's the thing, though. The RIAA does have some information. They're not suing people at random--they're suing people that they believe have done something wrong. Their methods are almost certainly unsound, and their theory of what constitutes infringement is questionable. Their evidence for infringement is generally weak. And their attempts to strong-arm people into settlements is also unsettling.

However, whether this constitutes criminal behavior is also questionable. The RIAA can claim that they have a reasonable belief that they've sued are the right people. They can argue a reasonable belief that they will prevail in court. And they can claim their settlement offers are reasonable within the standards the law currently provides. The RIAA may be wrong about all these things (and probably are), but that doesn't necessarily mean what they're doing is illegal.

Not everyone who brings a lawsuit and loses is a criminal.

The problem is that when you use illegal means to gain information to then use to coerce an individual into an unfavorable settlement, else they face great financial damages executed by your behalf against them, and you do this to a great many people, that is called racketeering or extortion. Which is illegal.

What the RIAA is doing is in effect the same as a Mob boss shaking down businesses in an area for "Protection" money.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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?

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[mcgrew]

While there certainly has been file sharing, and accordingly some loss of revenue to the recording industry.

That's not a proven fact. As Lawrence Lessig says in his book (I just read it last week) Free Culture (link is to HTML version of the book, which is published under a CC license),

File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.

C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

How do these different types of sharing balance out? Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.9 Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good) and harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard question to answer--and certainly much more difficult than the current rhetoric around the issue suggests.

Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is "devastating" the industry.

While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought it."10 The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.

Yet

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Isn't one who buys the connection responsible for their endpoint?

Not according to these guys (MGM v. Grokster).

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I was merely pointing out that the RIAA doesn't adequately investigate anyone before suing them. Given the limited information we have so far, it appears that the RIAA knows that their methods cannot accurately identify an individual but proceeds anyway. Again, even if this suit isn't successful in the end, the discovery part will shed light on this.

And I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have included the ":)".

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Zordak]

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.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[LordLucless]

No, innocent until proven guilty applies in all courts. The difference between civil and criminal court isn't that proof is required, it's the level of proof. Criminal court requires "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil requires "a preponderance of evidence". Regardless of the requirement, the defendant is still innocent until that requirement is met. (IANAL, etc)

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. You obviously don't work for MediaSentry.

2. You are a consulting practice not an investigative company.

3. It is not at all obvious why you are anonymous, since your claims are self-laudatory.

In any event, of course the term 'instructions and parameters' could be interpreted in different ways. However, if you'd read the declaration of the RIAA's Bradley Buckles you'd know that in this case it has to be interpreted in the bad way, not the good way. In the innocent way, there would have been nothing to conceal. E.g. if RIAA lawyers said "we would like you go on the internet and catch people who are downloading or distributing our copyrighted song files" -- which would have been perfectly innocent "instructions and parameters" -- there would have been no need for the secrecy that Mr. Buckles was seeking to invoke. But they didn't say that, they said something like "this is how we want you to do it", which is why they needed to keep it secret.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:"falsely accused"?

[Nefarious Wheel]

What the RIAA is doing is falsely accusing large numbers of people, knowing that only a small number are possibly actionable. This "drift net" technique is indeed "suing people at random" and is not allowed by any court's procedures. They then exercise ex parte discovery (i.e. without the accused being able to answer the charges in court) which is basically rounding up bunches of people and asking them to turn out their pockets on the hope that they'll catch someone.

They then drop the nonproductive suits (after costing them a packet on legal fees) focus on the remainder, bring suit to assess egregious civil damages, which is counter to the principle of the 8th Amendment, in the core document of US law. Read NYCL's article on the subject at his web site - he's the authority on their techniques.

So I have to disagree with you -- it does necessarily mean that what they're doing is illegal.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." -- Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Stating the Obvious

[whisper_jeff]

Stating the obvious here but it is my very, very strong hope that the judge that presides over this (and the other) case see things through to completion and agree that the RIAA's tactics _do_ amount to RICO violations. It's about time that they get served the counter-justice that they deserve.

Re:Stating the Obvious

[rk]

I don't know. RICO was originally designed to go after organized crime rackets which could otherwise... oh, wait, my mistake. Carry on.

Re:Stating the Obvious

[ArsonSmith]

It was designed to protect people from the Music And Film Industry of America (MAFIA).

Real life imitating slashdot.org

[rzei]

I wonder how many times has this been pointed out that someone should roll up a RICO class action suit against RIAA?

Great that it is finally coming to life :) Real life imitating slashdot :)

Re:Real life imitating slashdot.org

[Drakkenmensch]

I wonder how many times has this been pointed out that someone should roll up a RICO class action suit against RIAA?

The RIAA getting RICO-rolled... there's a youtube viral in there somewhere, I can sense it.

Should just get some large scales to solve it.

[Spice Consumer]

Obviously File Sharer is interchangeable with witch here... VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her? CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her! BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch? VILLAGER #2: She looks like one. CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah! BEDEVERE: Bring her forward. WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch. BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one. WITCH: They dressed me up like this. CROWD: Augh, we didn't! We didn't... WITCH: And this isn't my nose. It's a false one. BEDEVERE: Well? VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose. BEDEVERE: The nose? VILLAGER #1: And the hat, but she is a witch! VILLAGER #2: Yeah! CROWD: We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah! BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this? VILLAGER #1: No! VILLAGER #2 and 3: No. No. VILLAGER #2: No. VILLAGER #1: No. VILLAGERS #2 and #3: No. VILLAGER #1: Yes. VILLAGER #2: Yes. VILLAGER #1: Yes. Yeah, a bit. VILLAGER #3: A bit. VILLAGERS #1 and #2: A bit. VILLAGER #3: A bit. VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart. BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch? VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt. BEDEVERE: A newt? VILLAGER #3: I got better. VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway! VILLAGER #1: Burn! CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!... BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. VILLAGER #1: Are there? VILLAGER #2: Ah? VILLAGER #1: What are they? CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!... BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! VILLAGER #1: Burn! CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!... BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #1: More witches! VILLAGER #3: Shh! VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? [pause] VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood? BEDEVERE: Good! Heh heh. CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh. BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her. BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone? VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah. RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh... BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water? VILLAGER #1: No. No. VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats! VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond! CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond! BEDEVERE: What also floats in water? VILLAGER #1: Bread! VILLAGER #2: Apples! VILLAGER #3: Uh, very small rocks! VILLAGER #1: Cider! VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy! VILLAGER #1: Cherries! VILLAGER #2: Mud! VILLAGER #3: Uh, churches! Churches! VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead! ARTHUR: A duck! CROWD: Oooh. BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically... VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood. BEDEVERE: And therefore? VILLAGER #2: A witch! VILLAGER #1: A witch! CROWD: A witch! A witch!... VILLAGER #4: Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack] BEDEVERE: Very good. We shall use my largest scales.

Re:While yer RICO'ing...

[megamerican]

Could I suggest a RICO against the Federal Reserve?

Bloomberg tried suing the FED under the FOIA to disclose who it gave $2 trillion to. They claim they don't have to disclose under the FOIA because they technically aren't part of the government.

Dear Lord.... Use a Line Return or 84....

[autocracy]

:% s/\([A-Z]\{3,}\)/\r\1/g

I mean, how hard is that... really? :)

Re:Dear Lord.... Use a Line Return or 84....

[UnknowingFool]

:% s/\([A-Z]\{3,}\)/\r\1/g

Dear Lord . . . I actually understand that. I need to get out more. :)

Someone discovered justice in legal system?!

[jsse]

I must have woken up in the wrong parallel universe.

Hi there. I'm new here.

about freaking time! been urging RICO forever.

[swschrad]

these RIAA guys have been acting like burglars on crack for a long time, and now they have to defend themselves.

The Only RICO RIAA Fears is Sauve

[CodeBuster]

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.

a RICO lawsuit against the RIAA!

[racecarj]

there's gotta be a rat somewhere feeding information to the feds. i grew up in the old school, where made RIAA guys would never flip.

I'm not so sure about that

[Weaselmancer]

The RIAA can claim that they have a reasonable belief that they've sued are the right people.

Most of their legal paperwork is of the John Doe variety. By its very nature they are saying "we know something bad happened, but we're not sure who did it." I don't think that argument would hold much water.

They can argue a reasonable belief that they will prevail in court.

The vast majority of their legal actions are dropped in their extortion racket. "Pay us $3k and we'll go away."

If they really believed they could win in court, why offer these settlement notices up front? Especially when they claim damages far in excess of $3k? Who throws money away like that?

RICO was made for just such a circumstance (IMHO, IANAL, and so on).

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Creepy Crawler]

I'd just laugh if they tried to sue me for 100,000$ !!! I'd just go shucks, and go on welfare or whatever they call it. Or work for a non-profit. And, so would most people. However, many many people will pay 3000-5000$ to make a problem go away.

I'd ask them for a unlimited license for 5000$ and immunity from all future prosecution and civil judgments capped at 1$ per TB. I'd laugh just as hard if/when they laugh.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Sancho]

If they really believed they could win in court, why offer these settlement notices up front? Especially when they claim damages far in excess of $3k? Who throws money away like that?

Because one of their goals is to try to scare people. Another is to not go bankrupt suing everyone.

Most people don't have the money to pay fines in the amounts that they're looking at with copyright infringement. What is it now, a $750 minimum statutory award? Doesn't take many songs for that to be well outside of a person's ability to pay. And that's the low end. If the RIAA spends thousands upon thousands of dollars fighting these cases and the person is forced to file for bankruptcy, they're truly just throwing their money away.

Compare to the $3k settlements. That's sustainable. They can keep doing that as long as they want, because the settlements pay for the settlement center operation, and most people can work out a payment plan for that kind of money. The expected gain from a settlement is probably far higher than the expected gain if the lawsuit actually goes to court.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Weaselmancer]

Oh sure, I agree completely. But there is an assumption in your post that sort of makes my point:

Compare to the $3k settlements. That's sustainable. They can keep doing that as long as they want, because the settlements pay for the settlement center operation, and most people can work out a payment plan for that kind of money.

This is a business model.

A business model based on litigation threats and fear. That's why RICO applies, IMHO. This is a racket. Someone does you wrong? Fine. Take them to court. Sue them.

But if you're re-tooling that process to turn it into a sustainable revenue stream, clearly something is wrong. The fact that they offer you a settlement amount up front demonstrates that. They're not interested in actually suing anybody. They do it just often enough to provide an example of "what could happen to you". Just like how the mob doesn't break the kneecaps of every single person who owes them money. Just anyone with enough balls to complain, which keeps the rest in line.

Granted, in the RIAA's case it's not a baseball bat and your kneecaps. It's a bunch of high-priced lawyers that you're never ever going to have enough money and resources to beat in court. That versus your entire financial future. In a way the mob is the better deal - your kneecaps will heal eventually.

This is without a doubt a protection racket. The exact sort of thing RICO was meant to protect people from. I can't wait to see how this pans out.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Sancho]

Someone does you wrong? Fine. Take them to court. Sue them.

I think it's a fine line. Most lawsuits are settled, and they're settled precisely because both sides hedge their bets and realize that they have a lot to lose by going into an all-out court battle. It's hard for me to accept that offering a settlement up front is inherently wrong to do.

Furthermore, the sheer impossibility of going through with a full lawsuit for every person that the RIAA finds to be sharing files is a problem. While I tend to err on the side of the individual, the record companies should have a right to file suit, too. Copyright infringement is rampant on the Internet, and a copyright holder should have some recourse against it. The problem is that the system which normally makes good legal counsel unavailable to the common man now makes good legal counsel unavailable to The Man--that is, filing lawsuits is simply not sustainable against millions of people.

Probably, the most reasonable thing would be some sort of reverse-class action status. But then, you're swinging power pretty far away from the individuals, and that's something I can't tolerate.

What's worse is that technological measures to reduce copyright infringement just end up stomping on individual's rights.

This is all a very large and complicated problem, and one to which I certainly don't have a solution. In fact, I dare say that keeping the rights of copyright holders while keeping the rights of millions of infringers at the same time is simply intractable.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is without a doubt a protection racket.

You mean like the RIAA telling Ohio University that if the university pays $76,000 to the RIAA's expert witness's company, the letters will stop, and then the university pays, and then the letters suddenly stop?

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Weaselmancer]

Good lord. I hadn't read that before - thanks for the link.

The only thing that story is missing is a guy in a cheap pinstripe suit and brass knuckles saying "It would be a shame if somethin' bad should happen to your routers. Yeah. A real shame."

Wow. I just keep continuing to be amazed by the sheer criminal audacity of those people. It's just stunning.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Weaselmancer]

I think it's a fine line. Most lawsuits are settled, and they're settled precisely because both sides hedge their bets and realize that they have a lot to lose by going into an all-out court battle. It's hard for me to accept that offering a settlement up front is inherently wrong to do.

Yeah, you make a good point there. True. Settlements do not imply an unwillingness to sue. I hadn't really thought of it in that way, and you're right.

But there is also a counter point hidden in your argument:

Furthermore, the sheer impossibility of going through with a full lawsuit for every person that the RIAA finds to be sharing files is a problem.

By your own argument, it would be impossible for the RIAA to follow through with every threat they send out. Therefore they must be filing at least a percentage of these fraudulently.

For instance, if you have ten lawyers, and a lawsuit takes about a month, then you could reasonably file 120 cases a year. If you file 200, you are possibly committing fraud. If you file 400, you are probably committing fraud.

Now, I'm not sure of their exact numbers - but I'll bet they don't have the resources to follow through with every single complaint they file.

I'm pretty certain they've moved into the fraud category.

Re:I'm not so sure about that

[Sancho]

Fair points, all. The question now becomes whether or not an expected settlement is cause enough to spread your resources this thin. When I first heard about the lawsuits, my first thought was that it would be a long time before anyone fought it out, since that would be so costly. Now it turned out that people started fighting them earlier than I expected. That's pretty cool. It may have caught the RIAA off guard, too.

I suspect that you're right. I suspect that the RIAA is intentionally abusing the system. I think that their intent is probably not to go through with any lawsuits (they expect everyone to settle, after all), but that's different from a willingness to go through with it. So far, they've mostly gone through with lawsuits for people who fought. In the cases where they've dropped it, there's usually a good amount of evidence that the defendant has a case (at least, in the cases which we've heard about.)

So is intent enough to get them? I don't think that it should be, but in our system, it probably is.

Of course, we may find out. If they're found guilty of racketeering, they'll have to either go through with lawsuits or stop suing. I don't see the latter happening.

Re:RICO Seizures

[CompMD]

Would the FBI then say "All your base are belong to U.S.?"

Fun with IP addresses

[dcavanaugh]

Years ago, I had a cable modem. In the beginning, all customers had static IPs. I had several lengthy outages that ultimately led to ditching cable in favor of slower but more reliable DSL. One of the more interesting problems occurred when someone else decided (or was mistakenly assigned) to use my static IP address. Obviously, I had service trouble (as I suspect the other person did as well). The ISP's solution was to assign a NEW address to ME.

The interesting part is this: On some networks, it is possible to assume a static address that you did NOT receive via DHCP and it just might work. It may or may not be subject to somebody else's DHCP lease. Even if it is, the other person's computer may be off. In my case, it all happened by accident. Maybe it's not always an accident.

Between the static address, DHCP leases, ISP bumbling on the management of either one, combined with both intentional and unintentional user mistakes about configuration, there is more than a reasonable doubt about the identity of ANYONE based on simply an IP address. And of course a MAC address can be easily faked.

A friend of mine received an RIAA nastygram sent by his cable ISP. Fortunately, this guy kept logs of his DHCP address assignments and quickly proved the ISPs records to be false. It seems the address used for the downloading was assigned to my friend AFTER the alleged downloads took place. The cable clowns never bothered to compare the date/time of the alleged activity with their logs; they just launched a nastygram to whoever had the current address. Morons.

Re:Fun with IP addresses

[Reziac]

People in low places claim that there are ways to find and make use of other folks' IP addresses, and IIRC part of it was much as you say -- "wrong lease" and "live but not presently in use". That was some years ago but I doubt it's changed much.

Re:Fun with IP addresses

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a while as a programmer on an ISP billing and provisioning application. What I found out is this:

Every address you get from an ISP is DHCP'ed. Static IP's aren't static. They're just reserved DHCP addresses. That's why "static" IP's from the cable company require you to tell the ISP your MAC address. They're just setting up a DHCP reservation that gives your MAC address the same IP each time it renews.

With DSL, they can just use caller ID to verify the line, so they don't need your MAC address. But it works basically the same way. A static IP is a reserved address from their DHCP pool. They just verify it against the incoming line ID rather than the customer's premise equipment (CPE) ID.

To get a real static IP, you pretty much have to buy a T1 or better.

And then....

[Kleen13]

So what happens if the RICO action succeeds? Do all those who settled/lost get their money back?

Re:While yer RICO'ing...

[Tastecicles]

you're bang on there. The Federal Reserve's first mandate is to control the US currency. Said currency is backed against itself (ie worthless) and guaranteed by treaty to the European banks.

IOW, National Westminster, Barclays, HBOS, Lloyd's TSB, Credit Suisse, etc, etc, etc, owns all your Yank arses and every cubic inch of American soil, which they could call in any time they want but won't because they know that as long as they don't call in that loan made in the Teens they own you. The Federal Reserve answer to /them/, NOT the US Government.

Re:Litigating.

[roc97007]

This is the readability police. Step AWAY from the thesaurus.

Re:whats really great about this

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm no legal expert but ...

Don't worry. Neither are the RIAA's lawyers.

Re:Discovery burden

[rabidkumquat]

1) Introduce entire copyrighted catalog of RIAA as material evidence
2) Request public records of proceedings
3) ????
4) Profit!

sheer elegance in its simplicity!

[R][MP]IAAA are terrorists

[mlwmohawk]

I sort of got a bit of a bad rap for a post I made yesterday calling for extreme disrespect and outright harassment against lawyers and executives involved in these law suits. Let me restate my position with a little more of my thinking so my point is a little more clear.

These organizations are performing acts of terror. They aren't using bombs, they are using the courts.

They bribe (oops, "lobby") politicians to pass outrageous laws that defy common sense.

They use the immense power and legal shielding of multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations to bully innocent people who have no hope of defending themselves. Destroying lives with no conscience what so ever.

Because of the legal liability shield of the corporation, they get to do this to people with complete impunity.

Why do we let F*&^*ckers like this do that? If a bully picks a fight with you, do you fight him on his home turf? No, you move the fight where you can better defend yourself. In our case, that's the street.

Ruin their lives, make them pay for what they do. Do you think the courts will? Do you think the politicians will?

These people are worse than any mugger. They are worse than any street thug. They walk around in expensive suits and ruin the lives of helpless people they accuse without credible evidence merely to create fear.

It isn't until it is clear that unethical behavior will not be tolerated by society and that there is a price to pay for it, will we ever regain the freedoms we have lost to corporations like this. They can buy the politicians, but they can't buy the good will of society that human beings need to survive. Reject them everywhere. Shun them. It is the *only* way we will ever rid ourselves of these parasites.

the liars vs the technically guilty

[bzipitidoo]

I imagine many of the accused are indeed guilty. Jammie Thomas, for instance.

But the RIAA has been so convinced of their objective guilt that they've failed to see why they should have to prove it. Everyone knows everyone is guilty of filesharing, right? Why do we need to prove anything? And consequently some genuine innocents have been snared in the dragnet.

The RIAA has really made a mess of what case they had in the court of public opinion, which ultimately counts for the most. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." How about them apples if they manage to get the public so riled up that a constitutional amendment like the 21st (revocation of Prohibition), or the 13th (abolition of slavery), gets rammed through? We're nowhere near a revocation of intellectual property, yet, and I think that's primarily because it isn't possible to enforce their vision. And they still have some brainwashed masses on their side. For the most part the people on the RIAA's side are the ones with dreams of becoming authors or musicians, those who have not yet experienced the realities. And those who have been convinced that copying is stealing.

This RICO lawsuit can only make the RIAA look even worse. Just the mere fact it has been filed is big, never mind the outcome.

They need another rico

[zogger]

As in price fixing and collusion, then it could be open to all legal music purchasers. Where are the *cheap* legal downloads, and the much cheaper music on disks, that modern technology indicates is quite possible? And no, 99 cents for a few megs download is not cheap. They could have sidestepped most of this piracy nonsense if they would have radically dropped prices "per song unit" as technology changed and made it dramatically cheaper to "manufacture" and distribute digital copies.

    A nickle or dime *tops* is a way more reasonable cost, and they could have been making their profit on much larger volume sales all along. And not annoy their customers. What's the sense of society developing our first real widespread sort of star trek level replicator technology if the consumer side of society doesn't get to benefit from it to the exact same degree as the producer side? Where is it carved in stone that old per unit last century pricing based on expensive tangible copies has to be maintained in the face of orders of magnitude cheaper new digital tech advances? The absence of much cheaper prices that reflect that from any of the majors smacks of collusion and wink wink nod nod price fixing.

Funny story

[Anonymous Coward]

I changed my routers MAC address to DE:AD:BE:EF:BA:BE

The problem is, I forgot all about it for roughly 2 years.
Right up until the time I had to call my ISP about something. The tech on the other end asked me what kind of router I had and when I told him, he says "No, you don't have (brand x)". I'm thinking "wtf is he talking about?" because the router is, literally, right there in front of me. So we argued about it for about 10 minutes and I finally got done what I needed.

After we hung up, I realized why he was asking....

Now, I can't help but wonder whose router he THINKS I have? Who the hell would use DEADBEEFBABE as a default MAC address?

Re:Vigilante action is not the answer

[mlwmohawk]

Just one more point that I think is very important.....

In case I have not been clear. This is not about a situation where there is a dispute of fact and law where the parties are attempting to settle their differences, ethically, within the court system. I wish that were the case.

It is about when very powerful and unethical parties game the system in a way that is injurious to people who do not have the power to fight back. That is not justice, and the power of the people has to be applied.

Solution to political problems often the following steps:

(1) Soap Box.
(2) Ballot Box
(3) Jury Box
(4) Ammo Box

In that order.

Step #1 doesn't work because most people don't understand the problem yet.

Step #2 doesn't work because they own both the democrats and the republicans.

Step #3 doesn't work for two reasons: step #1 and that they have the unimaginable resources against virtually helpless victims.

I'm only calling for a step "3.5" where we make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the behavior needs to be stopped. Not violence, but certainly not polite business as usual.

Re:Vigilante action is not the answer

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It doesn't work because you're using slashdot as the soapbox, compared to say NYCL to whom slashdot is but part of his soapbox.

I don't really think of it that way. To my mind, a soapbox is a place you go to persuade people to accept your viewpoint. My only 'soapbox' is the court house. It's the place I go to try to persuade judges and jurors.

My blog isn't really for the purpose of persuading anyone; it's set up for the purpose of assisting (a) defendants and (b) defendants' lawyers (including myself) by collecting information on these cases.

I definitely don't visit Slashdot to persuade.

One reason I come here is that I enjoy it. I find this incredibly rich, diverse, funny, intelligent dialogue (is 'multilogue' a word? if so it's really a 'multilogue') to be stimulating, challenging, educating, and, usually, collegial.

Another reason is to get the specialized information I collect (which is immensely important to the world at large, although most of the world is oblivious to it) out to a wider audience of people who actually want to know about it because they do understand its importance.

Another reason I visit Slashdot is to learn about technical stuff. So often I've found the technically-oriented Slashdotters to be immensely helpful in thinking through the computer issues. As you may recall, I even came to Slashdot to get ideas for the RIAA's expert's deposition, and later to ask the tech community to 'vet' his transcript.

It would be crazy for me to come here to persuade. I don't think I've ever persuaded anyone here of anything. My 'persuasiveness' track record on Slashdot is about as good as my track record at home, which is: I never can win an argument in either of those forums. (Although maybe, for that reason, it is a good place for me to hone my skills.)

Re:Vigilante action is not the answer

[mlwmohawk]

It would be crazy for me to come here to persuade.

I find that in this day and age, persuasion is impossible. Somehow, somewhere, the mind and the conscience of the U.S. populous has become inflexible and dedicated to dogma unreachable by rational argument.

I begun to realize this in the 80s under Reagan. I think that's where this It would be crazy for me to come here to persuade. all began. If you believed in Reagan, that's all you needed. Iran/Contra, not an issue -- it was treason damn it! Didn't matter. Taking the U.S. from the #1 creditor nation to the #1 debtor nation, didn't matter.

The notion that reality didn't matter and math didn't matter arose under Reagan.

Why was the economy so good under Reagan? Well, when you take a nation from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, there is lots of money that suddenly available, and we've been on a 25 year binge and the credit card bill is coming due.

What does this have to do with this conversation? Well, it is the mentality of it all. I honestly believe that the Reagan administration and the Reagan worship of the conservatives have enacted a corporate culture of greed and short sighted avarice that enables organizations like RIAA to exist.

Since WWII and Prior to Reagan, it would have been impossible for a U.S. corporation to abuse U.S. citizens in this fashion. The problem is that it wasn't just government to blame, the hypnotized Reagan dogmatists (republican and democrat alike) who believe trickle down economics and the almost theological truth of open market and the myth of self regulation, let it get this bad.